# How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference



## 3602

On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
 I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do.


----------



## leeperry

oh, a troll bait..my favorite


----------



## krmathis

Why even bother trying to convince? Just ignore!


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_oh, a troll bait..my favorite 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Haha is that a Tamagotchi? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 @OP: Good luck trying to be their messiah.


----------



## ph0rk

Are you that keen to waste your time?


----------



## Br777

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
 I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do._

 

i am not convinced by any means in either camp on this one, but it seems like some big names, such as 6moons (i am assuming they are considered a big name in reviewing, i could be wrong) for example have reviewed cables to death claiming all sorts of difference.

 I would love it if you or someone gathered some links from science based testing, or info graphs or something other than speculation (not saying that youre speculating).

 Im sure this sort if info is scattered all over this site, but none the less, i find myself constantly tempted to upgrade a cable (i use radio shack only at this point) and i just cant convince myself that its anything but placebo..


----------



## 3602

I mean, how do they manage to ignore 14 years of ABXing speaker cables. Speaker Wire


----------



## Br777

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I mean, how do they manage to ignore 14 years of ABXing speaker cables. Speaker Wire_

 

that was enough for me.. thanks for that. you saved me lots of time and money. Consider 1 person convinced..


----------



## eucariote

You probably already know this.. but with a properly designed double blind test. If the tester is blind to the source, along with the assistant (to not give away the answer with cues) and the tester can choose the 'better' cable with a frequency that that would occur less than 5% due to random variation, given adequate samples and assuming a binomial distribution of outcomes, than the effect is real. If the choices fall within a 95% distribution of random outcomes, than the effect is not real. Use a power analysis to figure out baseline variation and calculate a sample size that would eliminate type 1 (false positive) and type 2 (false rejection) errors. Then run an F test to see is between-group variation exceeds within-group variation by an adequate margin. If it does, you can safely reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference, and if you did measure one it was just a random outcome.


----------



## Br777

so... gulp.. is everything the audio critic says really true?


----------



## gilency

If you read The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark
 by Carl Sagan, you'll understand that no matter what science you present, you wont be able to convince some people that their perceptions are not real. 
 Good luck in your quest!


----------



## MisterMoJo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You probably already know this.. but with a properly designed double blind test. If the tester is blind to the source, along with the assistant (to not give away the answer with cues) and the tester can choose the 'better' cable with a frequency that that would occur less than 5% due to random variation, given adequate samples and assuming a binomial distribution of outcomes, than the effect is real. If the choices fall within a 95% distribution of random outcomes, than the effect is not real. Use a power analysis to figure out baseline variation and calculate a sample size that would eliminate type 1 (false positive) and type 2 (false rejection) errors. Then run an F test to see is between-group variation exceeds within-group variation by an adequate margin. If it does, you can safely reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference, and if you did measure one it was just a random outcome._

 

Couldn't be more obvious!


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
 I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do._

 

I thought you'd have enough of a challenge trying to come to terms with the ways in which your own ears, eyes and thoughts can totally mislead you. We all have our crosses to bear in this regard. One sign of how huge that cross is, is when you're convinced you have it figured out while others don't.

 So, I wouldn't worry too much about what others think, real or imagined. Start with you, your only reference point. Ensure its neutrality and clarity. Good luck!!!


----------



## G.Trenchev

The cable can not "sound" or have any sound signature.It can only have influence on other components and make them sound different,as it's 3 basic specs do have influence on the whole set-up.That's capacitance,inductance and resistance.For instance,the capacity of a cable can roll off high freq's ,BUT this depends on the source and it's output impedance.Inductance can cause non-linearity in certain frequencies,and resistance will add to the output impedance.So a good audio cable should have low capacity(basically no unnecessary filling or conductors),low impedance(quality conductor wire and plugs),and low inductance(cables not too long).
 That's my opinions-based on some experience.There's nothing magical here,just specs.The lower,the better.Goes for the price as well


----------



## mrarroyo

This requires a lot of beers, but as Kai wrote: why bother just enjoy your music and be happy.


----------



## BIG POPPA

OP, to prove your point you will have to have a meet with all types of gear, Hi-end, mid-fi, entry level. Cables like from Cardas, Oyaide, Nordost and maybe throw Acrolink in there besides a stock cable. Then have a group not knowing what you are using see if they make a difference? With all the meets I have put together more often then not Cables did make a difference. There are a few exceptions That is another thread though. This gives the Idea though how to do it? Oh Yeah, post the results.


----------



## Leny

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference 

 On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc. ...
_

 

You do not need to convince people when so little really matters. If it were an issue of life-and-death, or assault, or theft, then it would be different. But it is not, and their opinion has no material impact on your life if you choose it to be that way.

 When you know something as a fact then freely state it if you wish. If they do not believe you then accept that their reply does not change the fact, but simply illustrates their own poor psychological disposition. It's their choice. It is not your responsibility to convince them of the facts.

 The only negative is if they then continue to preach their 'sentiment and feelings' as if were indeed fact, as that may very much mislead those who follow along later searching for factual truth... and that is indeed a sad facet of human existence.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leny* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only negative is if they then continue to preach their 'sentiment and feelings' as if were indeed fact..._

 

Indeed! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


 _When you know something as a fact then freely state it if you wish. If they do not believe you then accept that their reply does not change the fact, but simply illustrates their own poor psychological disposition._ 
 

Funny – the interpretation is in the mind of the reader. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## Leny

Yes, you could not see me smile when I typed that!


----------



## Skylab

I will say this - the most important attribute of an audio cable is that it is REALLY solidly constructed. I have bought more than just a few cables (several of which were "high-end") that had intermittent connections, or other issues. My #1 most important cable requirement - rock solid build quality. The rest is just window dressing. 

 In my experience, it's been the mid-priced cables generally that achieve this the best. But some lower-bottom priced cables (like the Iron Lung Jellyfish power cable) have also been very impressive in this regard.

 Give me a reliable cable over a "designer" cable any day of the week.


----------



## 3602

^^ Ditto. Build quality is on the top of _my_ list.
 But not _theirs_. _They_ want 99.99% silver, extruded, Teflon-coated, alien-braided, double-shielded, caressed by the Dalai Lama kind of cable.


----------



## Happy Camper

Why do you have such a passion to tell others how to value their money? Some use cost as stature in a system, who's to judge? 

 The listener.


----------



## Br777

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^^ Ditto. Build quality is on the top of my list.
 But not theirs. They want 99.99% silver, extruded, Teflon-coated, alien-braided, double-shielded, caressed by the Dalai Lama kind of cable._

 

nice!

 so could someone list some of these "rock solid but cheap" cables.


----------



## n3rdling

I don't even need the cables to be incredibly made. I'm not going bungee jumping with them or throwing them off a building. For the most part they'll be connected to components on a rack their entire lives. $3 cables do this well enough for me.


----------



## mulveling

First, convince yourself of your own ideas and become truly secure and satisfied with your world view. Now, you won't feel a pressing need to spread the gospel to the "masses". Presto! Less annoyances and abrasion all around!


----------



## CountChoculaBot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why do you have such a passion to tell others how to value their money? Some use cost as stature in a system, who's to judge? 

 The listener._

 

If you honestly believe that people are mistaken in what they do, then you really should make an effort to correct them. It's not a matter of trying to boss other people around; it's trying to make sure they don't make what you honestly believe is a mistake.

 I mean hell, if I saw some people taking medicine recently proven to be fake and ineffective, I'd make it my duty to get them off that stuff and onto something that works. Same principle here, though the whole "cable" thing is still in conflict as to its validity to the general population here.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *CountChoculaBot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you honestly believe that people are mistaken in what they do, then you really should make an effort to correct them. It's not a matter of trying to boss other people around; it's trying to make sure they don't make what you honestly believe is a mistake.

 I mean hell, if I saw some people taking medicine recently proven to be fake and ineffective, I'd make it my duty to get them off that stuff and onto something that works. Same principle here, *though the whole "cable" thing is still in conflict as to its validity* to the general population here._

 

And if you believe they work and wish to discuss them with others, should it be argued at every mention? Will you save the willing?

 It's all subjective to the listener. I'm glad I discovered these answers on my own instead of listening to the loudest piper.


----------



## momomo6789

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
 I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do._

 

bless your ignorant soul, gl with your crusade it will be a long battle you will never win


----------



## CountChoculaBot

Personally, I'm still in conflict with the matter since I haven't tested it myself, but if I had tested it, and felt that it didn't make a difference, no, I wouldn't save the willing


----------



## 9pintube

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And if you believe they work and wish to discuss them with others, should it be argued at every mention? Will you save the willing?

 It's all subjective to the listener. I'm glad I discovered these answers on my own instead of listening to the loudest piper._

 

INDEED HC, One Question about that "PIPER", What TUBES does he use???signed, the upgrade cable Believer.


----------



## jax

+ YouTube Video​ _*ERROR:* If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed._


----------



## TouchOfEvil

Does it really matter what someone else spends their money on?


----------



## Shark_Jump

Rational People: Properly conducted ABX test.

 Cable Zealot People: You can't. Even to try to do so is heresy.


----------



## haloxt

Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *haloxt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time._

 

This is the crux of the matter. I agree.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mrarroyo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This requires a lot of beers, but as Kai wrote: why bother just enjoy your music and be happy._

 

Mmmm, beer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 [size=xx-small]Sorry, could not resist[/size]


----------



## m11a1

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Mmmm, beer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 [size=xx-small]Sorry, could not resist[/size]




_

 

...I was just about to post something but after seeing this picture I have completely forgot what I was going to say...


----------



## 9pintube

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *m11a1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...I was just about to post something but after seeing this picture I have completely forgot what I was going to say..._

 

Me TWO!!!! Thanks for making my day! (I'm easy)


----------



## Young Spade

I could understand where you're coming from in trying to convince people that cables don't make an actual audio difference, but in a way I can easily see how people interpret this. Because copper and silver have different densities, silver being the more dense, they are going to "sound" different. 

 This, obviously isn't technically true because all the material is doing is transferring the signal from the DAP to the headphones and the material is simply a transit. Uneducated people would attribute to the "clearer highs" or the "punchier bass" to being the cable, which, technically they could, but the cable is just providing a more efficient means to transfer the signal.

 Now anyone feel free to correct or attack this post because I use all criticism constructively (if it isn't given improperly) and I'm on these forums to learn and help further my enjoyment of my music (as we all are). 

 That's just what I think anyway.


----------



## MomijiTMO

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you that keen to waste your time?_

 

By far, my favourite post in this thread. Who cares? It's like atheism - you should just not believe in religion to yourself, not go on evangelical rampage. Meh.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could understand where you're coming from in trying to convince people that cables don't make an actual audio difference, but in a way I can easily see how people interpret this. Because copper and silver have different densities, silver being the more dense, they are going to "sound" different. 

 This, obviously isn't technically true because all the material is doing is transferring the signal from the DAP to the headphones and the material is simply a transit. Uneducated people would attribute to the "clearer highs" or the "punchier bass" to being the cable, which, technically they could, but the cable is just providing a more efficient means to transfer the signal.

 Now anyone feel free to correct or attack this post because I use all criticism constructively (if it isn't given improperly) and I'm on these forums to learn and help further my enjoyment of my music (as we all are). 

 That's just what I think anyway._

 

The same could be said about an amp. Yet there are those who will describe how an amp sounds, rather than how an amp influences the sound apart from simply making it louder. OTOH, some of us get uncomfortable when someone speaks of how a cable sounds in said fashion. 

 This is why I'm in agreement with Haloxt in that it's about knowing yourself. The LESS you know yourself, the more evangelical you'll become with things as these. Cable believers do not need the assistance of those apparently in the know. Those apparently in the know have themselves to help first.


----------



## Young Spade

Uh huh 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 In the end it comes down to what you know and the level of resolve you have for the whole situation. If I think (and I don't) that silver itself makes my music sounds better, sure I could be wrong, but at the end of the day if it makes me love my music more, what's the problem?

 Now I'm not saying that I'm entitled to the knowledge that it doesn't and I fully advocate the education of others when they're wrong because who likes people who unknowingly spread wrong information? But once you explain it to someone, remember that they are entitled to their own opinions and sadly some people just aren't going to listen.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *haloxt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time._

 

I don't see this as a personal/interpersonal issue at all. Seems the enemy here is darkness. That is, lack of properly collected and analyzed data. Until someone posts the results of an F test, nobody knows.

 Opinions don't matter one bit and any question that can be posed with hypothesis testing and measurement can be conclusively answered (e.g. 'molecule x opens membrane channel y' or ' 'i can tell the difference between x and y'). I do medical research for a living, believe me, hypothesis testing works.


----------



## haloxt

You do medical research. Tell me, how much does it cost to do medical research? And how about donating money to us to do our cable research?


----------



## immtbiker

Cables make a huge difference to me!

 By the way, besides the normal feelings induced by this picture, it also makes me have to pee:


----------



## eucariote

Currently working off a 2 million dollar grant.. Sadly it's all allocated to shiny widgets. 

 But with two cables and enough samples from a blind tester (guesses as to which sounds 'better'), you can figure out if they can truly hear a difference between the cables.


----------



## haloxt

Why should I or anyone else contribute to a science that is firm in its belief that cables make no difference? Even if it happens, just like 320kbps was proven audibly different from lossless, all you can do is shove it down the throat of science and hope most of it stays down. And most of it won't, it will regurgitate it and you will have to try to shove it down again, and after many years science will still refuse to accept it in whole, with all these idiots telling you you're wrong. When science is so bulimic, you just don't bother contributing anything to it, despite its pleas for you to shove crap down its throat.


----------



## eucariote

??? If you're referring my posts- I'm pointing out a universal technique for answering empirical questions. As far as I've seen, nobody has done that test with cables. So my conclusion about the effectiveness of cables was "nobody knows".

 But I'm ready to accept the results of such a test, regardless of outcome. Just as I accept the conclusion that L-dopa leads to statistically significant increases of the chemical that is otherwise missing in the brains of people with Parkinson's, so alleviating their symptoms. Which was shown using said technique..

 Reject the technique if you want, but I (and the rest of the human race) would like to see a workable alternative


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now I'm not saying that I'm entitled to the knowledge that it doesn't and I fully advocate the education of others when they're wrong because who likes people who unknowingly spread wrong information? But once you explain it to someone, remember that they are entitled to their own opinions and sadly some people just aren't going to listen._

 

... and listen to what truth exactly? The crux of the matter lies in that question. We often think we have a handle on the truth and it's really not so. If you hear a difference and a test or many tests for that matter, do not demonstrate what you hear, then you have one of two choices... a) count yourself as being misled *OR* b) count the experiment/s as invalid *or* misleading. You move on from there. Which option you choose depends on how convincing the difference was for you. There are various barometers one can choose to convince oneself either way. For instance, you tend to see or hear what you look for. What of someone who hears a difference he wasn't really expecting or cared to hear? What of someone who hears a difference that is detrimental, i.e., a difference he/she doesn't want to hear?? I am personally tending towards believing that they do make a difference. As with all things so controversial, differences aren't always apparent or marked. I trust my own ears on this one.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *haloxt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why should I or anyone else contribute to a science that is firm in its belief that cables make no difference?_

 

Do you believe this is the case in this instance, or just that of a particular sect on head-fi? If that's the case, then this represents a very serious impediment in any genuinely serious effort in finding the truth in all of this. If you don't seek then you will not find. I trust my own ears enough to not be interested in empiric proof on this one. Afterall, in this entire business you have to trust your ears or else you'll obsess over and confuse yourself about a lot of stuff regarding headphones, amps, dacs etc.

 This amp sounds better than that one. This power supply makes a difference. Are these observations during any of our listening experiences really true? Do we DBX all our experiences to validate them? Some subjective differences we can never hope to resolve through experimentation.


----------



## haloxt

I wouldn't trust any "scientific proof" that cables make a difference unless everyone involved in the tests and anyone who can be cross-examined submit themselves to various lie detection tests. The time for disinterested research is long past, all you have are people who are entrenched in their fanaticism to disprove or prove cables with method and analysis flawed by their irrational interest in being right, and it's only a matter of time before some idiot cheats in a DBX to "prove" cables make a difference. Neither side is capable of providing a proper method to test the mathematical or conceptual adequacy of the idea of audible cable differences because they are too busy squabbling. Anyone interested in controversial aspects of audio, whether jitter, circuit design and components, or burn-in, should steer clear from proving things to science because science is already set in its beliefs, and if you want to make any kind of progress you must ignore their whining. Just take for example how so many people on head-fi still insist burn-in isn't real when there's been measurements suggesting big changes in speaker drivers from burn-in. Do they ever admit they are wrong or apologize they may have reached a premature conclusion or try to invalidate the experiment scientifically? Or do they just keep running around saying burn-in isn't real while completely ignoring the burn-in measurements?


----------



## Skylab

Audio cables absolutely do make a difference - without them, you get no sound.


----------



## Shark_Jump

... only if you plug them in.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I'm ready to accept the results of such a test, regardless of outcome. Just as I accept the conclusion that L-dopa leads to statistically significant increases of the chemical that is otherwise missing in the brains of people with Parkinson's, so alleviating their symptoms. Which was shown using said technique.._

 

You'll notice they didn't simply ask the patients what their L-DOPA levels were. They measure them. The same is required in audio. I.e., measure the effects on the brain, not to simply rely on the highly fallible, subjective, conscious assessment of the listeners (blinded or otherwise).


----------



## Publius

There's a vast difference between what works to win a logical argument like this, and what works to actually convince people to question their beliefs.

 For most people, the most effective way to challenge their beliefs about cables is to invite them to DBT their own claims - not to read the results of others, but to practice it themselves. Obviously this doesn't _prove_ much in the wider debate, but it has a vast effect on the tester, who sincerely has a belief of audibility. It's one thing to claim "cables make a difference!" but it's an astoundingly different thing to claim "that, right there, did you hear that? That's the difference with this cable". Demonstrating the falsehood of the latter, through a blind test, doesn't disprove the former claim in any way, but has far more relevance to the utterer.

 Generally, people reconciling such beliefs with a negative result in a well-run ABX test of their own listening will either reject their own beliefs, or engage in all kinds of ad-hoc arguments which make them look foolish and radicalize their beliefs. At which point they're a lost cause anyway.

 Pio2001 got a huge amount of mileage that way with power cable tests conducted through a French forum; I remember him claiming how many people were deeply impressed by the results.


----------



## tvrboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a vast difference between what works to win a logical argument like this, and what works to actually convince people to question their beliefs._

 

This is true. People can and will believe easily demonstrable falsehoods. Look how many people believe that Obama wasn't born in America. Or the moon landings were faked. Or the Earth is 5,000 years old. I wouldn't worry so much about cables. I would worry about the mass delusions that are much more dangerous...


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You'll notice they didn't simply ask the patients what their L-DOPA levels were. They measure them. The same is required in audio. I.e., measure the effects on the brain, not to simply rely on the highly fallible, subjective, conscious assessment of the listeners (blinded or otherwise)._

 

Assessing discrimination abilities in humans from conscious reports is absolutely routine, and can be measured and analyzed statistically to the point of quantifying a significance score. In fact, the measurement and analysis of choice responses of brain-altered (blind, autistic , etc. etc.) humans is one of the main techniques for establishing relationships between brain systems and behavioral function. 

 See post # 9 for instructions on how to apply hypothesis testing, measurement and statistical analysis to settle the question of whether cables have perceptible auditory effects


----------



## Leny

The cable 'debate' reminds me of religion. There are about 2,000 different religions in this world all claiming to be absolutely 'right'. Makes me smile. Must be some seriously pi553ed-off gods up there! Perhaps they should argue it amongst themselves... or maybe they are too busy arguing about cables?

 And we have all these folks in forums and magazines claiming that their cable assessments can't be wrong, claiming that they are absolutely 'right', claiming that their subjective opinion is 'fact'; all misleading those innocent people who follow-on seeking the facts and the truth... all so very, very sad. A magnificent indictment of human stupidity. Makes me glad I'm an alien.


----------



## immtbiker

This is why we, as mods, and not members, almost always need to close any threads about cables, religion and politics.
 It always proves to be a no-win situation with two separate camps pitching their tents, trying to prove why they're right. 
 Which almost always turns into heated debates that include slandering.
 I, personally hear ginormous differences in cables and burn-in affects, but if you don't, the you are either not as sensitive as me, or are a very lucky person.
 I wish I couldn't hear the difference between lampshade cable right out of the box, and a Siltech IC with 300 hours of burn-in.

 All I ask, is that the non-believers take one thing in mind. Since the split seems to be around 50-50, then just try to keep an open mind to what the other 50% are saying. Every headphone from $300 - $3000 have changed monumentally to me, after at least a minimum of 100 hours of play. That, and there are a good deal of manufacturers that insist on a minimum of burn-in.
 With that said, just keep an open mind that it might be possible. One of the biggest changes that I've ever heard in a phone was the HF-2's. They sounded horrible out of the box (IMHO) but improve drastically after 60 hours.
 If you don't hear it, then that's fine too.

 No one is going to win "whether components benefit from burn-in, or that their god is better than anyone else's, or that a donkey is better than an elephant when it comes to politics.

 But, I will leave you with one thought. If no one thought that their religion was better than anyone else's, then we would have no reason for so much death and destruction and the world would be a much more productive place, and we would be much farther along in loving each other.

 I come in peace.
 To serve man (it's a cookbook, dammit, a cookbook).
 [/end of rant]


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leny* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cable 'debate' reminds me of religion. There are about 2,000 different religions in this world all claiming to be absolutely 'right'. Makes me smile. Must be some seriously pi553ed-off gods up there! Perhaps they should argue it amongst themselves... or maybe they are too busy arguing about cables?

 And we have all these folks in forums and magazines claiming that their cable assessments can't be wrong, claiming that they are absolutely 'right', claiming that their subjective opinion is 'fact'; all misleading those innocent people who follow-on seeking the facts and the truth... all so very, very sad. A magnificent indictment of human stupidity. Makes me glad I'm an alien._

 

Well even aliens aren't to bring religion into these topics. Even saying "religion" can be an offense. 

 Besides, everyone knows the Gods use plasma connections.


----------



## spartan123

_Afterall, in this entire business you have to trust your ears or else you'll obsess over and confuse yourself about a lot of stuff regarding headphones, amps, dacs etc._

 perfectly said


----------



## Publius

This is really a matter of two conflicting paradigms - and I mean paradigm in the _correct_ meaning.

 One of the key features of such a conflict is that both paradigms, to each of their adherents, can adequately explain everything that we observe and measure. Thus, rational argument is useless: both sides can explain any fact which is presented. One side only begins to win over the other, in such conflicts, when the other side is compelled to use worse and worse explanations for what is seen in reality.

 Unlike a lot of upended scientific paradigms, there hasn't really been a terribly clear "winner" or "loser" in the 30-odd years this debate has been going on.


----------



## Shark_Jump

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular but the concept of winning and loosing is best kept out of the science threads. If your thinking along these lines then chances are objectivity is going to go out the window not soon after.

 This is the Sound Science forum not the Olympics. There is no winning and loosing, only right and wrong.

 Shouldn't we be determining truths based on the application of known facts?

 If you're not interested in the objective truth, or are not prepared to consider facts with an open mind if they challenge your preconceptions, then I don't know why you would be looking at the science forum.

 Also IMO if anyone really cares about the head fi science forum, unproven subjective opinions stated as a fact based on golden ears etc. should be barred, just like DBT is on the other threads.


----------



## anetode

A fine barrage of condescension, truisms and sophistry we've got cooking here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, except to the curious OP: consider discussing the methodology, beginning with the simplest shared ideas, rather than the outcome.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *haloxt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The time for disinterested research is long past, all you have are people who are entrenched in their fanaticism to disprove or prove cables with method and analysis flawed by their irrational interest in being right_

 

You would not believe how many people don't give a flying fig, so long as they are paid to participate in a study.


----------



## Publius

"Objective truth" does not exist in this discussion. 

 There are observations, and then there are the truths which are derived from those observations. The former are accepted by everybody; the later are entirely in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Objective truth" does not exist in this discussion. 

 There are observations, and then there are the truths which are derived from those observations. The former are accepted by everybody; the later are entirely in the eye of the beholder._

 

So where does this leave ABX.

 If I can't tell the difference between two cables in a properly conducted blind test taken hundreds of times.

 Surely if I don't give the results of this some credence I shouldn't really be posting on the science forum.

 And if I can't be bothered to take the test I shouldn't be boring everyone else on the science forum with my hokus pokus subjective opinions.


----------



## Publius

The _results_ of the ABX test are not questionable, by either side. X out of 16 is X out of 16. That's a physical description of reality, like snapping a photograph or something.

 The interpretation of the those facts - and whether or not the facts reflect deeper insights about audibility and hearing - very much are questioned. You have one side saying, well, the most rational interpretation of <insert p>0.05 result here> is that the null hypothesis is true and the difference between A and B really is inaudible; and the other side saying, well, that's not true, because of <X>, <Y>, and <Z>.

 The point I'm trying to get at is that EVERY fact can be, and is, questioned in that way. Each side generally interprets the facts towards completely different conclusions, and yet does so in an entirely self-consistent way. If that wasn't the case, the people doing the interpreting would be idiots. (And hardly anybody is an idiot.) 

 In such an environment, the concept of "objective truth" can get you into trouble, because the only things that may possibly be agreed upon by both sides - the physical facts (eg results of listening tests etc) - weren't even under debate in the first place.

  Quote:


 If I can't tell the difference between two cables in a properly conducted blind test taken hundreds of times. Surely if I don't give the results of this some credence I shouldn't really be posting on the science forum. 
 

Exactly - but if _somebody else_ takes the test, it's not as compelling anymore, is it?

 That shouldn't be the case if we were purely rational creatures. But it is.


----------



## Leny

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I, personally hear ginormous differences in cables and burn-in affects_

 

I wish you every success Mr. immtbiker.


----------



## freakydrew

Do Coat Hangers Sound As Good Monster Cables? - The Consumerist

 needed a repost


----------



## eucariote

Funny that there is a debate - especially when it is so imminently solvable. In my field (neuroscience/medicine), there is almost universal agreement over many thousands of factual hypotheses, on issues that are far more complicated than audio cables. Sure people propose new ideas that are not immediately accepted, require revisions of old ideas, or are eventually proven wrong. But after enough replications, tests to rule out alternative explanations, etc. issues really do get settled. And believe me, the collective interpretation of these facts do no injustice to their deeper meaning.. *

 The reason for this consensus is that there really is a technique for answering empirical questions (hypothesis testing and statistics) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so nothing is ever based on opinions. And if people fabricate or misinterpret data, etc. the consequence is that carreers are ruined and patients will DIE.
 Which pretty much keeps people in line.

 * for example, pick up any issue of Nature Neuroscience, read an article, read all the references in that article so you get what they're saying and read the article again, and prepare to have your mind blown.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure people propose new ideas that are not immediately accepted, require revisions of old ideas, or are eventually proven wrong. But after enough replications, tests to rule out alternative explanations, etc. issues really do get settled. And believe me, the collective interpretation of these facts do no injustice to their deeper meaning.._

 

Audio, unlike medicine, is _ultimately_ about art and emotion, for better or worse. That's why we're here. We like listening to music.


----------



## Leny

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Audio, unlike medicine, is ultimately about art and emotion, for better or worse. That's why we're here. We like listening to music._

 

Very true Publius, but cable is very often about little more than money and / or psychology!

 Good luck with your discussion. Time for me to quit the thread...


----------



## JaZZ

It's refreshing to see this thread developing rather towards tolerance instead of mud-wrestling – despite the provoking title.

 I for one can't get convinced that cables don't make a difference. And this not because I've halfways passed a headphone-cable blind test (9/12), but because cables do exactly what I want from them in practice: reliably and consistently alter the sound in subtle doses – not so much in terms of better or worse, but rather by different characteristics, enabling the fine-tuning of the audio system. From a skeptic's point of view: it's as if the changes were real, not in my mind.

 So as far as I'm concerned, I'm perfectly happy with my «decision» to take cables seriously as an audio component. That wasn't always the case. In fact a negative experience with «audiophile» cables has managed to change my mind. Since then I have made numerous cables myself, with really good results (despite their partly «unprofessional» look). I didn't have to justify a financial expense. Of course there was quite a bit of work involved. But on the other hand I realized that my cable recipes weren't as good as some of the commercial manufacturers', at least under certain sonic aspects. I would have liked the opposite, since I consider myself an audio skeptic as well (although not in an «objectivist» way).

 Currently I'm in the process of exploring and enjoying my two new HD 800 cables (one copper, one silver). Although the stock cable really isn't bad (unlike the HD 600/650 counterparts), the two aftermarket cables offer some sonic benefits which are worth the considerable expense to me nonetheless. I would say the HD 800 sounds at least as much better as the additional cost.

 I've always understood the skeptics'/objectivists' attitude. I could be one of them – if my mind was just a little bit differently shaped. But as it is, the purely brain/reason-oriented approach falls short in my book. Of course I would like to know the physical mechanisms behind the perceived differences. Nevertheless, I don't need scientific confirmation to take them seriously. It's not a question of belief, but of self-confidence. Since I consider myself a skeptic, I've always taken placebo effects into consideration. But if it's really nothing more than those and they really manage to lead me to my audio goals in such a reliable manner, so be it! (In all seriousness: I highly doubt the latter scenario.)
.


----------



## tvrboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny that there is a debate - especially when it is so imminently solvable. In my field (neuroscience/medicine), there is almost universal agreement over many thousands of factual hypotheses, on issues that are far more complicated than audio cables. Sure people propose new ideas that are not immediately accepted, require revisions of old ideas, or are eventually proven wrong. But after enough replications, tests to rule out alternative explanations, etc. issues really do get settled. And believe me, the collective interpretation of these facts do no injustice to their deeper meaning.. *

 The reason for this consensus is that there really is a technique for answering empirical questions (hypothesis testing and statistics) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so nothing is ever based on opinions. And if people fabricate or misinterpret data, etc. the consequence is that carreers are ruined and patients will DIE.
 Which pretty much keeps people in line.

 * for example, pick up any issue of Nature Neuroscience, read an article, read all the references in that article so you get what they're saying and read the article again, and prepare to have your mind blown._

 

That's because nobody except cable sceptics WANT the problem to be solved. Cable boys love to play with their cables. They love to read cable reviews, switch them, burn them in, make their own, and dream about someday owning The Zero. It's enjoyment for them. They don't want a definitive answer, positive or negative. The debate needs to continue for them to have their fun. Even if there was a positive answer, yes this type of cable makes an audible difference, then they would be forced into only buying that one type of cable. Instead, they want to make up their own minds about things.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tvrboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's because nobody except cable sceptics WANT the problem to be solved._

 

I would have thought 'Thats because only Cable Boys want the problem NOT to be solved' would be more accurate.

 Outside the closed world of the Head Fi cables forum I would think the silent majority would look at some of the claims made about cables with bewildered amusement, but to call them cable sceptics is a bit strong.

 I agree with what you say afterwards though, cables are a hobby for some after all. There is no problem, just ABX your cable to see if a perceived change is placebo or not before you start posting on the science forum. If more 'cable boys' bothered to do this they may be surprised what a warm reception they got.


----------



## majkel

Quote:


 How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference? 
 

The same way as you'd do when saying the Earth was flat.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Objective truth" does not exist in this discussion. 

 There are observations, and then there are the truths which are derived from those observations. The former are accepted by everybody; the later are entirely in the eye of the beholder._

 

I'm enjoying your comments. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 This one is particularly good.

 The interpretation of an observed phenomenon isn't always straightforward. One thing we each try to do is to ensure consistency in our interpretation. IOW's, in the instance of cables, if you don't believe they make a difference since you don't hear one or you don't think they should, based on basic physics, then the DBX tests observed failure to demonstrate a difference would be consistent with your expectation. OTOH, if you have heard differences in cables and are convinced you were not fooled, then you'll interpret the ABX test has having been flawed in some way. You'll not willingly achieve consistency by assuming the test is right and that your ears are tricking you. So you repeat the test. If the ABX test result remains the same, you now are at an impasse, and you can achieve consistency in two ways. Put down your perceived difference to psychoacoustics (purely in the mind and not on the physical) or simply continue feeling that the ABX testing fell short in some way. In the latter case, the door will always be open to further testing, while in the former, the book is closed. In this latter case, one has to be very careful since many a mistake has been made in this regard until someone comes along and reopens the book, much to the arrogant disgust of the pundits, only for what's closer to the truth is demonstrated.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's refreshing to see this thread developing rather towards tolerance instead of mud-wrestling – despite the provoking title._

 

Indeed! I'm liking it too.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Assessing discrimination abilities in humans from conscious reports is absolutely routine 
 [snip]_

 

There is an important difference between assessing conscious discrimination abilities in humans and assessing the effect of something on humans. Listening to music is not simply an exercise in conscious discrimination. There are well established subconscious effects, both long and short term. There may even be as yet unknown effects. An ABX is not effective in detecting any of these effects (known or unknown) since an ABX can only detect what the listener can _consciously_ discriminate.

 What can settle the debate is objective measurement. More like this: Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology. BTW I'm not claiming this study proves anything, just that more research if this type is needed.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is an important difference between assessing conscious discrimination abilities in humans and assessing the effect of something on humans. Listening to music is not simply an exercise in conscious discrimination. There are well established subconscious effects.._

 

Funny you mention that. The paper I cited as an example of (the statistics used in) a sensory discrimination task was actually testing a blind woman who looked at two line drawings of houses, one on fire, who could not consciously discriminate the difference. But asked 'which house do you want to live in' she chose the one not on fire to a statistically significant degree (because connections to subcortical systems were intact). So it is precisely unconscious & emotional processing that led to those choices.

 So you could exactly fit the techniques and statistics of that paper to a test of two cables delivering emotionally significant music and arrive at an answer of cable efficacy in conscious, unconscious and aesthetic experience. Maybe you'll even get it published in Nature


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is an important difference between assessing conscious discrimination abilities in humans and assessing the effect of something on humans. Listening to music is not simply an exercise in conscious discrimination. There are well established subconscious effects, both long and short term. There may even be as yet unknown effects. An ABX is not effective in detecting any of these effects (known or unknown) since an ABX can only detect what the listener can consciously discriminate.
 ._

 

So the listener is only able discriminate subconsciously when he is not undertaking an ABX test?


----------



## Br777

surely you all could organize a mass abx cable test at one of your meets? there must be enough gear and modded cables at one of those meets to do the biggest abx cable test ever. Why doesn't someone just set one up. I am sure the people in this forum would absolutely eat up the chance to read what a room full of head-fi meet participants found in their abx cable test.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The same way as you'd do when saying the Earth was flat._

 

I do believe you meant round.


----------



## Uri Cohen

I did a jump to the DH Labs White Lightnings (from Raido Shack RCAs) and the White Lightnings did make a good difference with my gear. I like the cables and their really cheap prices.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is an important difference between assessing conscious discrimination abilities in humans and assessing the effect of something on humans. Listening to music is not simply an exercise in conscious discrimination. There are well established subconscious effects, both long and short term. There may even be as yet unknown effects. An ABX is not effective in detecting any of these effects (known or unknown) since an ABX can only detect what the listener can consciously discriminate.

 What can settle the debate is objective measurement. More like this: Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology. BTW I'm not claiming this study proves anything, just that more research if this type is needed._

 

One could say that this phenomenon wouldn't apply since most testimonials of those, including myself, who hear differences aren't claiming differences that they can't explain or perceive directly. Some give quite detailed descriptions of how a particular cable affects that final sound signature when compared with another cable. Unless we're saying that the test environment, artificial as it is, may somehow create a situation that affects one's ability to perceive a difference. 

 For instance, I know that my auditory memory is very short. I play with a Grado for a while and then switch to my HD650's and the difference is huge. The HD650's sound dark and then they 'brighten up' as my ears acclimatize. A while later, I pick up the HD650's and that impression of darkness isn't there. In fact, there's immediacy and presence there too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What more for a more subtle effect that you're switching cables back and forth, trying to discern after 15 tries with either cable. That would be auditory confusion for me for sure. I know I'd fail that. For me to feel more confident, I'd need a setup that would switch cables immediately.... kind of like a DBX that tests bitrates. In the latter, you can switch between tracks very quickly, just preserving auditory memory of fine details and nuances. You think you know a particular signature in great detail until your auditory memory is wiped clean by repeatedly switching to a different signature with significant delays between changes.


----------



## StevieDvd

The problem with most science is that it is only based on what we know now and not what we don't yet know.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What with dark matter, dark energy and the like still unfathomed who knows whether there is a measurement we could do an a cable in 5, 10 or 20 years time that would prove that cables do matter!

 It's easy to prove they don't now, you just say so.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's easy to prove they do now, you just say so.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Pick your choice!


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *StevieDvd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem with most science is that it is only based on what we know now and not what we don't yet know.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This is why I do sit with concern when others are so confident about their position on such matters where there's such a big divide and not a small one, that they are willing to be condescending, ridiculing and thinking others are stupid for not believing what scientific evidence currently shows when they are directly experiencing something very different. I'd be more concerned with finding ways of proving scientifically what is being observed by so many despite the current evidence suggesting otherwise. If you keep running the same experiment that comes to the same conclusion every time, what's the point of running the same experiment again???


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...I know that my auditory memory is very short. I play with a Grado for a while and then switch to my HD650's and the difference is huge. The HD650's sound dark and then they 'brighten up' as my ears acclimatize. A while later, I pick up the HD650's and that impression of darkness isn't there. In fact, there's immediacy and presence there too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Your example shows precisely how underestimated the auditory memory is: It remembers very well how a headphone should sound, with the sonic characteristic of your Grado as reference (I guess even after a longer pause). Hence it's irritated by the «dark» Sennheiser presentation. But after acclimatisation the latter becomes its new (albeit temporary) reference, so it has lost its irritation factor at a new listening session. This shows that the auditory memory is quite reliable.

 The same applies to break-in effects: You remember how the headphone sounded at the start, so you can judge how much the sound has altered. Of course this scenario is often disputed with the hint at the short auditory memory – and replaced with a more «logical» one in the form of getting used to the sound. This hypothesis ignores this very auditory memory which would then be responsible for the «getting used to the sound» (coming from a deviating sonic reference).
.


----------



## StevieDvd

Just to muddy the waters...

 Listen to a track on a good setup and you may notice a noise or cough in the track you had never heard before on your lesser equipment.

 Now listen on your lesser equipment and you will probably hear it now you know it's there. Your equipment has changed (the organic bit).

 Was it the good equipment, was your brain working better that day, less earwax?


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...So you could exactly fit the techniques and statistics of that paper to a test of two cables delivering emotionally significant music and arrive at an answer of cable efficacy in conscious, unconscious and aesthetic experience. Maybe you'll even get it published in Nature_

 

The example you cited is a good example of the point I'm trying to make. The subject in your example couldn't consciously tell the two houses apart:

  Quote:


 She judged that the drawings were identical; yet when asked to select which house she would prefer to live in, she reliably chose the house that was not burning. 
 

One can easily imagine an analogous scenario in cable testing where a listener cannot consciously discriminate the two cables but subconscious processes react to them differently. And maybe no one has passed a cable ABX because no ABX has asked the question "Which of these cables would you rather live in?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But you see what I'm saying - what's the magic question? Is there one?

 It goes without saying that if the experiment you cited had been done using typical ABX methodology, she would simply have been asked to distinguish the two houses, she would have have failed (as she did), and the paper would be published in The Audio Critic as irrefutable proof of all houses being the same (so long as they're built to regulations).

 There's no sense in using a test we know to be an unreliable correlate of subconscious effects, and hoping that something bubbles up to the surface enough that we might detect it via the conscious discrimination of the listener. An example of much better methodology is the paper I cited by Oohashi.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One could say that this phenomenon wouldn't apply since most testimonials of those, including myself, who hear differences aren't claiming differences that they can't explain or perceive directly
 [snip]_

 

It's also worth noting that no two opinions on any one thing are the same 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Take any cable, DAC, headphone, anything, and opinion will spread the gamut. I think this is indicative of either the entire thign being an illusion, or it could be due to an attempt at trying to rationalise or correlate something that's sensed with the reason that's expected to be causing that sense. Something like being strongly compelled to solve a puzzle when only given one piece. Different people could come up with almost anything, but that doesn't mean that one piece of the puzzle doesn't exist. I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to keep this brief due to this being a +1000 Wall of Text of Doom.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *StevieDvd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just to muddy the waters...

 Listen to a track on a good setup and you may notice a noise or cough in the track you had never heard before on your lesser equipment.

 Now listen on your lesser equipment and you will probably hear it now you know it's there. Your equipment has changed (the organic bit).

 Was it the good equipment, was your brain working better that day, less earwax?_

 

Haha. I've always wondered about that. However, I've concluded that some cans make some aspects of the music stand out. You consciously hear it for the first time and think the can you're now using is more resolving. You back to your old pair and pretty much, the sound is there, though less distinct. I do think that I am hearing and not imagining since I've tried this with the D5000 and HD650 bass. The D5000's often resolved bass detail that I simply wouldn't hear when going over the track again with the HD650.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The example you cited is a good example of the point I'm trying to make. The subject in your example couldn't consciously tell the two houses apart:



 One can easily imagine an analogous scenario in cable testing where a listener cannot consciously discriminate the two cables but subconscious processes react to them differently. And maybe no one has passed a cable ABX because no ABX has asked the question "Which of these cables would you rather live in?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But you see what I'm saying - what's the magic question? Is there one?_

 

Cable believers will describe the differences they hear. It's usually not the situation of an inexplicable preference that's shown to be consistent and finally put down to the subconscious perception of some aspect of the sound.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's also worth noting that no two opinions on any one thing are the same 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Take any cable, DAC, headphone, anything, and opinion will spread the gamut. I think this is indicative of either the entire thign being an illusion, or it could be due to an attempt at trying to rationalise or correlate something that's sensed with the reason that's expected to be causing that sense._

 

While I see what you're specifically getting at; on a side note, I've seen many non-cable believers demonstrate so much faith in the extent and quality of the differences they're hearing between Cans, DAC's and Amp's simply because there should be a measurable one. When it's put forward that their appreciation of the sound of a particular component is being influenced by the price tag, the prestige or the snazzy appearance of the component, major offence is taken. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Know thyself first!

 Be that as it may, I do see your point about trying to translate, as it were, a subconscious appreciation on conscious terms that then fails when doing a simple ABX test. This is what I'm understanding from what you wrote.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I for one can't get convinced that cables don't make a difference. And this not because I've halfways passed a headphone-cable blind test (9/12),_

 

The probability of getting exactly k successes in n trials with p chance of success and q chance of failure is:





 >> factorial(12)/(factorial(9)*factorial(12-9))*(.5^9)*(.5^(12-9))

 ans =

 0.0537

 Close but no banana


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[snip] When it's put forward that their appreciation of the sound of a particular component is being influenced by the price tag, the prestige or the snazzy appearance of the component, major offence is taken. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Know thyself first!_

 

I totally agree. I've been mislead by "placebo" even in one case where I was trying extremely hard not to be influenced by it. It made no difference, and only later did I find out that the thing I heard as clear as day was entirely illusory. It's an illuminating experience.

 And while we're on the tangent of "know thyself" - the reason I'm playing devil's advocate about ABX is actually because of the following. There was a public ABX test here a while back where you had to tell uncompressed wav from -v2 VBR MP3 for a known non-problematic music sample. When I took the test, for maybe an hour or two my scores were nothing but statistically guesses. p ~= 0.5. Yet I can tell you for a fact I could "feel" something different about one of the samples, although I couldn't identify it. 

 Eventually I gravitated toward this particular 1 second segment of the 30 second sample. Again I want to reiterate that at this point I was still getting entirely insignificant p-values. After some time, I started to learn how to concentrate on the sound better and after maybe another hour of intense concentration I was getting significant results consistently - p-value <0.01. A few days later I tried again and got 28/28, p-value was extremely small. I tried listening to other parts of the 30 second sample but couldn't make out any other differences. 

 If I had given up an hour into the ABX, the results would "prove" that I could not hear any differences between the two sampes. But this would be false. I could hear them, and this was proven only by intense training. Thus, a failed ABX to me indicates that _either_ the listener can't hear any difference _or_ that they can hear a difference at some level of their psyche but do not have the ability to consciously discriminate the two sounds.

 I also want to point out that my hearing is not in any way exceptional. If anything it's a little below average for someone my age. The only reason I passed that ABX was because of intense training which I believe most people could also have passed if they were as persistent.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I totally agree. I've been mislead by "placebo" even in one case where I was trying extremely hard not to be influenced by it. It made no difference, and only later did I find out that the thing I heard as clear as day was entirely illusory. It's an illuminating experience.

 And while we're on the tangent of "know thyself" - the reason I'm playing devil's advocate about ABX is actually because of the following. There was a public ABX test here a while back where you had to tell uncompressed wav from -v2 VBR MP3 for a known non-problematic music sample. When I took the test, for maybe an hour or two my scores were nothing but statistically guesses. p ~= 0.5. Yet I can tell you for a fact I could "feel" something different about one of the samples, although I couldn't identify it. 

 Eventually I gravitated toward this particular 1 second segment of the 30 second sample. Again I want to reiterate that at this point I was still getting entirely insignificant p-values. After some time, I started to learn how to concentrate on the sound better and after maybe another hour of intense concentration I was getting significant results consistently - p-value <0.01. A few days later I tried again and got 28/28, p-value was extremely small. I tried listening to other parts of the 30 second sample but couldn't make out any other differences. 

 If I had given up an hour into the ABX, the results would "prove" that I could not hear any differences between the two sampes. But this would be false. I could hear them, and this was proven only by intense training. Thus, a failed ABX to me indicates that either the listener can't hear any difference or that they can hear a difference at some level of their psyche but do not have the ability to consciously discriminate the two sounds.

 I also want to point out that my hearing is not in any way exceptional. If anything it's a little below average for someone my age. The only reason I passed that ABX was because of intense training which I believe most people could also have passed if they were as persistent._

 

This is really very fascinating. Quite different and useful. Thanks for sharing this one. We've certainly got a lot of work to do in sound science.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The probability of getting exactly k successes in n trials with p chance of success and q chance of failure is:





 >> factorial(12)/(factorial(9)*factorial(12-9))*(.5^9)*(.5^(12-9))

 ans = 0.0537_

 

It was my first and only trial.


  Quote:


 _Close but no banana 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_ 
 

That I don't understand.
.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That I don't understand.._

 

Sorry I was opaque. With hypothesis testing, you begin with the null hypothesis which is that your drug treatment, cable, etc. doesn't do anything and so their measured effects will be random. The alternative hypothesis is that the drug, cable, etc. does have an effect, so the scores will be be reliably different (e.g. your answers as to which is the better cable will not be random). 

 The criterion for rejecting the null hypothesis and saying that the effects are real is if the distribution of scores comes out in a way would only happen less than 5% of the time assuming that the null hypothesis is true (p-value is less than 0.05). In this case, a set of random choices from two possible outcomes is described by a binomial distribution. So I set up the test to assume that each of the two cables will be picked with a 50% chance (the null hypothesis) and tested if the proportion of your particular choices would happen less than 5% of the time within this distribution.

 Your score (9 correct choices in 12 trials) would happen with a probability of p = 0.0537 under these assumptions. Which is pretty impressive, but sill larger than the .05 significance level.

 So the null hypothesis is not rejected.


----------



## lonereaction

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also want to point out that my hearing is not in any way exceptional. If anything it's a little below average for someone my age. The only reason I passed that ABX was because of intense training which I believe most people could also have passed if they were as persistent._

 

I agree with this, and I think that this (training) is what separates audiophiles from average joe listeners. I myself am an average joe listener (find it very hard to listen to the sound instead of the music), that's why Head-Fi is extremely useful for me. However, people have been saying this and that about cables that cost hundreds of dollars. I'm so confused. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If someone would ABX twag cables it would be awesome.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lonereaction* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree with this, and I think that this (training) is what separates audiophiles from average joe listeners. I myself am an average joe listener (find it very hard to listen to the sound instead of the music), that's why Head-Fi is extremely useful for me. However, people have been saying this and that about cables that cost hundreds of dollars. I'm so confused. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If someone would ABX twag cables it would be awesome._

 

If you love your music and are concerned about quality, just keep listening and being adventurous. Don't be stuck in a rut. With that approach, your ability to discriminate will improve. I wasn't even trying and I've noted that I'm becoming more discriminating with time. If you use a particular sense a lot by exposing it to variable stimuli as well as paying attention to each stimulus, your acuity will inevitably increase.

 On another note, we haven't mentioned relaxation and how it affects our ability to discriminate between subtle changes. Knowledge of a test underway can alter perception as well. We are very ready to believe and we already know that anticipation can affect how we hear, but never, it would seem, when a test is underway.


----------



## BIG POPPA

To me the term "cable believers" is rude. It puts the assumption that cables do not make a difference on all rigs. I have arranged enough meets to show that they make a difference especially on my rig. Can even tell the characteristics of the different metals. Not a big deal. Have not ever seen a demonstration by a head-fier to prove that cables do not make a difference. Have attended many demonstrations where they have in one way or another. Have a few sets of IC's and Power Cables to audition if a head-fier want's to at the next meet.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To me the term "cable believers" is rude. It puts the assumption that cables do not make a difference on all rigs. I have arranged enough meets to show that they make a difference especially on my rig. Can even tell the characteristics of the different metals. Not a big deal. Have not ever seen a demonstration by a head-fier to prove that cables do not make a difference. Have attended many demonstrations where they have in one way or another. Have a few sets of IC's and Power Cables to audition if a head-fier want's to at the next meet._

 

and how many of these demonstrations have been conducted using strict controls to eliminate human bias and expectancies. ?

 In another thread a listener speaks about lossless vs lossy and how he knew that lossy was audibly different but that when tested rigorously he cannot tell the difference on many tracks, yet he still thinks it is different when listening sighted even though he rationally accepts that he cannot detect differences when the human bias provoking clues are removed...

 welcome to being human.... please drive sagely


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and how many of these demonstrations have been conducted using strict controls to eliminate human bias and expectancies. ?

 In another thread a listener speaks about lossless vs lossy and how he knew that lossy was audibly different but that when tested rigorously he cannot tell the difference on many tracks, yet he still thinks it is different when listening sighted even though he rationally accepts that he cannot detect differences when the human bias provoking clues are removed...

 welcome to being human.... please drive sagely_

 

I think you could be forgetting the previously discussed subconscious discrimination that occurs when an ABX test is undertaken. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This being especially applicable to audiophiles and cable boys with trained ears


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and how many of these demonstrations have been conducted using strict controls to eliminate human bias and expectancies. ?

 In another thread a listener speaks about lossless vs lossy and how he knew that lossy was audibly different but that when tested rigorously he cannot tell the difference on many tracks, yet he still thinks it is different when listening sighted even though he rationally accepts that he cannot detect differences when the human bias provoking clues are removed...

 welcome to being human.... please drive sagely_

 

Hey Nick, we are talking about cables here. Anyway I am lucky enough to live in Seattle proper. We have several audio retailers and manufacturers in the area. Have met many of them. We have discussed many things. Dan Modwright from Modwright - Elegance. Simplicity. Truth. Great audio gear from the ground up, and first class modifications. brought a Lessloss cable to demonstrate his gear at the last meet. He told me they do make a difference and liked the Lessloss. IMO some Head-fiers just don't spend enough time listening to their gear to know the sound intimately, have crummy gear, or have a set up where it is hard for a cable to be beneficial. just my 2 cents.


----------



## robm321

Get a high end system. Compare two cables. The better your system is the more noticeable the difference will become.


----------



## blubliss

I used to believe that (i think my system is high end), but not since doing a blind test and a cable 1/20th the cost of the one I had been using actually appealed to me more.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *blubliss* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I used to believe that (i think my system is high end), but not since doing a blind test and a cable 1/20th the cost of the one I had been using actually appealed to me more._

 

I don't see this being about the expensive cable being better than the cheaper one perse. It's whether or not cables make a difference *at all*. There's one particular cable that I bought that I'm not happy with and it's the most expensive one I've bought.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Dan Modwright from Modwright - Elegance. Simplicity. Truth. Great audio gear from the ground up, and first class modifications. brought a Lessloss cable to demonstrate his gear at the last meet. He told me they do make a difference and liked the Lessloss._

 

....and Roger Russell ex McIntosh says they don't make a difference !, oh dear how can we possibly reconcile this difference ?, how about we ignore the opinons and test this empirically in a controlled fashion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


 IMO some Head-fiers just don't spend enough time listening to their gear to know the sound intimately, have crummy gear, or have a set up where it is hard for a cable to be beneficial. just my 2 cents. 
 

Sigh, the "your gear isn't good enough" express is arriving on schedule...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigh, the "your gear isn't good enough" express is arriving on schedule..._

 

It may sound like a stereotype, but it can't be denied that higher resolution makes possible differences clearer or audible in the first place.
.


----------



## cswann1

Firstly, a thank you to our forum moderators who have let this thread continue this long.


 To the OP, I'm with a lot of others that ask "why do you want to?". If a freind is happy, why try to make him or her unhappy by trying to make them believe that what they hear is a lie?

 I for one, bought a quality IC and PC for my home set up, solely for the purpose of satisfying my curiosity. It turns out that in both cases, not really caring whether or not I could hear any difference (If I couldn't then...yay me, I don't have to worry about spending money on upgrades) I could hear immediately that there was a change in the sound of my system. In the case of the IC's, at first, I thought "what the hell. This sux". But that was because I really hadn't processed what I was hearing. Once I had I realized that the differences were actually an improvement. 



 Anyway, my experiences are my own and that's neither here nor there as far as this thread goes, and if half the people who read this think I'm a delusional audio nerd, I'm good with that. But one point that I do want to make is that whether or not a $100 cable is better sounding (or different at all) than a $2 cable, you usually get a product that is at least very well constructed of quality parts, should you choose a higher-end product. You can't say that about the cheap crap that comes off of a hook on a pegboard panel at Radio Shack. I went to a meet where several guys spent several minutes troubleshooting a dead amp, and it turned out to be a faulty power cable. One that was cheaply mass-produced.

 The "do they or don't they make a difference" debate will rage as long as folks are willing to spend time arguing over it. But one thing that is irrefutable is that a cord that is working, sounds... 100%... without a doubt... and it cannot be denied or disproved... better than one that is not working.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It may sound like a stereotype, but it can't be denied that higher resolution makes possible differences clearer or audible in the first place.
._

 

I think it is a testable hypothesis


----------



## Young Spade

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it is a testable hypothesis 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I can test that for you right now.
 *plugs in stock cable to Triple.Fis and listens to music*
 *removes stock cable and plugs in solid silver Lune cable*

 Music is better with solid silver.
 There you go.

 Took a total of 10 minutes listening to the same song with the same player. The only thing I changed was the cable. The most obvious difference was having to lower the volume wheel on the T51 because of the reduced resistance the silver cable gives due to it's higher density than copper.


----------



## cswann1

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can test that for you right now.
 *plugs in stock cable to Triple.Fis and listens to music*
 *removes stock cable and plugs in solid silver Lune cable*

 Music is better with solid silver.
 There you go.

 Took a total of 10 minutes listening to the same song with the same player. The only thing I changed was the cable. The most obvious difference was having to lower the volume wheel on the T51 because of the reduced resistance the silver cable gives due to it's higher density than copper._

 

[size=large]*Video......or it didn't happen!!*[/size]


----------



## Young Spade

^Haha.... but I could see where the big discussion (like this one here) can come from when comparing the difference BETWEEN top end cables. When going from a crap stock cable to a solid silver one, you're obviously going to get better resolution across the board through a simple display of physics (silver is denser therefore transmits the signal easier/cleaner than copper).

 I don't really.... know a lot about differences in cables themselves but something as simple as this is easy to grasp and prove.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can test that for you right now.
 *plugs in stock cable to Triple.Fis and listens to music*
 *removes stock cable and plugs in solid silver Lune cable*

 Music is better with solid silver.
 There you go.

 Took a total of 10 minutes listening to the same song with the same player. The only thing I changed was the cable. The most obvious difference was having to lower the volume wheel on the T51 because of the reduced resistance the silver cable gives due to it's higher density than copper._

 

Density has nothing to do with resistance.

 You can't just say you "grasp" something and then make statements like that. Science is NOT common sense.


----------



## Young Spade

What, it doesn't? As in it's easier for the signal to go through the cable because it's denser? That' is not true?


----------



## 883dave

To the OP

 The first thing you should do is mortgage everything you have. 
 Next go to all the financial instiutions you can, and borrow as much as you can.
 Then go to all of you relatives and beg, borrow or steal all they have.

 Then buy a used 1972 pinto, a megaphone and a tall soap box.

 Use this to travel across the country preaching your gospel to the uneducated masses. 

 This is the only way you can get your message out there and convert the world.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What, it doesn't? As in it's easier for the signal to go through the cable because it's denser? That' is not true?_

 

This might be true if electricity was a physical wave, like sound, which travels faster through water and solids than it does air. This is because the molecules are far apart in air, so sound moves slowly.

 Electricity travels easier through materials in which the electrons can move the easiest. Gold and lead are both much denser than silver, but they are not as conductive. Generally elements want to have a full outer shell, so elements with one electron in their outer most shell will do their best to get rid of it. Also, larger elements will have less pull on the outer most electrons because they are much further away.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it is a testable hypothesis 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes – but even you won't dispute the merit of a higher resolution when it comes to detect subtle sonic differences.
.


----------



## Young Spade

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DayoftheGreek* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This might be true if electricity was a physical wave, like sound, which travels faster through water and solids than it does air. This is because the molecules are far apart in air, so sound moves slowly.

 Electricity travels easier through materials in which the electrons can move the easiest. Gold and lead are both much denser than silver, but they are not as conductive. Generally elements want to have a full outer shell, so elements with one electron in their outer most shell will do their best to get rid of it. Also, larger elements will have less pull on the outer most electrons because they are much further away._

 

Oh, well first off I'm going to apologize for wrongly posting my previous statement; I thought that electricity traveled in a sense similar to sound; as that is the thing that is being produced from my headphones. (That is why I thought they were somewhat similar).

 Second, thanks for clearing that up. I knew that silver was a more conductive material than gold or copper as you stated, but for the wrong reasons as I know now. But that makes sense now, thanks for correcting me. I'm in this thread to learn so thank you (and anyone else feel free) for calling me out on something I post. 

 But I guess to build off of this, besides the material used, what are other factors that influence how efficient the cable carries the signal?


----------



## DayoftheGreek

I'm happy as long as everybody learns, and learns actually science. I'm not the most knowledgeable guy about cables, but I do know a few other things. You can effect the signal by using multiple stands of wire, instead of one thick wire. Higher frequencies travel more on the outside of the wire than on the inside (skin effect) but this is more more noticeable in higher frequencies. I'm not sure how it comes into play with audio, because in my studies of the effect we used 100Khz or more. More boundaries in the cable (metal on metal, metal on plastic, shielding on metal, etc) chance the capacitance of the wire, which would change the frequency response in very minor wars. 

 All of these things effect cable measurements, but the debate is on the fact that these things have very small effects on the wire. Effects that some claim are audible and some claim are not.


----------



## Chef

They do, just not at a length any sane person would use for headphones, and also not in the way many people here might think. Very nice post from another forum:

  Quote:


 *John_Siau' date='Apr 9 2010, 13:25' *

 Richard,

 Thanks for the excellent post. I definitely consider myself an objective audiophile. Differences can be measured when they exist (provided we make the correct measurements with the required accuracy). Likewise, differences can be detected in double-blind tests if they are large enough to create an audible difference. 

*Let me present my perspective as a designer of pro-audio and audiophile equipment:*

 I believe in ABX tests and use them on occasion when developing and testing products. I rely much more heavily on measurements when designing products. If I measure a defect and can cure the defect at little or no cost, I go ahead and fix the defect. It is usually much easier (and therefore cheaper) to fix a measured defect than it is to determine whether or not it is audible. I design with a wide safety margin to keep defects well below audibility whenever possible. Often the difference in parts cost is only pennies. If we were building millions of units, each penny would count. We build thousands of units, and our development costs are a significant portion of our total costs. The few pennies spent on better components, or extra ground plane layers on a circuit board are trivial.

*As an objective audiophile, I have occasionally been surprised by the unexpected:*

 I decided to test speaker cables to show that the differences are insignificant. I expected to demonstrate that 18-GA zip cord was indistinguishable from high-quality audiophile speaker cable or even the heavy-gauge cables used by the sound reinforcement industry. I was shocked to discover that there were differences, and more shocked to discover that the zip cord performed better than most of the other cables! Let me add that we do not sell speaker cables, nor do we have any plans to do so in the near future – I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion. 

 All of the speaker cables tested performed well when loaded with an 8-ohm resistor. I substituted an 8-ohm JBL 4410A studio monitor, and the cables performed very differently. The speakers do not present an 8-ohm load over the entire audio band. The actual impedance varies from 1-Ohm to about 16-Ohms. The impedance variations produced frequency response variations. I then set up a demonstration that allowed us to listen to the error signal across the cable, played back through another JBL 4410A at the correct amplitude. We could switch between long cable, and short cable, and cable error signal, and demonstrate audible differences with 100 foot lengths of cable, but no audible differences at 12 feet. 

 One surprisingly poor cable was 10-GA SO cord. The SO cord is the thick black neoprene jacketed cord (with many fine strands of copper) that is used for heavy duty AC power cords. This cord is commonly used in long lengths (100 feet or more) for large commercial sound reinforcement systems. This cord has lots of copper and had the lowest DC resistance, but surprisingly, it had the worst measured performance, and the most audible effect on the music played. The reason for the poor performance is that the cable has far too much inductance, and far more inductance that the cheap 18-GA zip cord that we tested. It turns out that the inductance of the speaker wire is much more of a factor than the DC resistance! 

 The conductors must be closely spaced to achieve low inductance. Telephone or Ethernet twisted-pair wire has very low inductance, but high DC resistance. Multiple twisted-pairs wired in parallel can achieve near-perfect perfect performance at very long lengths. 25 pairs (in parallel) at 100 feet driving 8-ohms are astonishingly good. 10-GA SO cord at 100 feet is surprisingly bad.

*Final thoughts:*

 I thought the claims about speaker wires were ridiculous, but it turns out that the differences were much larger than I expected. I thought that the heavy-gauge wire would perform the best - it was actually the worst. Like many things, expensive is not always better.

*Moral of the speaker-cable story:*

 Test before claiming that differences don't exist. Test before claiming that differences do exist. Don't make claims without testing. Don't waste money on claims that are not backed by good test data.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes – but even you won't dispute the merit of a higher resolution when it comes to detect subtle sonic differences.
._

 

I think you have to have kit that is such that the levels of noise and distortion are low enough so as to not obscure any differences, so obviously an amp with an SNR of 80db is not going to be very useful if fed with two different signals where the differences are -110db 

 but once you get to a certain level of competence the limit is not the kit it is human perceptual capabilities. 

 My M^3 is perceptually silent until after 12;00 where there is a small amount of background noise. At listening levels it is perceptually silent, however the noise that I cannot hear is trivially measurable...I recorded the output from the headphone socket, a 1.48608779s sample and ran a 64k fft on it, both with digital silence and with no signal but a DAC connected. Noise is reported as -113db at peak at 16300hz, okay I don't actually believe this number, I'm pretty sure the real figure is a lot higher, but the point is it has a level of noise that is so low as to not get in the way and this is a $300 amp not some boutique megabuck thingy...


----------



## analogsonar

speaker cables don't matter as much. as long as they are high quality copper that does not oxidize over time then you are good (100% copper and oxygen free). I have noticed more bass and slightly less treble when I use big speaker cables- spending more for ones that look good, have nice connectors and shielding however is worth it if you care. but good ofc like monster will work fine.
 analog stereo cables do matter because they are what connects the source to the amplifier, you need a good connection between the two, we are dealing with electronics, and the contact is important. They make all kinds of good cheap rca stereo cables that have gold/silver plated connectors and good shielding. you can get away with cheap coax and usb cables, and get a true signal, but the sound will improve with better ones. However it is easy to overdo it. At a certain price point, you won't notice any difference, unless there is a new conductive material that comes to the market (not an old/new one) If you want to invest in an optical cable, get a warranty as usually the only issue with them is if they bend they can no longer send the light signal. using the 25 cent interconnects that came with the dvd player is a waste.
 in fact if you a/b those with some 20-40$ rca cables it sounds totally and completely different, worlds apart. hand-made by someone who knows what they are doing is always a good choice. and that is what I have found out, in my own objective,physical and scientific experience, which is all that matters to me.


----------



## Guidostrunk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is why we, as mods, and not members, almost always need to close any threads about cables, religion and politics.
 It always proves to be a no-win situation with two separate camps pitching their tents, trying to prove why they're right. 
 Which almost always turns into heated debates that include slandering.
 I, personally hear ginormous differences in cables and burn-in affects, but if you don't, the you are either not as sensitive as me, or are a very lucky person.
 I wish I couldn't hear the difference between lampshade cable right out of the box, and a Siltech IC with 300 hours of burn-in.

 All I ask, is that the non-believers take one thing in mind. Since the split seems to be around 50-50, then just try to keep an open mind to what the other 50% are saying. Every headphone from $300 - $3000 have changed monumentally to me, after at least a minimum of 100 hours of play. That, and there are a good deal of manufacturers that insist on a minimum of burn-in.
 With that said, just keep an open mind that it might be possible. One of the biggest changes that I've ever heard in a phone was the HF-2's. They sounded horrible out of the box (IMHO) but improve drastically after 60 hours.
 If you don't hear it, then that's fine too.

 No one is going to win "whether components benefit from burn-in, or that their god is better than anyone else's, or that a donkey is better than an elephant when it comes to politics.

 But, I will leave you with one thought. If no one thought that their religion was better than anyone else's, then we would have no reason for so much death and destruction and the world would be a much more productive place, and we would be much farther along in loving each other.

 I come in peace.
 To serve man (it's a cookbook, dammit, a cookbook).
 [/end of rant]_

 

Amen brother, well said!


----------



## Guidostrunk

Another dead end cable thread.


----------



## charlie0904

Whether or not, doesn't matter. Sometime human like to convince others to follow, same goes for religion and politics. Why? comments are just for reference, you decide your own belief and allow others to believe theirs.

 my friends could not hear difference from a SE110 and a SE530. It is a blessing, really. burn in stuff, even more blessing.

 Like Jerry Harvey new logo, _hear no evil_. JH16. geez.


----------



## BIG POPPA

A question? When we Head-fiers listen to music on our rigs is it in a clinical condition? Are we blindfolded, is somebody swapping cables discreetly, do we have complete control of our listening environment? 
 Point being when our conditions are challenged that we do not have the right environment to hear what we hear and it doesn't count on the point we are trying to make. The company who shares our opinion does not count because who they are and not on their merits or contributions to this hobby, by some people who discount other peoples findings with opinions without taking the time and or money to find out if an opinion is true or false. DIYing a few things can really cure a false opinion or going to a meet to really find out what somebody believes is true or false. Try your opinion with a crowd? See if you keep the same opinion? Meets have done some really awesome things for me on my Head-fi journey. DIYing has made me more knowledgeable in shaping my belief's. I make the cables that I am using at the moment. I have cables from some reputable manufactures to compare when I have any doubt on the sound on what I listen to now. Just a few thoughts.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you have to have kit that is such that the levels of noise and distortion are low enough so as to not obscure any differences, so obviously an amp with an SNR of 80db is not going to be very useful if fed with two different signals where the differences are -110db 

 but once you get to a certain level of competence the limit is not the kit it is human perceptual capabilities. 

 My M^3 is perceptually silent until after 12;00 where there is a small amount of background noise. At listening levels it is perceptually silent, however the noise that I cannot hear is trivially measurable...I recorded the output from the headphone socket, a 1.48608779s sample and ran a 64k fft on it, both with digital silence and with no signal but a DAC connected. Noise is reported as -113db at peak at 16300hz, okay I don't actually believe this number, I'm pretty sure the real figure is a lot higher, but the point is it has a level of noise that is so low as to not get in the way and this is a $300 amp not some boutique megabuck thingy..._

 

I think you put too much belief in these numbers. What do they have to do with audible resolution? Of course a SNR of just 80 dB is still sufficient for hearing ultra-fine nuances, that's not the point. Harmonic distortion may be a factor, but it's not clear how exactly it influences resolution – even at very low values.

 However: How would you want to measure resolution with headphones? The HD 800, for instance, is the epitome of resolution among dynamic headphones to my ears. But I have yet to see any measurements that show this. As to amps: I've tried quite a few in my audio career. And although all of them made cable differences audible, they varied significantly in resolution. The Corda Symphony is the first amp that manages to equal my all-time reference, the direct connection of the headphone to the Bel Canto DAC2's (20 ohm!) line out – via 500-ohm potentiometer –, in this respect. I'm sure there are other, predominantly balanced amps which would fare equally well. After all it took the technical level of a modern balanced-ground design to do so. All my previous amps fell more or less short in terms of resolution and transparency, not to speak of neutrality.

 Now my latest cable experience consists of two HD 800 replacement cables. Both show significantly more detail (accuracy, imaging) than the stock cable, and at the same time they sound very different, also from each other. They're not better in every criterion – at least one of them –, but certainly in detail resolution. (To my ears.) That doesn't mean I have the urge to evangelize the «nonbelievers», it's just for setting a counterpoint to the rationalism in this part of the forum and the evangelization intent behind this thread.
.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cswann1* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The "do they or don't they make a difference" debate will rage as long as folks are willing to spend time arguing over it._

 

Some of us are saying that this issue can be settled given the right methodology (hypothesis testing and statistics). Empirical questions about much more complicated proceses are posed, tested and settled using these methods every day. For example, nobody argues any more over the causes of narcolepsy, Parkinson's, etc etc. 

 Honestly, as someone who uses these techniques for a living, it's not a controverial process at all, and T, F and p values settle all testable hypotheses allow people to build upon an ever-growing foundation of truth and knowledge.


----------



## donunus

I am probably a little late but let me just say.... This type of thread again???


----------



## aimlink

This is the best one I've had occasion to participate in .... I think.


----------



## Young Spade

^And I'm glad I'm following it.


----------



## SP Wild

In my limited experience cables are a huge rip-off. Tell me about it, the cables I had the opportunity to take home to audition had a RRP of AUS $1600, $500, $400 respectively. I mean what a joke - the $1600 cable was at half price - what was I to do? They sounded amazing - far, far, far better than the other two cables. It was only logical that I buy two pairs one for the headphone amp and the other for the speaker amp. Really, why couldn't they cost a more reasonable $50 or so? I will never, ever, buy another interconnect again - one reason I don't want to go balanced.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So the listener is only able discriminate subconsciously when he is not undertaking an ABX test?_

 

Tell me about it, $1600 on cables that I can only differentiate when no one is watching - don't get me started on the cost of clean power - yet again, only good when no one is watching.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Br777* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_surely you all could organize a mass abx cable test at one of your meets? there must be enough gear and modded cables at one of those meets to do the biggest abx cable test ever. Why doesn't someone just set one up. I am sure the people in this forum would absolutely eat up the chance to read what a room full of head-fi meet participants found in their abx cable test._

 

Perhaps this is something you could undertake the next time you are at a head-fi meet. I would love to hear all about it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DayoftheGreek* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do believe you meant round.




_

 

The more I think about round earth and flat earth, the more I realise that the answer to this is less significant to me than what I should have for dinner tonight. Would it really matter to you if somehow it is proven that indeed the earth is flat and that when you keep going you just emerge from the other side - making it seem like it was round - and the images in space was an optical illusion. Would it matter to you? would it? would it really?


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SP Wild* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The more I think about round earth and flat earth, the more I realise that the answer to this is less significant to me than what I should have for dinner tonight. Would it really matter to you if somehow it is proven that indeed the earth is flat and that when you keep going you just emerge from the other side - making it seem like it was round - and the images in space was an optical illusion. Would it matter to you? would it? would it really?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 





 Entertaining post.


----------



## Chef

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Guidostrunk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Amen brother, well said!_

 

It's more like:
 "I think expensive audio cables sound better than cheap ones."
 "Really? Please prove it doing a blind test."
 "I can't."
 "I don't believe you then."
 "Why not?!"

 Seriously, if you don't have evidence to support your claims, why make the claim at all? Why expect people to believe you, other than their desperate need to belong to the so called 'golden ears' group? It's funny you should compare the argument to religion, because it's basically the same absurd argument. "Please accept everything I say even though I can offer no legitimate support."

 I mean, I've got to tell the OP you went to the wrong forum if you came to preach objectivity, but still. It's like going to a Christian forum and telling them there's no reason to believe in god. You're a drop in the ocean of their unyielding faith. Go to HydrogenAudio.org and tell people there's no difference between audiocables. most of them will say 'well duh' and the rest of them will say "have you tested?" The tests I've seen said the cheaper cables are actually superior, but only in excess of 100 feet worth of cable. Otherwise there's no audible difference (what headphone users are concerned with).

 That's why arguments on this site go no where. It's either two sides trying to prove something without evidence, or it's a few jerks pointing out the philosophical flaws in people's arguments. No one is actually putting up evidence to prove something, and when they do, they're ignored.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However: How would you want to measure resolution with headphones? The HD 800, for instance, is the epitome of resolution among dynamic headphones to my ears. But I have yet to see any measurements that show this._

 

I am sure the HD800 are great headphones, but I am unhappy about the use of ther word resolution, to my mind this word (in this context) has no unequivocal meaning and thus no way to assess it in any objective manner. 

 If the point of comparison is "this is a great headphone cos loads of people like it" well I have no problem with that, but it does not really tell us anything very useful in this context.

 However, if you say this is a great headphone because it possess either or many of: 

 1) Low distortion
 2) low noise
 3) Flat frequency response

 I would say these are all good things if you are wanting to use these headphones to detect difference between signals. At this point maybe you could say these are resolving headphones because they have 1,2,3 then we are closer, but to just pronounce headphones as resolving with no concrete criteria is back to unfettered subjectivisim and remember where we are


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am sure the HD800 are great headphones, but I am unhappy about the use of ther word resolution, to my mind this word (in this context) has no unequivocal meaning and thus no way to assess it in any objective manner...

 However, if you say this is a great headphone because it possess either or many of: 1) Low distortion, 2) low noise, 3) Flat frequency response ..._

 

That's the problem: We speak different languages, and our approaches couldn't be more different. When I listen to, judge or evaluate a headphone, none of your three criteria are audible as such. It's the same as when enjoying a good meal – rarely I'm aware of the exact dosage of the ingredients or the ingredients to begin with. It's just a sensation of feeling good, an interesting and convenient taste. With headphones it's similar in some way, after all I have a reference in the form of my memory of the sound of an orchestra, human voices or single instruments. But never do I perceive the degree of harmonic distortion (as it's inaudible as such) or noise (not produced by the headphone itself), so the flat frequency response is the only criterion which is passably detectable as such. It is of course a primary precondition for a high-quality headphone, but the perception of an even sonic balance is still quite individual, depending on the ear shape. I agree that it also is an important precondition for high resolution, but by far not the only one. It's indeed not easy to fix the term «resolution» on a specific measuring criterion (at best it's a combination of low and/or organic harmonic distortion + accurate transient response [including exemplary resonance behavior] + even sonic balance), but that doesn't mean it can't be a quality criterion. Resolution is a perceivable quality criterion. In this context it's interesting that electrostats which are known for their high resolution have relatively poor decay spectra. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


 _...I would say these are all good things if you are wanting to use these headphones to detect difference between signals. At this point maybe you could say these are resolving headphones because they have 1,2,3 then we are closer, but to just pronounce headphones as resolving with no concrete criteria is back to unfettered subjectivisim and remember where we are. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_ 
 

In my book it would be an unscientific approach to reject a broadly accepted term and its well-reproducible perception just because it can't be clearly associated to a measuring criterion. The same goes for terms such as «bright», «dark», «dry», «liquid», «smooth», «clear», «transparent» and so on. That's how we can describe the sound of a headphone. If you don't accept that (for your personal use), you have to renounce headphone reviews beforehand. You'll never be able to portray your sonic impressions to someone else. But don't tell it's impossible! It's certainly not 100% accurately transferable to someone else, but it's useful for many, to get a rough picture of the sound. And resolution is one of the criteria that are not too hard to reproduce by someone else.

 As to the subjectivism: Yes, the perception of the sound of a headphone through a pair of ears can't be described other than in subjective terms. Everything else would be speculation.
.


----------



## b0dhi

It'd be more convincing that some headphones are so much more resolving than other headphones if it was substantiated by something, or compared to some other condition. For example, getting a good $20 headphone and a good $2000 headphone and equalising them _accurately_ to match the individual's perceptually-flat ear response, and comparing them that way. The most variable factor between headphones is the frequency response. Differences in distortion, noise, etc are relatively _tiny_ compared to differences in FR.

 Until someone actually compares headphones on an equal basis like this I think many (_not_ all) observations relating to dark, bright, smooth, clear etc can be explained by interactions between the headphone's FR and the individual's HRTF. And maybe with that basis of comparison, apparent differences in resolution will become much smaller. I'm pretty sure a lot of people hear a boosted treble and think they're hearing added resolution. To what degree, I can only guess as yet.

 And I'm damn near 100% sure that people go from one headphone to another and confuse a band peak in a new frequency as being "hearing new things I've never heard!". Yes, you are, but you're also not hearing things you used to hear which are now equally obscured. The headphones have different FR. Frequencies of prominence and insignificance will probably change.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It'd be more convincing that some headphones are so much more resolving than other headphones if it was substantiated by something, or compared to some other condition. For example, getting a good $20 headphone and a good $2000 headphone and equalising them accurately to match the individual's perceptually-flat ear response, and comparing them that way. The most variable factor between headphones is the frequency response. Differences in distortion, noise, etc are relatively tiny compared to differences in FR._

 

Actually it doesn't matter what exactly the reason for the perceived higher resolution is. But higher resolving headphones plus higher resolving electronics will undisputedly help with detecting subtle differences in the chain.

 However, the frequency response of a headphone is so complex that it's impossible to perfectly equalize it, the less so for your individual hearing curve. Don't let you fool by HeadRoom's FR graphs! They are massively smoothed. But if you rely on the unsmoothed measurements, it becomes obvious that frequency response and transient response can't really be separated. The spikes and dips are consequences of resonances, within the membrane and – even more important – within the housing. In the case of standing waves as cause even a theoretical perfect equalizing won't make the transient response perfect.

  Quote:


 _Until someone actually compares headphones on an equal basis like this I think many (not all) observations relating to dark, bright, smooth, clear etc. can be explained by interactions between the headphone's FR and the individual's HRTF. And maybe with that basis of comparison, apparent differences in resolution will become much smaller._ 
 

Smaller, yes, but by how much? As it stands there are headphones almost unanimously praised for their high detail resolution, independent of individual HRTFs. And I think it's not by accident that one of them is the HD 800 with its «revolutionary» driver technology known to provide excellent transient response in the speaker world. As to «bright» and «dark», yes, they're clearly associated to the sonic balance. «Smooth» and «clear» may be attributed to a low level of resonances.
.


----------



## SP Wild

Yup - having heard the HD800 for myself, they will be the perfect tool for gauging minute changes down stream - including cables. unfathomable resolution in my opinion - not that I like that sort of thing.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *b0dhi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It'd be more convincing that some headphones are so much more resolving than other headphones if it was substantiated by something, or compared to some other condition. For example, getting a good $20 headphone and a good $2000 headphone and equalising them accurately to match the individual's perceptually-flat ear response, and comparing them that way. The most variable factor between headphones is the frequency response. Differences in distortion, noise, etc are relatively tiny compared to differences in FR.

 Until someone actually compares headphones on an equal basis like this I think many (not all) observations relating to dark, bright, smooth, clear etc can be explained by interactions between the headphone's FR and the individual's HRTF. And maybe with that basis of comparison, apparent differences in resolution will become much smaller. I'm pretty sure a lot of people hear a boosted treble and think they're hearing added resolution. To what degree, I can only guess as yet.

 And I'm damn near 100% sure that people go from one headphone to another and confuse a band peak in a new frequency as being "hearing new things I've never heard!". Yes, you are, but you're also not hearing things you used to hear which are now equally obscured. The headphones have different FR. Frequencies of prominence and insignificance will probably change._

 

I, hands down, fully agree with you here!


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However, the frequency response of a headphone is so complex that it's impossible to perfectly equalize it, the less so for your individual hearing curve. Don't let you fool by HeadRoom's FR graphs! They are massively smoothed. But if you rely on the unsmoothed measurements, it becomes obvious that frequency response and transient response can't really be separated. The spikes and dips are consequences of resonances, within the membrane and – even more important – within the housing. In the case of standing waves as cause even a theoretical perfect equalizing won't make the transient response perfect._

 

Sure, but even an attempt at equalling the frequency response between two cans will help to reduce the effect that bodhi mentioned.

 I like the HeadRoom curves, smoothed out as they are. They give a description of the headphone's balance that is quite predictable for me now. I can now see in those curves, the sort of response that I like and which is less fatiguing for me.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, but even an attempt at equalling the frequency response between two cans will help to reduce the effect that bodhi mentioned._

 

Yes, it will help reducing the discrepancy with the perceived resolution, but only so much. Let's take the KSC75. It doesn't even need that much equalizing for a quasi-perfect sonic balance approaching that of reference-class headphones. 




.



.





 Nevertheless, in terms of (perceived) resolution and transparency it will still be far away from a HD 650, HD 800 or SR-007 – with or without equalization. The only measuring criterion with passably significant difference is harmonic distortion – which doesn't benefit from equalization, BTW.

  Quote:


 _I like the HeadRoom curves, smoothed out as they are. They give a description of the headphone's balance that is quite predictable for me now. I can now see in those curves, the sort of response that I like and which is less fatiguing for me._ 
 

Of course I'm not saying that HeadRoom's FR graphs are useless – far from that. 
.


----------



## immtbiker

You can show me all the graphs in the world. What I do know, is that when I change interconnects or headphone cables, 
 I do hear noticeable differences in sound.
 So that would be the opposite answer to the request of the OP.
 To me, cables can make a large difference in sound, going by my own ears.
 And, I trust them, they've been with me, quite a while now.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can show me all the graphs in the world. What I do know, is that when I change interconnects or headphone cables, 
 I do hear noticeable differences in sound._

 

Then it should be trivial for you to back this up with some blind tests, this being the science subforum 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I have had the same "I hear a difference" experiences but when tested more carefully these differences often disappear, the measured differences between cables (interconnects anyway) are so small that generally reliably hearing audible differences would challenge 100 years of psychophysics research.

 Sorry, but I know which "research" I trust more, in this subforum anyway...I certainly would not trust my ears if my eyes and wallet were also involved


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...I certainly would not trust my ears if my eyes and wallet were also involved 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

...unlike me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't trust blind tests if the results are as mentioned. (I know: wrong forum. But it had to be said.)
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

It's impressive, if someone can hear the difference of cables through the distortion of headphone transducers.

 "Cheap" cable





 "Expensive" cable


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_graphs_

 

To be fair, the cable images (where distortion appears very minor and similar) go from 0 to 20khz, and the headphone images (where distortion appears much more significant) only go from 300-3khz. I'd like to see the cable graphs shrunken to 300-3khz for a more valuable comparison.

 I'm not going to say much more here, for fear of being dragged into a conversation I don't want to touch. I'm not a cable believer beyond a reasonable point. I can see an adequately built cable like Blue Jeans slightly besting a cheapo toothpick-thin one from RadioShack, though I didn't hear a difference myself. I can't really see a $5,000 cable besting a $4,500 one. Or a $1,000 besting a $200. There's really only so much that can be done with the materials given, right? Can some insulation, shielding, and copper wire really cost that much to make? Can any one construction really change the signal so drastically to be worth it? Is that change always for the better, or just for the euphonic?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is that change always for the better, or just for the euphonic?_

 

There are all variants, but in most cases it's a change for higher accuracy compared to the stock cable (IME).
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is that change always for the better, or just for the euphonic?_

 

There are individual differences. Sugar pills do not work upon everyone.


----------



## MikeW

Lol this reminds me, I once brought up the topic at ArsTechnica, one of my long time news sites, it's been my home page for 10 years. I basically suggested Blue Jeans cable, for their build quality, reasonable price, and peace of mind. I was summarily flogged and murdered for suggesting such an overpriced expensive cable and im now forever known as the cable wack job. I guess I should have expected it, everyone at that forum is a Vulcan...


----------



## immtbiker

Cables are made out of some metal alloy, have a degree of purity, and are encased in some sort of RFI protection.
 I was listening to my wife's Nano, with a LOD and cable that were given out free as a sign in prize at the registration table at the San Jose National meet, and I was wondering what was wrong with my reference tracks on my Nano 5G that my wife had borrowed. 
 I immediately changed the cable and dock from ALO and the world became one again. I'm not saying that it takes a $2000 VD cable to make a difference, but as soon as I out on the ALO Jena cable and dock, the world became one again. This was found out by accident, not by testing cables.

 My point is, that as long as you use a mostly-pure cable that doesn't impede electron flow, and allow refrigerators and and AC cables to cancel out imortant signal flow, it is going to sound better than a cable choked with impurities, that allow outside waveforms into the signal path.
 It doesn't have to be expensive, but it has to keep the bad guys out.

 Can we at least agree to that?


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My point is, that as long as you use a mostly-pure cable that doesn't impede electron flow, and allow refrigerators and and AC cables to cancel out imortant signal flow, it is going to sound better than a cable choked with impurities, that allow outside waveforms into the signal path.
 It doesn't have to be expensive, but it has to keep the bad guys out.

 Can we at least agree to that?_

 

Absolutely. The point of disagreement seems to be how simple an engineering and design task it is to produce a cable without "impurities". My meager understanding of electronics and material science leads me to conclude that this task is very very simple, and can be accomplished cheaply. Once that very low threshold of "purity" is met, everything else is aesthetics.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My point is, that as long as you use a mostly-pure cable that doesn't impede electron flow, and allow refrigerators and and AC cables to cancel out imortant signal flow, it is going to sound better than a cable choked with impurities, that allow outside waveforms into the signal path._

 

Dear immtbiker,

 Could you elaborate on your reference to a refrigerator? Is this a new way to cool your valve amps?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dear immtbiker,

 Could you elaborate on your reference to a refrigerator? Is this a new way to cool your valve amps? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He cryos his own cables


----------



## cswann1

I wrote like 40 letters to my district rep in the state congress asking for him to introduce a bill that, if made into law, would require my state to cryo it's entire electric grid.

 He finally sent me a reply that was also in the same envelope as a restraining order. Wierd.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He cryos his own cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Are you joking or being serious? Are cool temps meant to help a cables SQ? Is this proven scientifically? Perhaps it would be good for audiophiles to live in the Arctic Circle. 

 I think I am losing touch with reality as well. Can someone post a graph of something, anything, quickly please!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you joking or being serious? I think I am losing touch with reality, can someone post a graph of something, anything, quickly please!_

 

Stock RatShack cable:





 Same cable, half an hour in immtbiker's fridge:


----------



## Shark_Jump

Ahh thats better, <breaths deep sigh of relief>

 Hilarious!


----------



## johnjen

Hi, I'm a n00b here so I'm not clued into the culture of this forum, nor the individuals involved, so forgive me if I re-state the obvious. Or as we say on my other forum this is 205.

 Given that, I do want to add my 2¢ to this.

 I've been involved in audio for many decades now, but just recently jumped into the headphone universe.

 Cables to me are one of several parts that will tailor the sound that is delivered to my ears. Yes they make a difference to me and finding the proper balance between the active and passive components is what I have learned is important. It would be nice to be able to utilize some objective 'facts' to help in this quest. But alas my ears and gray matter are far more resolving than any test equipment or experimental method to quantify what I hear, and certainly are far more relevant to me as I'm the one who either likes the results or not. 

 I'm sure that some would like objective proof of this or that but it matters very little to me because I am either drawn into the music, or not. I'm delighted when I hear additional nuances of an instrument or particular voice, or not. I get a big grin on my face when a layer of additional resolution is presented to me on music I'm already quite familiar with.

 In short it is my personal involvement with the music and how it engages me and pulls me into it, it isn't an objective experience at all.

 Listening to music is a very personal experience that simply can't be quantified for a variety of reasons and so to expect a repeatable and verifiable and statistically relevant set of data misses the point. I don't hear any of that, I hear music.

 In short this debate has 2 sides, and much like other dichotomies, one side is all about an objectified reality the other is about a subjective reality. These 2 camps only meet in one place, our experience. But to expect that they both can play by the same set of rules will forever be an exercise in futility.

 JJ


----------



## Shark_Jump

Welcome, don't worry there is more culture on top of a yogurt.

 I'm sure no one will argue that the enjoyment of your music is an entirely subjective experience.

 but this is the sound science forum.

 how much subjectivity went into designing the circuit layouts in your system? These were done by hairy arsed electrical designers/engineers sitting in front of a computer screen with a calculator. Watts, Farads, Ohms, Voltage, Current. Designing to a spec.

 Science is not about sides or opinions, it is about establishing the facts. As this is electronics most of the facts are already known. end of story.

 IMO Talking generally, If anyone is not interested in the facts then they should not crap the science threads.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Science is not about sides or opinions, it is about establishing the facts. As this is electronics most of the facts are already known. end of story.

 IMO Talking generally, If anyone is not interested in the facts then they should not crap the science threads._

 

Science is everything about interpreting what we observe either passively or through experimentation. Interpreting anything we observe is quite subjective. So in essence, you cannot take away the observer and the subjective nature of the observer. We are also beginning to realize just how much the observed changes once it's being observed. General consistency in observation creates a lot of confusion and inflexibility. In a sense it's a form of pitiful bondage. We can hold what we think we know in our hand without squeezing and protecting it too much. Afterall, we'll see the folly in it once we closely examine what 'facts' we're trying to hold and protect so dearly.

 Science forum, yes, but.... gee!


----------



## NoobAudio

I had this exact talk with my dad about a week ago and he said there is no point getting a cable that costs over £30 your wasting your money, its not going to sound any better, a cable is a cable theres not much you can add compared to a cheap cable. Maybe better connectors but it will not change the sound. By the way he is a electrician and even built me an amp


----------



## Shark_Jump

Sorry aimlink, I'm not quite sure what you are saying, I will have a go but apologies in advance if I misinterpret you.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Science is everything about interpreting what we observe either passively or through experimentation. Interpreting anything we observe is quite subjective._

 

Thats just plain wrong. Are you saying we cannot measure an observation?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We are also beginning to realize just how much the observed changes once it's being observed._

 

 Are we talking about quantum physics or cables here?

 I know that Euricote and others have tried to explain that ABX and analysis of subsequent statistical results is a trivial calculation.

 Placebo effect is a known and powerful effect employed during testing by drug Companies with billion dollar investments at stake.

 If I hear a difference and it cannot be proven by the former, then chances are its the latter. Even if I stick my head into the ground and poke my behind up in the air.


----------



## JaZZ

This thread has gotten way off-topic. The two sides will never agree, and the arguments have already been laid on the table. So please just post your ideas with respect to the thread title:

*[size=small]How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?[/size]*

 I believe it will be more interesting and particularly more fun. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry aimlink, I'm not quite sure what you are saying, I will have a go but apologies in advance if I misinterpret you.


 Thats just plain wrong. Are you saying we cannot measure an observation?_

 

A measurement is just an observation. What does the measurement mean to you? What does it represent? What do you do with it? Why measure anything, why observe anything for that matter?

 We confuse objectivity and subjectivity way too much. Your conducting an experiment and having a result means you suddenly know what's happening?

 You make one little observation and suddenly you have the answer?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Are we talking about quantum physics or cables here?

 I know that Euricote and others have tried to explain that ABX and analysis of subsequent statistical results is a trivial calculation.

 Placebo effect is a known and powerful effect employed during testing by drug Companies with billion dollar investments at stake.

 If I hear a difference and it cannot be proven by the former, then *[size=small]chances are[/size]* its the latter. Even if I stick my head into the ground and poke my behind up in the air._

 

I wish more here would say 'chances are'. It would calm things down a lot more. It would make us more open to ideas, no matter how much it flies in the face of what we have observed/measured and how we choose to interpret it.

 A DBX test with cables has everything to do with the observer. It's not a simple measurement. The better you understand the observer, the better you'll understand the result of the DBX test. We seem to have some ideas about the observer, but then we carry on as if what we currently know is fact. We claim that those who believe what's contrary to the result of scientific experimentation carried out in a particular manner and with particular subjects/observers, are like closed-minded, religious zealots. What seems appropriate to those who feel this way would be a good hard look in the mirror and a rethink of the situation.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This thread has gotten way off-topic. The two sides will never agree, and the arguments have already been laid on the table. So please just post your ideas with respect to the thread title:

*[size=small]How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?[/size]*

 I believe it will be more interesting and particularly more fun. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




._

 

My point is that you can't. This is what I'm getting at.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*[size=small]How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?[/size]*_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wish more here would say 'chances are'. It would calm things down a lot more._

 

*Chances are* you can never convince those cable boys they may be experiencing a placebo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think I need another graph. My head is starting to hurt.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Chances are* you can never convince those cable boys they may be experiencing a placebo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's what I've said – as I'm a «cable boy» myself. It's as futile as convincing me by phone to effect an insurance. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## terriblepaulz

I'll give the OPs question a shot. Try making this statement: 

 All known and established principles of electronics, material science and psychoacoustics do not allow for the possibility that one competently designed and manufactured cable, which meets a known set of design parameters, could sound different from another cable meeting those same parameters; claims about the Uncertainty Principle or other epistemological objections are misplaced as the science involved is uncontroversial.

 Something tells me that that won't cut it. But I can dream.


----------



## donunus

or in super simple terms... not all cables are created equal, how do we know those differences do.... aaaaaaaahhhh screw it, no matter what anyone says this thread is FUTILE. Like I said on another post on this thread......... THIS THREAD AGAIN?????


----------



## Wmcmanus

Why don't you beat the "cable boys" over the head with your "cables don't make a difference" mantra. Maybe that will work.

 Edit: (((Yawn))). Sorry, I forgot to yawn.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why don't you beat the "cable boys" over the head with your "cables don't make a difference" mantra. Maybe that will work.

 Edit: (((Yawn))). Sorry, I forgot to yawn._

 

Mantra's do work ... after a time, so it's worth a try.


----------



## vhbaske

I have this kind of behavior towards cables, even if I am not a cable believer (and by the way, I'm also a tube hater). I try to get a nice good looking cable, but I do not buy it from someone selling the same cable at $260 (oh lord, for a 2 inches ipod LOD!!!!), but from someone selling it for $24, with the same materials. It happens that these cables are more beautiful than plain machine production made ones. And, still I have not found any difference, and my ears, since I was a little boy, never tolerated equipments with high distortion, not full frequency response and all those things that you REALLY hear. I am not an audiophile, I DON'T PAY FOR WHAT I DON'T HEAR ! !
 But cable believers and not believers are my friends. Even if someone feels offended by my opinions.


----------



## Chef

vhbaske, that sounds interesting. I think I also appreciate the aesthetic of different looking cables, and I wonder where you bought yours? I'd mildly consider replacing the ones on my earphones if I could find some that were resistant to touch (like my shirt rubbing against it, or whatever. That cable might be a little too thick for convenience on earphones though, I'm not sure.


----------



## vhbaske

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chef* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_vhbaske, that sounds interesting. I think I also appreciate the aesthetic of different looking cables, and I wonder where you bought yours? I'd mildly consider replacing the ones on my earphones if I could find some that were resistant to touch (like my shirt rubbing against it, or whatever. That cable might be a little too thick for convenience on earphones though, I'm not sure._

 

Oh, no big deal, I buy from some people on eBay. Rather than aesthetics, mine are more "technicals". They have Canare cables and Neutrik plugs and jacks. I bought my iPod Lod to one person in Turkey, I liked the look of the cables, thought not very "aesthetic" good looking. I am myself a retired electronic technician, with all equipment to make some, but I don't want to invest in material that later will some leftovers will be wandering around the house.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dear immtbiker,
 Could you elaborate on your reference to a refrigerator? Is this a new way to cool your valve amps? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Funny. No what I meant, was being able to take things on your electric grid (refrigerators, microwaves. your wife's electric powered vibrators), and have them not affect your cables by having cables with good enough isulaton (garden hoses, not withstanding) that would not allow outside RFI or EMI interferences affect your signal flow.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He cryos his own cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I don't think that I can do that with a refrigerator. I would need a freezer that can produce the temperatures needed to make "Dippin' Dots". It would have to be able to maintain a temperature of between -20 F and -70 degreees. That and a caliper is used so that each dot is exactkly the same size.
 Dipping Dot's was actually invented my a man who was tired if ice cream meltling too easily on warm summer days, unlike velcro, which was invented by a man walking throought the woods with wool socks and having "itchy balls" attaching themselves to his socks by accident.

 The only way to convince someone that cables don't make a difference, which i adamantly don't believe, is to let that person hear it for themselves. And I'm not talking about a person who is perfectly happy with a pair of IBuds. It has to be an audiophile wha cares passionately about his tunes.


----------



## vhbaske

Wait some minutes until I take another SNIFF of music...


----------



## Young Spade

Just to jump into the conversation, we had an open discussion in my Lit class about what "truth" really was (just some teacher rambling with input from some students, I was more apt in the conversation however) and I brought up this subject. I have read every post in this thread (although it isn't THAT much) and started talking about how there are... 2 sides who believe different things. 
 To keep it short, me and my teacher discussed his beliefs and mine, it was a very engaging conversation; just talking about cables (although I don't know THAT much about them, I could write a paper or something) got me excited and brought up some good points in the class that you guys discuss a lot here as well.

 Just my 2 cents


----------



## immtbiker

Anyone who thinks that the TWag cable designed for the JH-13's/UE10/11's is not many levels above the stock Harvey cable, needs to find a new hobby.

 Perhaps Curling?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dipping Dot's was actually invented my a man who was tired if ice cream meltling too easily on warm summer days, unlike velcro, which was invented by a man walking throought the woods with wool socks and having "itchy balls" attaching themselves to his socks by accident._

 

Dippin' Dots are cool in concept, but they're not that great. The guy who invented them must not have the same interpretation of "warm" as I have, because you breathe on them wrong and they turn into a puddle. I always assumed this was the case, but I jokingly vocalized that they were invented so that depressed astronauts still had something to eat during their soaps.

 I hate those balls. My kitty cats do too. They always get stuck all over my socks when I venture off the well-beaten topic. Crap, here's one now.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vhbaske* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait some minutes until I take another SNIFF of music..._

 

I like the lemon ones.

 Woah. Scratch and sniff CDs! Not very productive, but awesome in theory! Much like Dippin' Dots.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just to jump into the conversation, we had an open discussion in my Lit class about what "truth" really was (just some teacher rambling with input from some students, I was more apt in the conversation however) and I brought up this subject. I have read every post in this thread (although it isn't THAT much) and started talking about how there are... 2 sides who believe different things. 
 To keep it short, me and my teacher discussed his beliefs and mine, it was a very engaging conversation; just talking about cables (although I don't know THAT much about them, I could write a paper or something) got me excited and brought up some good points in the class that you guys discuss a lot here as well.

 Just my 2 cents 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

My philosophy has always been that if one thinks something is real, then it's real enough for that person. However, in practice that philosophy is only a safe gamble with common resources and public goods. I don't want to have to pay money for something that will only allow me to think it does something. So if I don't hear it, I won't buy it. For me, buying BJC interconnects was still a good purchase, because while I may not hear a difference (and didn't expect one as such), the build quality invokes a very real, semi-measurable sense of security in my system as a whole. I know that no unwanted crap is messing my system up to an audible degree, and thus reality trumps the belief in a reality.

 And so, unless research convinces me that cables can make an audible difference, no matter how small, I won't buy anything beyond my $31 (+ shipping) LC-1. More expensive won't instill more peace of mind until then. And even with that I probably won't spend more on cable until I get one of my dream systems.

 Just my $2,000 interconnects


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone who thinks that the TWag cable designed for the JH-13's/UE10/11's is not many levels above the stock Harvey cable, needs to find a new hobby._

 

If you could blindly pick that cable 6/6 times I'd be a believer.


----------



## Young Spade

^Which was my take on it as well, glad to see you agree with me (not that I was looking for it, but nice to know


----------



## lonereaction

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you could blindly pick that cable 6/6 times I'd be a believer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I too am intrested. It took me spending most of my savings since sept 2008 of my 300+USD monthly pay to get the JH16s (not here yet). Cables like twag would take the savings of the last 4 months of my time in the army.

 Started a thread on a local forum and people took it the wrong way.


----------



## vhbaske

I hate those balls. My kitty cats do too. They always get stuck all over my socks when I venture off the well-beaten topic. Crap, here's one now.
 Quote:Originally Posted by vhbaske 
 Wait some minutes until I take another SNIFF of music...

 I like the lemon ones.

 Woah. Scratch and sniff CDs! Not very productive, but awesome in theory! Much like Dippin' Dots.

 IT WAS A SNIFF OF MUSIC DOPE, LIKE A SNIFF OF COCA COLA


----------



## immtbiker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you could blindly pick that cable 6/6 times I'd be a believer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

C'Mon. Give me a fighting chance. How's about 5 out of 6?


----------



## vhbaske

I would buy very expensive cable, but, not for the sound, but for the LOOK !!! How beautiful they look, like a working Rolls Royce and Honda Accord at the street, but they go to the same place. The devil blesses all those who can.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_C'Mon. Give me a fighting chance. How's about 5 out of 6?_

 

Don't make me pull out my calculator. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ok, too late.

 >> factorial(6)/(factorial(5)*factorial(6-5))*(.5^5)*(.5^(6-5))

 ans =

 0.0938

 You'd have close to a 10% chance of getting 5/6 by chance alone.

 How about 7/8? (p = 0.0313)


----------



## SP Wild

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And so, unless research convinces me that cables can make an audible difference, no matter how small, I won't buy anything beyond my $31 (+ shipping) LC-1. _

 


 I am very curious with this comment. Lets just say, hypothetically, they found that there are indeed individuals that are documented to have been able to differentiate with 100 percent accuracy several cables in a DBT. Will you then be able to hear differences in your BJC cables, and start hearing differences in expensive ones too? Or will you be thankful that you are amongst the majority that have "less efficient" hearing and hence have no need for "cable tuning".

 Remember there is absolute evidence that some headphones are technically better than others - but the majority (of the population) will never hear it that way. If I feel more healthier breathing country air than city air - yet there has not been one conclusive study to indicate that fresh country air will prolong my life one more day than breathing city air - am I wrong.

 Will objectivists ever play the devil's advocate and ask themselves - "what if" conclusive evidence was found of human hearing being able to detect what equipment cannot. How will objectivists honestly react to this news. There can only be 3 possible outcomes.

 1. An objectivist will "convert" and eventually start to hear differences for themselves. You are weak - the world does not belong to you it belongs to the strong.

 2. An objectivist will be surprised - but not affected as he has never heard heard these differences, he knew then and he knows now, he knows he can't hear cable differences. You are strong - the world belongs to you.

 3. An objectivist detest these new findings - he has tried in vain to hear differences and never could. He refuses to submit to the fact that someone is "better" than he. You are incredibly strong - the world belongs to you (don't shoot me on this one) 

 Everyone should ponder "what was" "what is" and "what if" - If you are honest with yourself then the answer is always "what ever".


----------



## gilency

Of course headphones will make a difference. Different transducers, different technologies. But cables? When I see those Piccolino cables selling for hundreds of dollars I feel for those souls who spend their hard earned money on fantasies. 
 Of course if you can easily afford them that's OK, but some people around here don't have a lot of cash and is plain fraud to steal their money.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SP Wild* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will objectivists ever play the devil's advocate and ask themselves - "what if" conclusive evidence was found of human hearing being able to detect what equipment cannot._

 

Brad of Virtual Dynamics was to provide "evidence" in May of 2008 . . .
My cat tore up my Virtual Dynamics Power 3... 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Grizzlepaw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interestingly enough I have the preliminary *results of a DBT of our interconnects* in my email inbox. We won't be presenting them until the middle of May (once the paper is finished) but it shows a definite correlation between the dynamic filtering and SOL (magnet) technologies and an increase in slew rate.

 I realize that just having my word on it isn't gonna be good anough for anyone, it wouldn't be good enough for me... Which is why we are putting in the money and time to have them tested by a third party (which doesn't mean we are paying to have them tested... the testing is being done for free, the money is the investment of materials, shipping, plane tickets to go down and film the results, ect.) 

 So yeah, if that is really all it is gonna take Bigshot, then I expect a sales order from you to be crossing Rita's desk within 3 months or so... assuming that you aren't misrepresenting your position. There does remain the possibility, however, that you aren't actually interested in improving your sound and your components, but intellectually invested in stroking your ego on this board. I'm going to be generous and assume you actually meant what you said... 
 .
 .
 ._

 

"What if" is not "what is".


----------



## SP Wild

Whatever.


----------



## OnlyWantToSearch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference_

 

Show 'em the results of three DBTs!


----------



## lonereaction

Nooo.. Don't die! I'm still very keen on hearing from anyone regarding abxing twag cables and similar.


----------



## kickassdude

When food looks good, it tastes better. Same with cables. Al tough the sound hardly changed the sound perception did change.


----------



## immtbiker

Walking through the supermarket with my wife, and she sees a new model of shampoo in fancy packaging, and she says "wow, that looks really good".
 To which I respond, "no, the shampoo doesn't look really good, the packaging does". 

 We've been trained since birth.


----------



## Young Spade

^Uh huh. Why do those cables have to look so good? But the good thing is that they sound even better


----------



## pdupiano

I've mentioned this in the past, and quite frankly its a pain in the butt to have to keep reiterating since I haven't bothered putting up a website like the audio critic but all you science folks should realize that Physics TELLS you, it SAYS, that cables make a difference. Purity, impedance, capacitance,inductance and emf all affect the signal path. The type of material affects impedance as well as the electromagnetic fields. If you do the calculations between using Teflon and Polyethylene as insulators for cable, you will find more than a 5% difference in the amount of parasitic capacitance that results from the cable. Using a starquad pattern reduces cable inductance, using litz quad braid can be used to cancel out wire emfs reducing cross talk and other forms of EMI. Using cryo treated parts to reduce wire impurities and formation of elongated crystals, and using OCC methods rather than traditional wire extruding methods increases the purity of the metal from say a max of 4N to 7N. All of this, as SCIENCE tells you, MATTERS. 

 So the question is then, Can you hear it? Every physicist shouting at the top of their lungs, even Stephen Hawking and Einstein in his grave along with Edison and his phonograph playing over and over again "if I only had 7N silver, my recording wouldn't sound so bad...", would agree to the scientific merits and changes that these factors have on cables and ultimately the signal. But the question is, can you really hear a difference? 

 And there in lies the issue. Science can only tell you that
 1. The signal changes
 2. The changes are statistically significant (5% or greater, 5% was an arbitrary choice but has been kept as the standard)

 Science cannot tell you
 ------Dum dum dummmmmmmm
 WHAT YOU PERCEIVE

 Folks who keep hashing out this debate keep asking for scientific proof that you can hear something different with cables, but the point is you CAN'T. It is beyond the realm of science to tell you what you can or cannot perceive. And on that same note, anyone who can pick out a particular cable 6/6 times,, oh hell even 100,000,000,000,000.00001/100,000,000,000,000 (had to add in some quantum effects).
 Cannot Prove that they hear something from the cable. The can only Demonstrate that they are able to hear something -it is NOT, I repeat, NOT a proof. 

 And from this point on, scientists would then investigate the phenomenon, and anything after that point would be in the realm of science. But until you get to that point, science has no bearing on the subject. Science is unable to touch the realm of perception. You can study perception of course, but what I mean to say is that you cannot prove or disprove a person's perception. And if a person is able to demonstrate or show that they are able to perceive something in audio cables, then all that they have done is demonstrate that they are able to perceive something. This applies to double blind test, triple blind test, and even "I poked out all the eyes in the world so this would be a completely blind test." 

 Now there is a great deal of sarcasm in my tone and I hope you guys have picked up on it because both sides of the debate -anti and pro cablers- are just stroking each other's ego's regarding what they believe and have missed the point. The anticablers do their best and state, oh science this and science that. The pro cablers state, oh this is what I hear and I'm sticking to it. Between the two, I will always lean towards the pro cablers. Not because I am one, but because their answer is much more genuine. Take a look at the anti cablers who keep stating, show me the proof and show me the evidence. Crack open a physics text book (most colleges have physics 2 for EMF and physics 3 for quantum and above, go with that. Or go with higher level physics) or a material science text book and start reading on crystal formation, material physics etc... and there will be sooo much scientific crap that you can write a 200 page forum post and still have about 500 pages worth of material left over. And at the end of it all, you will see that science has been trying to convince you the ENTIRE time that cables will AFFECT the signal path. So then as an anticabler you go... I don't believe this crap, those armchair theorists are all smoking something. Then you realize ok, the science is true... but that doesn't mean anything because so what if the signal is affected, if I can't hear it I can't here it.... and Finally you've reached the real point of the argument. Mind you I don't think pro cablers get to this point because they've read through the scientific jargon, Rather they've gone through the stupid posts here, the science forum bashing and all of that other nonsense and they were pushed into the corner of the room. They then put their headphones on, clutched onto their cables, kept on tapping them "I hear microphonics, so cables matter, I hear microphonics so cables matter, I hear microphonics so cables matter..." until DBT were taken off topic, the anti cablers got to call cables snake oil and a whole lot of other unscientific things were done.

 People use science and make large leaps in their conclusions illegitimately. Take for example a scientists who measures every thing they can between a stock cable and say a super duper 50000,0000 cable. They can measure resistance, thermal conductivities, electromagnetic properties etc... and each experiment can only conclude, this cable's resitance is greater than that one, the emf shielding properties of this one is greater than that one, the thermal conductivity of this cable is much less than that one. I conclude that the properties of the cables are different. Or they can go through a series of cables and state, all physical properties are the same within some tolerance (hell let's say they are EXACTLY the same to the 7th decimal place), they then conclude the MEASURABLE PROPERTIES of the cables are the same. The scientists are unable to make any type of conclusions about properties that are not physically measurable -such as the sound that results from using them in the signal path. They can measure the signal, but can they measure what people perceive? No, they can't because it is beyond the realm of what they can measure and they cannot make any claims or statements about that. Now lets say that a superscientist made from all of the genes and brain matter of the past, creates a device that can measure the signal path all the way up to your brain. The scientist can see the electronic waves going into your mind... can he make any claims about what you perceive? If you say no, then you're finally getting it.

 If you say yes, take a red crayon and a piece of paper. Draw a bulls eye on the piece of paper, tape the piece of paper to the wall (preferably a concrete one), and aim for the bulls eye with your forehead. If you still say yes, repeat (and of course repeat again). 

 So what's the point in all this
 1. Its beyond science, so stop asking for proof because there isn't one
 2. Listen..... its all that you can do
 3. Read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, there are excerpts in the book that deal with certain perceptions or ways that our brain works that we have yet to understand. He goes into detail regarding sense transference and gives an example between a normal looking bottle of booze and a fancy one. He states that people perceived that the fancy looking one was better. Now you folks out there probably say, yeah because its a placebo or people are stupid. Now I tell you instead -the bottle affected the taste. Not physically perhaps, but your mind made it so. And now I want you to think about placebos. If a placebo can cure cancer (and by placebo I mean a sugar pill), if a placebo can make you get rid of your fever, if a placebo can free you from your allergies, do you still say, "bah it was just a placebo it didn't do anything" or would you admit that perhaps there is something going on that we cannot merely quantify or perceive at this time? Take a look into current drug issues and placebos. Certain companies are having a hard time getting their drugs to pass because placebos seem to cure the same illnesses (illnesses that would not go away otherwise). 

 And for those of you who make the claim, if I can't measure it its not scientific. First perform the crayon exercise as stated above, and then look into Power of electronic circuits. Particularly in Real Power, Reactive Power, and Apparent power. If you can tell me how scientists MEASURE Reactive Power directly, meaning they measure Reactive power and not measure real power and do some silly calculations.. I'll give you a cookie, well not really but you should post your findings because you would more than likely get some kind of scientific award for it. If you still don't find that convincing, look at the history of the Neutrino and pay special attention to when it was "discovered" to when it was observed.


----------



## BIG POPPA

pdupiano, I agree with you. Most people do not do their homework just go by the "flavor" of the day. You like it or you don't? What is the controversy? There is no science to this?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_3. Read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, there are excerpts in the book that deal with certain perceptions or ways that our brain works that we have yet to understand. He goes into detail regarding sense transference and gives an example between a normal looking bottle of booze and a fancy one. He states that people perceived that the fancy looking one was better. Now you folks out there probably say, yeah because its a placebo or people are stupid. Now I tell you instead -the bottle affected the taste. Not physically perhaps, but your mind made it so. And now I want you to think about placebos. If a placebo can cure cancer (and by placebo I mean a sugar pill), if a placebo can make you get rid of your fever, if a placebo can free you from your allergies, do you still say, "bah it was just a placebo it didn't do anything" or would you admit that perhaps there is something going on that we cannot merely quantify or perceive at this time? Take a look into current drug issues and placebos. Certain companies are having a hard time getting their drugs to pass because placebos seem to cure the same illnesses (illnesses that would not go away otherwise)._

 

I disagree that placebos have this "solve all" type effect you seem to place behind them (though it is effective for certain things). Nonetheless, we do realize placebo has physical effects. That's not up for question.

 The point is:

 1) Is it the cable making the difference?

 or

 2) Is it your brain making the difference?

 We believe it's the latter. Of course by realizing it, it no longer works and hence neither holds true after that point.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree that placebos have this "solve all" type effect you seem to place behind them (though it is effective for certain things). Nonetheless, we do realize placebo has physical effects. That's not up for question.

 The point is:

 1) Is it the cable making the difference?

 or

 2) Is it your brain making the difference?

 We believe it's the latter. Of course by realizing it, it no longer works and hence neither holds true after that point._

 

Close, but unfortunately you're missing the more subtle point -Do you realize the "truth" or do you tell yourself what you want to hear ? But atleast you've reached the point where its beyond science. Thank you for stepping over. 

 But please limit the discussion at this point because the posts may get deleted or moved for being "unscientific" in the science forum....... (I am being sarcastic, its just difficult to show on a forum so I figure I'd point it out).


----------



## JohnFerrier

do cables make a larger difference in sound than changes in temperature and humidity?


----------



## BIG POPPA

Yes, easily


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, easily_

 

Then there is hope that someone can demonstrate changes in cables?


----------



## immtbiker

A different perspective.

 Going from personal experience, when I took off the original cables that came with my JH-13's (for example), 
 and put on a pair of TWag's, the difference in clarity, detail, and headstage were instantly noticeable. That is what I heard, 
 with my ears open, but also, my eyes open. But they sounded a bit constricted.
 So I let them play for 100 hours on repeat, using Count Basie Big Band, on my D-25S in a closet. I listened to the stock cable, 
 then the TWag cable new, then with 100 hours on them, with 3 of my reference CD's that are extremely good recordings, 
 and I know almost every note by heart. The difference was astonishing. Day and night. Would I have heard the same 
 difference going in blind? I can't say for sure, because I didn't try it, but the satiation that I received by the improvement, 
 was well worth the $300.
 So the question is, is the difference real or is it mind or our will inducing the results? Forget about measurements, 
 they never really pan out.
 I'd like to believe it's the first rather than the latter, but either way, I am involved in this hobby to get the best sound 
 that I can get in one of 3 different areas. 
 1- On the go
 2- In my home with the normal family ambient noise reduced by the use of foamies or customs
 3- In my bedroom with the extra heavy door closed (my haven) with some full sized headphones for bigger stage and impact

 If I am gaining these results, whether it be physically or mentally, then I am obtaining my goal, my hobby's top priority.

 I personally know that it's the cable, but let's say it's not and it's all in my head (pardon the pun), then either way, I've achieved my goal.

 We did an experiment in Jr. High School science class, and tasted 3 different things (an orange, tangerine, and a grapefruit) 
 while having our eyes closed, and pinching our noses closed. No one could tell which was which. Without the sense of smell, 
 the sense of taste went out of the window.There are too many factors involved when comparing cable changes, but the difference 
 is very real to me, and in my own little world, that's all that counts.

 BTW- I have a nice home stereo setup, and when I changed my 5 pairs of speaker cables from Monster to Cardas Neutral Reference's, 
 it was as if I got a new stereo. What more proof do I need for my own needs? If it is psychological, then I don't mind, because when I
 was 10, I hated spinach and scotch. Now, I like both of them and they both make me happy. Isn't that what it's all about?


----------



## Chef

Quote:


 Would I have heard the same
 difference going in blind? I can't say for sure, because I didn't try it 
 

All you do when you say something like this is confirming for people who already (for whatever reason) believe in expensive cables, and making everyone else's eyes roll.

  Quote:


 What more proof do I need for my own needs? 
 

If it's for your needs why are you posting it in Science, and essentially advising other people based on your own placebos?

  Quote:


 1. Its beyond science, so stop asking for proof because there isn't one 
 

Please allow me to offer you this triangle hat I made out of plastic straws in exchange for $300. I can't prove that it'll make your music sound better, but you can't prove that it doesn't. I'll even paint it gold so it looks expensive.

 pdupiano, you're not saying anything innovative. I don't know why you needed to rant so long about nothing, but essentially your point boils down to not being able to prove something doesn't exist. Thankfully, karma already punishes people like you by allowing slimy salesmen to take your money in exchange for lies.

 If it can't be demonstrated that something improves something, there is no reason—outside of research and development—to pay for it. Okay, so I can't prove that expensive cables don't sound better than normal cables. You know what? You can't prove that normal cables don't sound better than expensive cables. All you have to go on is the market, and believe me that doesn't belong in a science forum.

 What tests actually tend to show, as I've already posted in this thread, is that normal cables perform better at large distances (like 100 feet), but that under 6 feet you're not going to hear any distortion. That's 1 point against expensive cables.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But atleast you've reached the point where its beyond science. Thank you for stepping over._

 

That's not really "beyond" science in any way shape or form. It's scientific fact . . . though I have yet to see placebo cure cancer or anything of that degree like you seem to implied. It's usually smaller problems or ailments.

 There was an entire thread on it a while back, did you miss it by chance?


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chef* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it can't be demonstrated that something improves something, there is no reason—outside of research and development—to pay for it. Okay, so I can't prove that expensive cables don't sound better than normal cables. You know what? You can't prove that normal cables don't sound better than expensive cables. All you have to go on is the market, and believe me that doesn't belong in a science forum._

 

Even if you do demonstrate a difference, there's that problem of value placed on the difference. Slimey salesmen can have you royally by the balls in a this way. So look very carefully over your own shoulder.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even if you do demonstrate a difference, there's that problem of value placed on the difference. *Slimey salesmen can have you royally by the balls in a this way*. So look very carefully over your own shoulder._

 


 Or between your legs.


----------



## dallan

Here is the problem for me......I didn't believe cable made a difference. I believed that the cable thing was all hype. I knew that it was all just conductive material. Then I tried different pair of cables on my headphones since they were interchangeable and the difference was obvious. At that point I had to admit i was wrong. If I had believed that cables made a difference and they did that would be one thing, but believing they didn't and finding I was wrong would point to the fact that my opinion couldn't have influenced my ears because it would have influenced them the other direction, toward there not being any difference.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dallan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is the problem for me......I didn't believe cable made a difference. I believed that the cable thing was all hype. I knew that it was all just conductive material. Then I tried different pair of cables on my headphones since they were interchangeable and the difference was obvious. At that point I had to admit i was wrong. If I had believed that cables made a difference and they did that would be one thing, but believing they didn't and finding I was wrong would point to the fact that my opinion couldn't have influenced my ears because it would have influenced them the other direction, toward there not being any difference._

 

And that, along with my own experience, is why I do believe cables can make a difference. There are too many credible reports of differences to dismiss them all as placebo etc.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are too many credible reports of differences to dismiss them all as placebo etc._

 

Can you point me to some of these credible reports ?

 Sighted anecdotes <> credible reports, round here pardner


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you point me to some of these credible reports?_

 

Credibility is a personal thing, not a scientifically verifyable attribute. If you haven't encountered credible cable-sound reports, you don't classify them as credible.

 Some people don't even trust themselves.
.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dallan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here is the problem for me......I didn't believe cable made a difference. I believed that the cable thing was all hype. I knew that it was all just conductive material. Then I tried different pair of cables on my headphones since they were interchangeable and the difference was obvious. At that point I had to admit i was wrong. If I had believed that cables made a difference and they did that would be one thing, but believing they didn't and finding I was wrong would point to the fact that my opinion couldn't have influenced my ears because it would have influenced them the other direction, toward there not being any difference._

 

You saw the cable, you felt the cable, you liked the cable.

 This is why DBT is necessary. Anyone, skeptics and believers alike, are able to be biased the second they see the cable.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Credibility is a personal thing, not a scientifically verifyable attribute. If you haven't encountered credible cable-sound reports, you don't classify them as credible.

 Some people don't even trust themselves.
._

 

I'm certainly in agreement that testimonials relating unexpected behaviour are a lot more credible than reports which confirm the implied expectation. IMO, someone who reports that he doesn't believe in cables making a difference, going ahead to try for himself anyway, and confirming this to be the case, is far less credible than one where he doesn't believe in cables making a difference, going ahead to try for himself anyway, only to be surprised that they in fact do. The bias works both ways.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Credibility is a personal thing, not a scientifically verifyable attribute. If you haven't encountered credible cable-sound reports, you don't classify them as credible.

 Some people don't even trust themselves.
._

 

Credible to me means that it is subject to serious scrutiny, so even a weak attempt to control for human bias is more credible, or worthy of further investigation, than one which does not.

 It isnt really trust as such it is more about a recognition that our senses are easily misled and so to make it harder to be fooled we should control things that might lead us towards arriving at false conclusions such as knowing how much something cost or how pretty it is. Sean Olive at Harman has done loads of blind vs sighted comparisons and the knowledge about the non-acoustc characteristics of products always affects judgment..


----------



## dallan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You saw the cable, you felt the cable, you liked the cable.

 This is why DBT is necessary. Anyone, skeptics and believers alike, are able to be biased the second they see the cable._

 

I did see them, I didn't necessarily like them of feel any way about them. I did see them though, that part is true. I am not here to convince anyone though just stating my experience.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chef* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_pdupiano, you're not saying anything innovative. I don't know why you needed to rant so long about nothing, but essentially your point boils down to not being able to prove something doesn't exist. Thankfully, karma already punishes people like you by allowing slimy salesmen to take your money in exchange for lies._

 

Don't push your hatred of salesmen towards me. I made one point, and that this debate is beyond the ability of science to prove or disprove the existence of a person's perception. You've made no point to counter this, right now you're just complaining about prices. And you are obviously a horrible salesman, who calls a device a triangle, when it is obviously a trigonal acoustic head dampener, used to reduce the amount of vibrations caused by your hair. And they come in different sizes for different hair lenghts because of the different wave resonances caused by different hair lengths.....


  Quote:


 If it can't be demonstrated that something improves something, there is no reason—outside of research and development—to pay for it. Okay, so I can't prove that expensive cables don't sound better than normal cables. You know what? You can't prove that normal cables don't sound better than expensive cables. All you have to go on is the market, and believe me that doesn't belong in a science forum. 
 

As far as I'm concerned you're just rehashing my point with this statement. And yes, you can't prove jack using science, you can only demonstrate it and thus this WHOLE THING does not belong to the realm of science let alone the science forum. And once again, you are still agreeing that this is beyond the abilities of science. But you seem to think that it therefore pushes the subject onto the "market," I certainly don't prescribe to that idea, I don't buy gadgets just because salesmen make their claims. In fact I buy different cables because of what I've found and learned from science. While I admit that science cannot tel me whether or not my perceptions exist, it does have the ability to show me which products have notable merits and are worth buying (and yes I do mean wires).

  Quote:


 What tests actually tend to show, as I've already posted in this thread, is that normal cables perform better at large distances (like 100 feet), but that under 6 feet you're not going to hear any distortion. That's 1 point against expensive cables. 
 

WHAT HAVE YOU TESTED? This is precisely my point about people making large conclusions based on experiments. WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU TEST? Did you test impedance? Did you test signal propagation? Did you test capacitance, did you test EMI distortions? WHAT DID YOU TEST? And afterwards, what exactly did you conclude? Did you conclude that people were able to detect something from high end cables that they did not from stock or low end ones? Because that's the real question here, not that the signal is kept constant below 6ft. Additionally did you look at the test equipment? How did they record the signal propagation at 100ft? What kind of cables did they use -but I shouldn't digress, none of that matters because none of that has anything to do with what people are able to perceive.

 Your post is riddled with this notion that everyone who perceives differ
 ences in cables are all idiots who pay thousands of dollars for their cables, and quite frankly it is insulting. At the moment, you are actually backed up into a corner because
 1. Science has FAILED YOU. It is unable to shed anymore light on the subject
 2. Science has BETRAYED YOU, it has in fact showed you the EXACT opposite of what you wanted. The material I brought up in my earlier posts depicts how science TELLS you that these different properties should affect the propagation of the signal.
 3. You're cowering with one idea left... that people who believe in cables, pay large sums of money for no reason. and you are better because you only buy reasonable items.

 So I guess that's what it really boils down to doesn't it, you're only argument against cables is that it is expensive. Right? That's why you're so against it, is that it? And there it is folks.... thats the real culprit to this whole cable issue. Once again it has nothing to do with science, it has nothing to do with perception, its just people's wallets -get over it. This whole thing is non scientific so stop asking for scientific proofs and stop acting all high and mighty because you believe in something different. 

  Quote:


 That's not really "beyond" science in any way shape or form. It's scientific fact . . . though I have yet to see placebo cure cancer or anything of that degree like you seem to implied. It's usually smaller problems or ailments.

 There was an entire thread on it a while back, did you miss it by chance? 
 

When I stated beyond science, I meant that the question at hand is not in the realm of science (the question being, does an individual perceive something different from different cables").

 As far as the placebo stuff is concerned, I'm not sure which thread you are referring to, I rarely visit the science forum because of the whole cable issue and the large amounts of "wallet based" arguments rather than science based ones. 

 Oh and my claims on placebo and cancer can be found in the Scientific American Mind February Issue 2009. They stated that 2-7% of the people in a group had their tumors shrink and disappear completely using placebos. I think scientific american carries back issues online so you should be able to find the article, they did a whole thing on placebos in that issue.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Credible to me means that it is subject to serious scrutiny, so even a weak attempt to control for human bias is more credible, or worthy of further investigation, than one which does not.

 It isnt really trust as such it is more about a recognition that our senses are easily misled and so to make it harder to be fooled we should control things that might lead us towards arriving at false conclusions such as knowing how much something cost or how pretty it is. Sean Olive at Harman has done loads of blind vs sighted comparisons and the knowledge about the non-acoustc characteristics of products always affects judgment.._

 

Thank you for pointing this out, and as I mentioned earlier, Blink is one of the few books that goes in depth with regards to this topic of transferring characteristics onto unrelated senses. 

 I used to agree that cost and asthetics can lead to false conlusions, perhaps we need to study cost and asthetics as possible sources to what people hear. While it may not show a physical reason why we should hear something different, we know about the mind as much as we know about the universe.. practically nothing. So who are we to say that asthetics and cost don't affect what we hear.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I used to agree that cost and asthetics can lead to false conlusions, perhaps we need to study cost and asthetics as possible sources to what people hear. While it may not show a physical reason why we should hear something different, we know about the mind as much as we know about the universe.. practically nothing. So who are we to say that asthetics and cost don't affect what we hear._

 

You and I seem to be thinking in a similar way, but my angle of argument is a bit different. I'm enjoying your messages. I think your point of view is healthy and encourages change and productive discourse.

 My own argument basically, is that what you're referring to pervades and consumes the whole business of listening to music or anything for that matter. No one can claim the high ground of uninvolvement in this issue when taken to its basic essence. 

 It's not only about whether or not one perceives a difference between two components with no measurable differences when using particular physical measurements.

 It's also about whether or not one perceives a difference between two components with measurable differences using particular physical measurements.

 Even more importantly, it's also about the highly variable qualitative judgement we each place on the differences we perceive whether or not these differences are measurable and therefore accepted as being present on scientific grounds.

 On the one hand we're smug to dismiss cables making a difference because science hasn't been able to demonstrate any meaningful difference based on DBX testing. While on the other, we're merrily purchasing the next multi-hundred - multi-thousand dollar can or amp/dac that's supposed to make our music sound so much better when another man in the corner is saying 'hey.... it's not really making your music sound thousands of dollars better.' 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In identical fashion as they would dismiss the cable roller's belief in cables, they dismiss the conservative opinion of the one who sees no genuine value in the difference they're paying so much for.

 The subjectivity will always remain and the more we appreciate this, the less we'll try to impose our opinions and dismiss the opinions of others with regard to how a particular equipment sounds, is worth, and whether or not there's a meaningful difference when a cable/interconnect is changed..


----------



## hifi-man

I think the cable it has a essential role in a audition on a high quality equipments. On the low quality headphones, the cable quality almost doesn't matter because is not distinguishable.


----------



## SP Wild

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_do cables make a larger difference in sound than changes in temperature and humidity?_

 

I have found that temperature and humidity have a much, much, much more effect than cables. In general my subjective experience has been that the cooler and drier the climatic conditions are, the overall better the sound seems. The temperature now in Australia is quickly dropping from 40 deg C (summer) to about 24 deg C (autumn). This brings with it - tighter bass, crisper more detailed treble - more transparency - in a way no cable can ever achieve. My opinion only.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SP Wild* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have found that temperature and humidity have a much, much, much more effect than cables. In general my subjective experience has been that the cooler and drier the climatic conditions are, the overall better the sound seems. The temperature now in Australia is quickly dropping from 40 deg C (summer) to about 24 deg C (autumn). This brings with it - tighter bass, crisper more detailed treble - more transparency - in a way no cable can ever achieve. My opinion only.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

24C is more comfortable. Less distraction leads to more attention to the music which brings out the detail? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The less I think about the HD800's, the better my HD600's sound.


----------



## SP Wild

Exactly. Or perhaps the elasticity of tissue fibres at different temperatures.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you point me to some of these credible reports ?

 Sighted anecdotes <> credible reports, round here pardner 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

By credible reports I mean on forums such as here and the What Hifi forum, where too many people who appear to be genuine with no issues or axe to grind or product to sell or expectations of a difference, report hearing a difference.

 If you want me to call them sighted anecdotes rather than credible reports, then I will do so.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By credible reports I mean on forums such as here and the What Hifi forum, where too many people who appear to be genuine with no issues or axe to grind or product to sell or expectations of a difference, report hearing a difference._

 

There is no amount (of people who experience something) too large for it not to be dismissed as illusory 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, 50 Million Elvis fans can be wrong


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By credible reports I mean on forums such as here and the What Hifi forum, where too many people who appear to be genuine with no issues or axe to grind or product to sell or expectations of a difference, report hearing a difference.

 If you want me to call them sighted anecdotes rather than credible reports, then I will do so._

 

They can be as genuine as gold, but as long as they don't take various biases into account they _will_ hear differences. In fact, I believe anyone who have done this sort of testing, believer or not, has experienced differences in sound between cables, I know I have. I have even heard differences between identical factory made cables, and differences between the same one cable, plugging it out and in again. 
 You're not as foolish to belive that this constitutes as 'proof' for any actual differences? And believe you me, I _did_ hear it.
 Your brain is a master of deceit. Your mind has a mind of its own, that has been a well known fact for decades, the exact reason for why, however, is partly still a mystery.

 Do you see the face in the top middle of this picture?







 Well, let me tell you a secret, there is no face on Mars.
 And still you see one?

 To the OP:
 Do your friends believe in homeopathy? If not, it should be an easy job convincing them about the 'secrets' of cables. If they do believe in homeopathy, however, you might have to go for stronger measures, like angels, unicorns, astrology and psychic powers.


----------



## eucariote

^


----------



## JaZZ

So *how do we convince people* of the facts? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## Young Spade

This debate is obviously going to go on forever. I personally can hear a difference in cables. I haven't done any A/B/X tests myself or with others but IMO why should I? If I can plug a new cable into my setup and hear a positive, distinct difference then I'm happy with that.

 However I'm sure I could properly AB the Lune UE cable with the stock one. Directly going to that was a night and day difference. I even had to turn the volume knob on my Tomahawk down because it was just too loud and too bright.


----------



## NecroNeo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However I'm sure I could properly AB the Lune UE cable with the stock one. Directly going to that was a night and day difference. I even had to turn the volume knob on my Tomahawk down because it was just too loud and too bright._

 

Dare you to do it and post results.


----------



## Young Spade

Can't I sold the Triples and the cable. Sorry :/ But it would definitely be obvious which cable is which.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

_eucariote..._

 ... I'm rather sure that my above question was inspired by your original comment. It's a shame that you have deleted it.
.


----------



## luckybaer

Whether they do or they don't, I don't care. However, some people believe they work, and some people sell cables for lots of money. If you convinced everyone they didn't do anything, many companies would take a revenue hit.

 My view: if it doesn't hurt or hinder anyone, who cares if people spend big bucks on something like cables?


----------



## NecroNeo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Young Spade* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't I sold the Triples and the cable. Sorry :/ But it would definitely be obvious which cable is which._

 

Then why claim you could do it? That's a misleading exaggeration. Saying "I preferred _x_ cable because I spent $ on it and I am more psychologically invested in _x_ than in cable _y_" would more accurately represent your position unless you can actually ABX cable _x_ from _y_.

 IOW, don't make claims for which you cannot provide supporting data.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *luckybaer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Whether they do or they don't, I don't care. However, some people believe they work, and some people sell cables for lots of money. If you convinced everyone they didn't do anything, many companies would take a revenue hit.

 My view: if it doesn't hurt or hinder anyone, who cares if people spend big bucks on something like cables?_

 

Unfortunately I think that's the number one attitude that gives the "anti cablers" cannon fodder to fire at the pro cable folks. And its the second and third sentences of your statement that's really disturbing. As long as money is the real issue at hand, the debate won't move forward, people will keep associating cables with snake oil and won't really listen. 

 To be perfectly honest the debate is already screwed up because people keep referring to "believing" in cables rather than actually perceiving something. Most arguments against pro cablers begin by stating "They believe in cables or they believe they can hear something." What's worse is that ALL pro cablers begin with "I believe that I Can hear something" ... talk about shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## NecroNeo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's worse is that ALL pro cablers begin with "I believe that I Can hear something" ... talk about shooting yourself in the foot._

 

I agree that many people use "believe" as the verb when they talk about the difference cables make. I think it's because deep down in the core of the brain, they know the difference is deep down in the core of the brain.


----------



## Young Spade

NecroNeo: "Then why claim you could do it? That's a misleading exaggeration. Saying "I preferred x cable because I spent $ on it and I am more psychologically invested in x than in cable y" would more accurately represent your position unless you can actually ABX cable x from y."

 No... it had nothing to do with the cost nor looks of the cable. I could plainly hear that the cable made a difference. I think the difference between you and me is that I can make conclusions based on what I HEAR. Obviously that's why I'm into this hobby: to bet better enjoyment out of what I HEAR.

 I said that I could accurately AB the cable because I'm sure I could easily discern the difference. One being that the cable was noticeably brighter and the second being it is louder with the same output in volume from the amp/player.


----------



## NecroNeo

Okay, I'll grant there are fundamental differences between cables - how well they are insulated, their physical measurements (e.g. capacitance). However, I think that these differences are not perceivable by the human ear unless there is serious electromagnetic interference and the cable is poorly shielded. I think this based on the infamous anecdote of the listeners who were unable to A/B a cable from a coat hanger.

 Link: Audioholics Home Theater Forums - View Single Post - Speakers; When is good enough, enough

 Also, I couldn't ABX a LAME mp3 from a FLAC, using the same playback chain and a random playback order (not thoroughly rigorous, I'll concede). In my own flawed perception of the world, I'd expect that to make more difference than a cable, so I concluded it wasn't worth my time or money to try to obtain "better" cables.

 As to claiming one would be louder, that is the kind of variable you'd want to control in a truly blind listening test, as it was controlled in the linked story above.

 I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I am just telling you why I don't think it's worth the time, effort, or money to try to find the "perfect" cable when (some hifi enthusiast) people can't tell the difference between cable and coat hangers.
 EDIT: spelling


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unfortunately I think that's the number one attitude that gives the "anti cablers" cannon fodder to fire at the pro cable folks. And its the second and third sentences of your statement that's really disturbing. As long as money is the real issue at hand, the debate won't move forward, people will keep associating cables with snake oil and won't really listen. 
_

 

Spin that arond 180° and you might be on to something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be perfectly honest the debate is already screwed up because people keep referring to "believing" in cables rather than actually perceiving something. Most arguments against pro cablers begin by stating "They believe in cables or they believe they can hear something." What's worse is that ALL pro cablers begin with "I believe that I Can hear something" ... talk about shooting yourself in the foot._

 

I would never, ever, question what you perceive, or don't. It's a completely personal matter, but I do not think it lends much weight as an argument for your side of the discussion.
 The obvious logical conclusion is that your 'perception' is a mere self-deception.
 Sorry.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So *how do we convince people* of the facts? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

A simple demonstration of someone reliably distinguishing between two or more cables to a criterion of p < 0.05 should be enough to settle the issue (and the cables were insulated and matched for resistance and capacitance in case that made an audible difference).

 It's really a standard criterion for accepting and rejecting any testable hypothesis in science. A very nice feature of having such a universally accepted standard is that it leaves no place for dogma. Only dashed hopes and dreams when million dollar investments in new drugs, ideas and experiments fail to reach that magic threshold..

 I'm no believer in anything, believe me, and would completely accept the results of such a test. Except for believing in Thomas Bayes and Karl Popper, who sketched out the principles behind these techniques.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_eucariote...

 ... I'm rather sure that my above question was inspired by your original comment. It's a shame that you have deleted it.
._

 

Sorry I was bleary-eyed and wrote the previous response after not fully appreciating the facetiousness of the post above.


----------



## NecroNeo

On a lighter note, limpidglitch, your home equipment chain is astounding.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
So *how do we convince people* of the facts? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 

A simple demonstration of someone reliably distinguishing between two or more cables to a criterion of p < 0.05 should be enough to settle the issue (and the cables were insulated and matched for resistance and capacitance in case that made an audible difference).

 It's really a standard criterion for accepting and rejecting any testable hypothesis in science. A very nice feature of having such a universally accepted standard is that it leaves no place for dogma. Only dashed hopes and dreams when million dollar investments in new drugs, ideas and experiments fail to reach that magic threshold._

 

You know, the question was about convincing «cable believers» of the «fact» that cables don't make a difference – not vice versa.
.


----------



## eucariote

^ beats me. The stubborn beliefs of people in things that have been shown to be untrue don't affect my life. Oh wait a minute, they do..


----------



## Ypoknons

Without weighing in on the cable debate, since I haven't gotten the experience or expertise, I remember learning about a famous campaign McDconalds once did to deal with the (completely groundless) rumor that they were using worm meat in their burgers. In various separate locations they used three commercials:

 1) Rebuttal without evidence.
 2) Rebuttal with evidence that using worm meat in their burgers would be more expensive than beef, and
 3) Talking about how pure beef their burgers were without mentioning the worm rumor at all.

 It was a few years ago, but I always thought 2) was more convincing; nevertheless 3) actually increased sales the most (and thus was most effective). Now it was quite some years ago since I heard about this study, so I can't defend its methodology, but it always reminds me that disproving something and getting people to actually believe something are two different things. Economics used to assume rationality, now behavioral (i.e. irrationality) is all the rage. Now, the neurologists and behavioral economists will tell you that irrationality can be predictable (placebo, pricing schemes etc..) but then again they'll also tell you that we're still at a very early stage of understanding how the human mind actually works. 

 So yes, finding and showing proof for something is very different from convincing others of the its veracity.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *limpidglitch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Spin that arond 180° and you might be on to something. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 I would never, ever, question what you perceive, or don't. It's a completely personal matter, but I do not think it lends much weight as an argument for your side of the discussion.
 The obvious logical conclusion is that your 'perception' is a mere self-deception.
 Sorry._

 

Wait a sec, I won't let you get away with such horrible logic.

 You state that you don't question my perceptions, further claiming it is personal. Then you state that it does not lend any weight into the discussion. If the perception is truly a personal matter then it lends NOTHING to the discussion which is the reason why I have never, in any instance, used my perception to prove anything regarding cables... not ONCE. I have stated and repeated that perception can only demonstrate -it does nothing in terms of proving the existence of something which is the issue of this debate. And in fact my posts have been dedicated to attacking the so called scientific basis on the debate. I have NEVER once used perception to support any of my claims, do not group me in with whatever else you may have read or heard because I never stated anything of the kind. 

 Furthermore, your last sentence, is just plain illogical. How do you have a false perception, whereby false I mean "lie purposely" not as in "not descriptively true"? It is possible to have a false perception in the sense that what is perceived is not descriptively true, for example seeing a straw "bend" under water and deducing the straw is bent. But it is not possible for you to see this and tell yourself that you SEE the straw is straight. You cannot alter the perception, but you can alter how you respond to it. But in any case, my perception is not any form of self deception because it is free from that, my thoughts regarding the perception could very well affect how I remember the perception but my perception is never false and is certainly never a form of self deception. Your logical statement sir is completely illogical. And going back full circle... I do believe you have questioned my perception....liar 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 I agree that many people use "believe" as the verb when they talk about the difference cables make. I think it's because deep down in the core of the brain, they know the difference is deep down in the core of the brain. 
 

Now you sir are reaching, like the folks who keep attacking pro cablers, you are reaching for your wallet and clutching it to your heart and filling your thoughts with money signs instead of actual thoughts......


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NecroNeo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, I'll grant there are fundamental differences between cables - how well they are insulated, their physical measurements (e.g. capacitance). However, I think that these differences are not perceivable by the human ear unless there is serious electromagnetic interference and the cable is poorly shielded. I think this based on the infamous anecdote of the listeners who were unable to A/B a cable from a coat hanger.

 .....

 I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I am just telling you why I don't think it's worth the time, effort, or money to try to find the "perfect" cable when (some hifi enthusiast) people can't tell the difference between cable and coat hangers.
 EDIT: spelling_

 

Certainly nothing obnoxious about it, but a little bit of a careless conclusion don't you think? The experiment (if it can be called that) was to see if audiophiles (hifi enthusiasts) could tell the difference between a pair of monster cables and a pair of belden wire. The second experiment was (if I'm reading this correctly) monster cables and wire hangers and belden wire. Actually I really have quite a few questions for the second experiment. The author only writes about the monster wire and the coat hangers, forgetting about the third wire. Additionally, were the guests informed of the third wire? Perhaps they were confused about the wires available. If you're looking to differentiate between two things you take one as a reference and you try to pick up differences with the other, adding in a third would be very confusing. Take for example 3 girls with varying degrees of blondness. All three have varying degrees of blondness where one girl has brunette hair with blond highlights, another girl with blond hair with brunette highlights and one girl in between. You are told to compare two girls' hair. You are shown one girl, then the other, and unknown to you when you ask to switch back and forth, the third girl is shown to you instead. You are then asked to pick out which girl had the most blonde hair. Can you actually pick out the girl? 

 Now back to the wires. You are blindfolded, told there are two wires. One is belden, one is monster. You are given 5 opportunities to pick out which. And each time instead of doing AxB where you keep one as a reference to compare to the other, you lose sight of your reference because it may be switched out for the third. As I mentioned, it is also strange that the author does not refer to the belden wire after the first test. Does this suggest that the guests were always able to pick out the belden wire? and were never able to distinguish between monster and the coat hangers? If that's the case well then you have a perfect demonstration where blinded individuals were able to distinguish between particular wires and the belden wire. Now the question is, can you make a conclusion regarding the monster cable and the coat hanger -such as the conclusion that you cannot hear a difference between the two? 

 Not really because it wasn't being tested. When people make comparisons (particularly in science), they pick a baseline or some sort of "objective" standard. If you set the monster cables as your standard and you try to distinguish it from the belden wire (as you've been told to do) then you never question the monster cable's properties -because it is your baseline. All that you do is then compare what else you hear to your baseline. Now, if you keep changing your baseline, you are no longer using a scientific test because there is no standard of comparison. And if you keep changing your baseline and continue to accept the baseline as one particular wire, then you would end up taking all of what you experience as effects of that wire -even if they are different wires. 

 Take another example if you will of three slices of pizza. One from Dominos, one from Pizza Hut, and another from Papa Johns. You tell me that the first test is just between Papa Johns and Pizza Hut. You only offer me papa johns and pizza hut, after the test is over, you reveal to me which pizza was which. I'm shocked and amazed and feel cheated because I preferred Pizza Hut over Papa Johns because Papa Johns is more expensive. You then tell me that you are going to again use Papa Johns and Pizza hut for the next test. I know use my memory of Pizza hut as my baseline. You give me Pizza hut and Papa Johns on the first try. Based on the first test, I can pick out Pizza Hut BUT you do something sneaky in that you add in dominos in the mix so what I get is:
 PH, PPJ, D,PH, PPJ

 After determining the the first pizza is PH, I am able to taste the difference in PPJ. The next pizza is Dominos, but I recognize it doesn't taste like the last pizza which I just tasted (PPJ) so I think its just PH. Then I taste another PH pizza and just accept its PH. Lastly I taste PPJ and detect its different from the last two pizzas I just tasted so that must be PPJ. So I then conclude that I tasted
 PH-PPJ-PH-PH-PPJ 

 In this taste test you are testing differences in the pizza, not the individual attributes of the pizza. So when you experience something in a wire, you would be questioning the differences in what you experience, not in trying to determine whether this wire is this or that. And depending on your baseline you would be able to make certain conclusions. Scientific experiments take the same approach. No scientist "objectively" tests anything, they are all tested relative to a particular standard. If this standard constantly changes then they have problems. But more importantly when comparing to this standard they are doing just that -Comparing. In other words they are measuring differences between the standard and the sample, they are NOT able to make inductions from the sample alone, at least in an experiment, in an observation you can jot down stuff about the sample by itself but usually the best notes compare the sample to a common standard. 

 Conclusion-the author's "experiment" is far from an experiment and actually has 2 results
 1. 40% of the guests could pick out the monster cables 7 times
 2. All the guests could pick out the belden cable from the other cables they heard.


----------



## eucariote

^ it wasn't that messy. 

 From NecroNeo's link:

 'We gathered up a 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing.... Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them)...

 Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test.. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire."

 Two tests:

 1: a vs b

 H0: a = b
 H1: a <> b

 2: a vs c

 H0: a = c
 H2: a <> c

 test 1:>> (factorial(5)/(factorial(2)*factorial(5-2)))*(.5^2)*(.5^(5-2))

 ans =

 0.3125

 0.3125 > 0.05 Therefore H0

 test 2: distribution of guesses not sampled, no p value.

 But it wouldn't be hard to figure out the results of the 2nd test if he made everyone guess which cable was which, just like in the first test.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *limpidglitch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your brain is a master of deceit. Your mind has a mind of its own, that has been a well known fact for decades, the exact reason for why, however, is partly still a mystery._

 

Anatomical reasons people have given is that feedback (memory, expectation, multisensory integration) connections far outnumber feedforward (sense organ) connections to each sensory cortex, which has been proposed to reflect the optimal balance of information sources of inductive inference that will reasonably predict events in the world.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait a sec, I won't let you get away with such horrible logic.

 You state that you don't question my perceptions, further claiming it is personal. Then you state that it does not lend any weight into the discussion. If the perception is truly a personal matter then it lends NOTHING to the discussion which is the reason why I have never, in any instance, used my perception to prove anything regarding cables... not ONCE. I have stated and repeated that perception can only demonstrate -it does nothing in terms of proving the existence of something which is the issue of this debate. And in fact my posts have been dedicated to attacking the so called scientific basis on the debate. I have NEVER once used perception to support any of my claims, do not group me in with whatever else you may have read or heard because I never stated anything of the kind._

 

Good, then I must have misunderstood.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Furthermore, your last sentence, is just plain illogical. How do you have a false perception, whereby false I mean "lie purposely" not as in "not descriptively true"? It is possible to have a false perception in the sense that what is perceived is not descriptively true, for example seeing a straw "bend" under water and deducing the straw is bent. But it is not possible for you to see this and tell yourself that you SEE the straw is straight. You cannot alter the perception, but you can alter how you respond to it. But in any case, my perception is not any form of self deception because it is free from that, my thoughts regarding the perception could very well affect how I remember the perception but my perception is never false and is certainly never a form of self deception. Your logical statement sir is completely illogical. And going back full circle... I do believe you have questioned my perception....liar 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I don't think I said anything about "having a false perception", which indeed do sound a bit silly.
 What I did try to communicate was that perception alone is a poor basis for truth.
 As you mentioned, even though you might perceive the partially submerged straw as bent, doesn't mean it really is. How you interpret your perceptions is important, and this is what I questioned. 

 By self-deceit I mean ignoring/denying big chunks of rational data.


----------



## T.R.A.N.C.E.

Haha Eucariote! I've heard of tests exactly like you did, blind ABX tests with coat hanger as wire and same results, no one could tell the difference!

 In my heart I know for sure that cables make no difference however when I compare Silver wire to Copper wire I swear I can hear a difference! But I know that this must be my perception, sooo annoying


----------



## BIG POPPA

Silver and Copper wire are different. I can tell the difference too, on my rig. No big deal.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The stubborn beliefs of people in things that have been shown to be untrue don't affect my life..._

 

Isn't it a bit stubborn to insist in a «belief» in the context of cable sound (and moreover to commit yourself to the «untrue» credo)? – I don't «believe» in cable sound, I just perceive it – and can't be convinced otherwise. If I were going by my «belief», based on so-called «hard facts», there would probably be no difference.
.


----------



## eucariote

^ from another post-

 "..The method for accepting a new factual hypothesis is always the same: assume the null hypothesis until data shows otherwise to a commonly accepted criterion (p < .05). If scientific hypotheses were done in the reverse direction, we could assume that we are all the holy creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or anything else) until proven otherwise."

 For the record, I don't have a belief in cables in either direction and am just pointing out a technique. It's just that no one has demonstrated an effect (that I'm aware of), but I would happily accept a positive result.

 Tho from my training I know that perception is shaped by other senses by its very design, so DBT is a non-negotiable necessity (I do research in a medical school and would be fired and sued for fraud and possibly manslaughter if a result from a non-blind test was eventually applied in a clinical setting).


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ it wasn't that messy. 

 From NecroNeo's link:

 'We gathered up a 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing.... Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them)...

 Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test.. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire."

 Two tests:

 1: a vs b

 H0: a = b
 H1: a <> b

 2: a vs c

 H0: a = c
 H2: a <> c

 test 1:>> (factorial(5)/(factorial(2)*factorial(5-2)))*(.5^2)*(.5^(5-2))

 ans =

 0.3125

 0.3125 > 0.05 Therefore H0

 test 2: distribution of guesses not sampled, no p value.

 But it wouldn't be hard to figure out the results of the 2nd test if he made everyone guess which cable was which, just like in the first test._

 


 Ah ok ,yep I definitley misread the second test. But here's the issue
 The first one already indicates an ability to distinguish between cables second one well, has no numbers. The Observer glosses over having 2 people guess which cable was the monster cable, thinking it was meaningless because he still concludes that no one could tell the cables apart, so what if his experiment (2nd one) led to 2 people concluding through all 5 trials which was which but just forgot to mention that (to be honest without numbers analyzing the second test is just rediculous). But if you read the remainder of my post, what if what the subjects did was the opposite of what I stated. What if they used the Belden wire as their reference and would simply look at the differences between their reference and the monster cable. As everyone knows, take out your baseline and you have nothing but confusion and a mess of useless data.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NecroNeo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On a lighter note, limpidglitch, your home equipment chain is astounding. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hah! Yes, can't complain.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *limpidglitch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.....

 By self-deceit I mean ignoring/denying big chunks of rational data._

 

And there you go -that's the issue I have with your statements, its that I am not ignoring or denying big chunks of data -big chunks of scientific data such as material properties. A lot of folks gloss over the difference between 99.99 versus 99.9999 Wires but the truth of the matter is, it matters a whole lot. Just look into the propagation of light waves in non-crystalline or semi-crystalline structures. Any impurities in the wire would distort the path the electrons take. Don't make the mistake of viewing an electron as merely a particle going through a tube, its also a wave and behaves like one as it passes through a crystalline structure. In terms of self-deceit, I think the anti cabler side is more prone to this than the ... well actually I can't really make the comment since both sides tend to block out these things.... But here I am -a pro cabler, with science as the MAIN reason why I do buy high end cables. I've even gone so far as use my lab at school to test densities to sniff out SPC sellers who claim its pure silver and use an SEM to take pics of silver wire in my possession. 

 As for perception as a basis of truth alone, I certainly do agree with you that its bad to let perception alone be your basis of truth. But the issue is, what else would you rely on? Our perceptions may not be faulty, but our interpretations of the sense perceptions are either questionable or really just a plain mystery. At the moment I am still fascinated by the idea of sense transference. Another example is the sprite can, research showed that by showing a certain percentage more of yellow on each can (I think it was 15%), people perceived sprite to have a stronger lemon taste (another example from Blink). People can go on for days arguing, oh but there's nothing in the sprite, its just the can... well so what when all the subjects perceived a change in the soda (or presumably a large enough number that led to sprite changing their can's design). We know very little about how our minds work and what happens after we get sense data, and that is the honest truth. Now I think it is a disservice to ones self to ignore this fact and go on to claim that there is nothing in cables, perhaps you believe the other way. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm taking in as much of the facts as I can and I have not omitted or neglected any pieces of info because the truth of the matter is I don't know what causes people to perceive something in cables and that's really my position on this whole debate -I don't know jack but I do take offense to others who claim to know because it is simply unknowable at this point in time, perhaps we will find out more in the future.


----------



## JohnFerrier

But why do ppl hear difference in cables rather than components more likely to cause a difference in sound . . . like the volume control? Many systems use potentiometers with merely conductive plastic such as the Alps Black Beauties. No four, five or six 9's here . . .


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And there you go -that's the issue I have with your statements, its that I am not ignoring or denying big chunks of data -big chunks of scientific data such as material properties. A lot of folks gloss over the difference between 99.99 versus 99.9999 Wires but the truth of the matter is, it matters a whole lot. Just look into the propagation of light waves in non-crystalline or semi-crystalline structures. _

 

The question is , is this a good property to measure. I have done a load of measurements on cables, but rather than things like impedance and capacitance I have examined (albeit crudely) the end-result audio signal-carrying capacity, i.e the effect of different cables in moving different frequencies from A to B. On this basis I found that the differences between 77c and $139 cables were miniscule when consistently measured. That whatever material differences there were did not translate into big differences when you just look at cables as a black box with inputs and outputs.
 Where all you want is to get a signal , more or less unaltered, from source to destination

  Quote:


 Any impurities in the wire would distort the path the electrons take. Don't make the mistake of viewing an electron as merely a particle going through a tube, its also a wave and behaves like one as it passes through a crystalline structure. 
 

This may be true but it may not translate into real diffculties in the *relatively* easy process of moving low frequency information. For mhz systems this may be a problem. 


  Quote:


 We know very little about how our minds work and what happens after we get sense data, and that is the honest truth. Now I think it is a disservice to ones self to ignore this fact and go on to claim that there is nothing in cables, perhaps you believe the other way. 
 

Whilst being as anti-skinnerian as anyone this may not be a really big problem. If we treat the system as a black box with inputs and outputs we can observe behavior (outputs) and not worry about the detailed internal processes for now. In this case we can regard the acoustic and non-acoustic properties of cables as inputs. We can change either and observe the effect on behavior. 

 That some people behave as if a prettier or more expensive cable leads to greater pleasure is beyond doubt, we know it happens. And it even works by proxy, you can show someone a pretty cable and tell them they will listen to it but get them to listen to the stock cable and they will still exhibit the same observed behavior, they create an expectation and fulfill it.

 Human psychology is fascinating...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NecroNeo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, I'll grant there are fundamental differences between cables - how well they are insulated, their physical measurements (e.g. capacitance). However, I think that these differences are not perceivable by the human ear unless there is serious electromagnetic interference and the cable is poorly shielded. I think this based on the infamous anecdote of the listeners who were unable to A/B a cable from a coat hanger.

 Link: Audioholics Home Theater Forums - View Single Post - Speakers; When is good enough, enough

 Also, I couldn't ABX a LAME mp3 from a FLAC, using the same playback chain and a random playback order (not thoroughly rigorous, I'll concede). In my own flawed perception of the world, I'd expect that to make more difference than a cable, so I concluded it wasn't worth my time or money to try to obtain "better" cables.

 As to claiming one would be louder, that is the kind of variable you'd want to control in a truly blind listening test, as it was controlled in the linked story above.

 I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I am just telling you why I don't think it's worth the time, effort, or money to try to find the "perfect" cable when (some hifi enthusiast) people can't tell the difference between cable and coat hangers.
 EDIT: spelling_

 

That is an interesting link. I have started to make my own cables and as a result have been swapping cables about. The one thing that cables do make a difference with is volume. That is touched upon in the link. Some cables give a greater range of usable volume than others and/or sound louder at the same volume setting on the amp. So that is one reason why we can hear a difference between cables. Secondly, the poster states out of the group he and another did consistently pick out which cable was which. So that is another reason why (some) people can report hearing a difference and others cannot. All of the ABX tests I have read about do not have all people fail them all of the time, so proving we cannot tell the difference between cables. 

 So I still think that there are reasons out with placebo etc that mean cables can make a difference.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is an interesting link. I have started to make my own cables and as a result have been swapping cables about. The one thing that cables do make a difference with is volume. That is touched upon in the link. Some cables give a greater range of usable volume than others and/or sound louder at the same volume setting on the amp. So that is one reason why we can hear a difference between cables. Secondly, the poster states out of the group he and another did consistently pick out which cable was which. So that is another reason why (some) people can report hearing a difference and others cannot. All of the ABX tests I have read about do not have all people fail them all of the time, so proving we cannot tell the difference between cables. 

 So I still think that there are reasons out with placebo etc that mean cables can make a difference._

 

With regard to volume, I had a startling experience with this when comparing the AKG 702 stock cable with the ALO SXC Cryo. I had to turn the volume up when I switched to the stock cable. I was really surprised at the difference since my last experience was with the HD650 and Cardas cable where I was most disappointed. I can't say to this day, whether or not there was really any difference in sound between the stock and Cardas cables.


----------



## Rico67

If we spend our time to heard the sound, we 'll loose : THE MUSIC.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...For the record, *I don't have a belief* in cables in either direction and am just pointing out a technique...._

 

I see, you dont have a belief – yet you keep on projecting a belief on me or like-minded persons (aka «cable believers»). And you keep on pretending a «truth» («cables don't make a difference»). That's the stubbornness I keep on projecting onto you – at least as long as you stick to your stubbornness. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But why do ppl hear difference in cables rather than components more likely to cause a difference in sound . . . like the volume control? Many systems use potentiometers with merely conductive plastic such as the Alps Black Beauties. No four, five or six 9's here . . ._

 

Potentiometers may very well make a difference. It's just that it is hard to verify, since they aren't easily swappable. I thought there was a difference between my former hand-assembled stepped attenuator and the 20-kΩ Alps potentiometer that replaced it in the passive pre-amp in my speaker system – n favor of the former. I just couldn't stand the steps and clicks anymore.
.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The question is , is this a good property to measure. I have done a load of measurements on cables, but rather than things like impedance and capacitance I have examined (albeit crudely) the end-result audio signal-carrying capacity, i.e the effect of different cables in moving different frequencies from A to B. On this basis I found that the differences between 77c and $139 cables were miniscule when consistently measured. That whatever material differences there were did not translate into big differences when you just look at cables as a black box with inputs and outputs.
 Where all you want is to get a signal , more or less unaltered, from source to destination_

 

Keeping the signal unaltered is the goal may I ask how you've measured the signal before and after the wire? More importantly can you point out which devices you've used to take/make the measurements? 


  Quote:


 This may be true but it may not translate into real diffculties in the *relatively* easy process of moving low frequency information. For mhz systems this may be a problem. 
 

It isn't about the difference in frequency so much as the actual behavior of electrons through a uniform crystal medium. Take for example an opaque lens, a translucent lens, and a transparent lens made out of aluminum oxide (you can refer to Fundamentals of Material Science and Engineering: An integrated approach by Callister and Rethwish third edition -figure 1.2 p4). These lenses affect the path of light (taking into account all visible frequencies). The transparent lens is made up of a single crystal (as pure as you can get), the translucent is made up of multiple crystals and the opaque one is made of hundreds of crystals. Each one has varying degrees of purity and different sized crystals and each affects the propagation of a wave differently. The same is true for other electromagnetic waves and in this case electrons through a crystalline metal structure. The frequencies do not matter like in the case of skin effects, because we are dealing with fundamental behavior of wave-particles. Everytime that a wave comes across a boundary layer (two crystals butt up against each other), the wave scatters and to be honest its path is then difficult to predict. The only way for a wave to truly go through the copper/silver/metal undisturbed is to go through a single crystalline (pure) wire. This is the reason why OCC was a leap in terms of purity. We keep using the term purity but what really happens is the process allows for longer uni-crystals to form. I'm still trying to find out more on cryogenic processes because it does remove impurities in certain materials but that's a bit beyond me right now. 


  Quote:


 Whilst being as anti-skinnerian as anyone this may not be a really big problem. If we treat the system as a black box with inputs and outputs we can observe behavior (outputs) and not worry about the detailed internal processes for now. In this case we can regard the acoustic and non-acoustic properties of cables as inputs. We can change either and observe the effect on behavior. 

 That some people behave as if a prettier or more expensive cable leads to greater pleasure is beyond doubt, we know it happens. And it even works by proxy, you can show someone a pretty cable and tell them they will listen to it but get them to listen to the stock cable and they will still exhibit the same observed behavior, they create an expectation and fulfill it.

 Human psychology is fascinating... 
 

I really want to agree with you here. As an EE, I tend to treat anything and everything as black boxes with inputs and outputs (hell it's how we've been taught). But the issue is the black box scenario fails, and it only fails in one certain condition and unfortunately the human mind is a breeding ground for it. Given the same input over and over again, the human mind will respond different because of this one thing, this one... little itty bitty detail ... -Human Memory. If we take out human memory then yes we can treat the mind as a black box, unfortunately we can't. And therefore o experience is EVER the same. Human memory prevents us from using the black box approach. Easiest way to tell. Poke a person every day, see what they do every day, if its always the same you have a shot at using the black box approach -but chances are that's not the case. 

 I also wanted to elaborate a bit more about the test set up that you have regarding signal propagation through a wire. Do you have a precise measurement that you are looking for? Do you get analog data into and out of your measuring device or are you digitizing the waves/measurements for easier access. And do you know the sensitivity levels of your equipment? 

 Additionally I also wanted to point out that if we make the observation that certain properties of cables (not directly linked to their physical properties ie. Aesthetics), affects their perceptions, then whatever you are testing cannot conclude that people do not hear anything. It can simply conclude that cables do not differ in terms of their ability to send signals. But I would still really like to know more about your testing methods.


----------



## NecroNeo

Prog Rock Man:

 The poster could not distinguish cables, I think you might have misread. 

 "The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them). This was done 7 times in a row!"
 Later:
 "The test was conducted. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use."

 Now I think that words have knowable meanings, so when the writer says none could determine which was which, I understand that to mean that 1) nobody in the room even guessed whether A/B was Monster/Belden, or 2) everyone made guesses that were not statistically significant predictors of the wire type.

 As I'm re-reading this thread, I'm noticing one of the big sticking points is whether you can hear a difference blind vs. whether you can hear a difference in a sighted test. There's definitely reason to accept blind test evidence as superior to sighted test evidence, because blind test evidence controls for so many psychological variables that impact perception of sound.

 However, an interesting experimental design would be using a 'good enough' cable and a 'flawed' cable (bass/treble rolloff, distortion, or some other flaw), both sighted and blind:

 The blind side of the study would be double blind, so the tester is unaware of which cable is which. The subject would never see the cable. This is essentially a control group to establish a baseline of human hearing as it exists independent of the other senses and other knowledge that could influence perception. (Obviously they wouldn't be told what flaw the cable had.)

 The sighted side of the study is more complex. Subjects would be able to see which cable is which, but the tester would not know the difference. Cable appearance would be a highly manipulated variable in this side.

 25% - Good looks expensive, flawed looks cheap.
 25% - Good looks expensve, flawed looks expensive.
 25% - Good looks cheap, flawed looks cheap.
 25% - Good looks cheap, flawed looks expensive.

 Now H0 in side 1 of the study is that a=b. H1 a<>b. If people can hear a difference, then their hearing is decent. If subject prediction of cable type is within 95% confidence level, excellent. Use the subjects that got it right for side 2. If the results instead confirm H0, you can use all subjects from side 1 in side 2 and still get meaningful data.

 Now, in side 2 our null hypothesis is that $/appearance has no effect on subject prediction of cable type. Through these trials, we see if the quality of the cable or the appearance of the cable is a better predictor of subject opinion of a cable.

 In order to satisfy those who would claim that it takes ear training to differentiate between minute differences in cables, we could even use a subject group consisting only of those who claim they can hear a difference in a sighted listening room.
 Have I missed any essential points? Because this started as an idea for fun and now I'm thinking of pitching it to the psychology and physics departments of my university as an interdisciplinary study.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see, you dont have a belief – yet you keep on projecting a belief on me or like-minded persons (aka «cable believers»). And you keep on pretending a «truth» («cables don't make a difference»). That's the stubbornness I keep on projecting onto you – at least as long as you stick to your stubbornness. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

look closer.

 What I believe is a methodology. It simply states that no hypothesized process can be accepted until someone demonstrates that its actual effects are not random. It is eminently fair and open and requires only positive evidence. It says that after even 10 negative results, any positive result will be accepted if the test was well-conducted.

 Now contrast that to your position. 

 What you have shown are:
 - non-discrimination ability in a blind test
 - perception of a difference when sighted.

 It is canonical that perception -sincere, non-judgemental, reliable, experienced- is made consistent by the brain with prior expectations, experience and concurrent information from other senses. For that reason peer-reviewed journals only publish ideas that are supported by data collected in blind tests with statistically significant results. 

 To do otherwise would open the floodgates to demonstrably wrong, illusory, and counter-productive ideas that would lead to mortal errors in judgement, block scientific advancement and would allow the grotesque and confused to have equal footing with ideas that real, insightful and true.

 You would not believe the scale of collective human genius, productivity and cumulative advancement that result from these simple universally accepted techiques for evaluating ideas. 

 I cast my lot with them.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And there you go -that's the issue I have with your statements, its that I am not ignoring or denying big chunks of data -big chunks of scientific data such as material properties. A lot of folks gloss over the difference between 99.99 versus 99.9999 Wires but the truth of the matter is, it matters a whole lot. Just look into the propagation of light waves in non-crystalline or semi-crystalline structures. Any impurities in the wire would distort the path the electrons take. Don't make the mistake of viewing an electron as merely a particle going through a tube, its also a wave and behaves like one as it passes through a crystalline structure. In terms of self-deceit, I think the anti cabler side is more prone to this than the ... well actually I can't really make the comment since both sides tend to block out these things.... But here I am -a pro cabler, with science as the MAIN reason why I do buy high end cables. I've even gone so far as use my lab at school to test densities to sniff out SPC sellers who claim its pure silver and use an SEM to take pics of silver wire in my possession._

 

The purity of copper is a measure of iron impurities, and is only affecting resistance, and that at a positively miniscule degree. 
 What do you think the purity of that coat hanger was?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As for perception as a basis of truth alone, I certainly do agree with you that its bad to let perception alone be your basis of truth. But the issue is, what else would you rely on? Our perceptions may not be faulty, but our interpretations of the sense perceptions are either questionable or really just a plain mystery. At the moment I am still fascinated by the idea of sense transference. Another example is the sprite can, research showed that by showing a certain percentage more of yellow on each can (I think it was 15%), people perceived sprite to have a stronger lemon taste (another example from Blink). People can go on for days arguing, oh but there's nothing in the sprite, its just the can... well so what when all the subjects perceived a change in the soda (or presumably a large enough number that led to sprite changing their can's design). We know very little about how our minds work and what happens after we get sense data, and that is the honest truth. Now I think it is a disservice to ones self to ignore this fact and go on to claim that there is nothing in cables, perhaps you believe the other way. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm taking in as much of the facts as I can and I have not omitted or neglected any pieces of info because the truth of the matter is I don't know what causes people to perceive something in cables and that's really my position on this whole debate -I don't know jack but I do take offense to others who claim to know because it is simply unknowable at this point in time, perhaps we will find out more in the future._

 

So you do admit that there is a great probability that it is all going on inside your head?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Keeping the signal unaltered is the goal may I ask how you've measured the signal before and after the wire? More importantly can you point out which devices you've used to take/make the measurements?_

 

As I said it was a somewhat crude set of tests....
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/my...rprise-405217/

 It was analog out-----AD stage -----PC. The reference was wav files burned to CD and the comparison was the resultant different captured waveforms using different cables. Precision was about 16 bits.


  Quote:


 But the issue is the black box scenario fails, and it only fails in one certain condition and unfortunately the human mind is a breeding ground for it. Given the same input over and over again, the human mind will respond different because of this one thing, this one... little itty bitty detail ... -Human Memory. If we take out human memory then yes we can treat the mind as a black box, unfortunately we can't. And therefore o experience is EVER the same. Human memory prevents us from using the black box approach. Easiest way to tell. Poke a person every day, see what they do every day, if its always the same you have a shot at using the black box approach -but chances are that's not the case. 
 

Memory is in the black box so we dont really care about it for our purposes. Also memory is prety unreliable anyway and memory for sound especially so. It is like driving a car for most of us we do not care if the engine is straight, V or rotary, we depress the accelerator and it (hopefully) goes faster. We have inputs and observable outputs. So you give someone a fancy cable and they say it sounds better even when we trickily swap it out for stocky, what exact internal processes are involved in this piece of self-trickery we can leave to Psychologists to model (my first two degrees are in Psychology :-
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





  Quote:


 Additionally I also wanted to point out that if we make the observation that certain properties of cables (not directly linked to their physical properties ie. Aesthetics), affects their perceptions, then whatever you are testing cannot conclude that people do not hear anything. It can simply conclude that cables do not differ in terms of their ability to send signals. But I would still really like to know more about your testing methods. 
 

That is why serious sound researchers do blind testing to remove those biases, the subjects no longer know the price or appearance and are forced to judge by sound alone...Typically when this is done evaluations are lower.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As I said it was a somewhat crude set of tests....
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/my...rprise-405217/

 It was analog out-----AD stage -----PC. The reference was wav files burned to CD and the comparison was the resultant different captured waveforms using different cables. Precision was about 16 bits.

 Memory is in the black box so we dont really care about it for our purposes. Also memory is prety unreliable anyway and memory for sound especially so. It is like driving a car for most of us we do not care if the engine is straight, V or rotary, we depress the accelerator and it (hopefully) goes faster. We have inputs and observable outputs. So you give someone a fancy cable and they say it sounds better even when we trickily swap it out for stocky, what exact internal processes are involved in this piece of self-trickery we can leave to Psychologists to model (my first two degrees are in Psychology :-
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That is why serious sound researchers do blind testing to remove those biases, the subjects no longer know the price or appearance and are forced to judge by sound alone...Typically when this is done evaluations are lower._

 

Sorry I should have made my post regarding memory a bit clearer. When I said memory is part of the system, what that really means is that each even that ever occurs is unique. This results in the idea that you can never actually test the human mind because if you apply one set tests on the mind, the mind forever changes due to memory so what you have is an ever changing black box. Yes you can test the physical aspects of the brain (as I'm sure you've done since you've studied phsychology) and I would concede to a 99.99999(8N) degree that the brain can be treated as a black box, but as far as the mind goes, I think memory prevents it from being a testable thing. In my earlier posts I emphasized baselines for all forms of credible measurements. If you take a changing mind, then you never have a baseline. Further more memory prevents the black box idea because now you can have the same inputs and obtain different outputs. Wouldn't it be odd if you pushed on the pedal and different things kept on happening, you speed up in one instance and you slow down in another. That's what I'm suggesting occurs with memory. 

 And it isn't memory itself that is an issue, it is the incorporation of memory in a system that prevents it from being a simple output device. A lot of things in science are easy to study and can be simplified into the black box because they are BIBO (bounded input, bounded output), but in the case of the mind you have Bounded input, unbounded output because a person's actions or thoughts are not directly linked to just the input, but the input + memory. If you studied computer science and I think they covered a bit of it earlier on in boolean logic stuff in my EE classes, we came across Latches where the output of the system relied on both the input signal and the clock or some stored information (ie. memory). It was easy to study latches, because there were usually only two possible states of the latch. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury with the mind.

 I also saw your thread, I remembered seeing that thread before but never got a chance to ask you how you captured the output. I know you used an analog source, but what did you use to capture the data? Could you specify the equipment and software you used to capture the data on your pc? I'll try to run the same tests or try to make the same set up to see if there are any possible issues such as lack of sensitivity, A-D and D-A issues, or perhaps even some software ones.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *limpidglitch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The purity of copper is a measure of iron impurities, and is only affecting resistance, and that at a positively miniscule degree. 
 What do you think the purity of that coat hanger was?_

 

I posted something more regarding wave propagation in a crystalline medium, it should be the second to most recent post. Impurities affect much more than resistance because you have to view an electron as a wave-particle. And as for the purity of the coat hanger, I would go so far as to state that it wasn't copper at all and could very well be a different metal all together in which case comparing purities would be a horrible thing to do (unless you want to make rash conclusions). 

  Quote:


 So you do admit that there is a great probability that it is all going on inside your head? 
 

Of course, this all goes on in a person's head and it leads to my point that -science can't touch it ( "can't touch this" plays in the background). I don't know anything about the mind and have therefore not limited the effects of cables to their physical properties and I accept full well that aesthetics, cost, and other variables associated to cables can and do affect a person's perceptions. This is opposed to the anti-cabler view that stipulates that the source of a person's perception must come from some physical property (hence the testing) and neglects all other things. 

 I forgot to mention this but Nick_Charles also posted :
  Quote:


 That is why serious sound researchers do blind testing to remove those biases, the subjects no longer know the price or appearance and are forced to judge by sound alone...Typically when this is done evaluations are lower. 
 

And this fully agrees with the anti-cable mentality that there must be some physical aspect in the cable that leads to perception. But I state that they make false conclusions, stating that there is nothing in the cables to lead people to perceive different sounds, because they forgo the idea that there are more than just physical properties that can affect our perceptions. We see this all the time in companies doing branding studies, and in the work of "image consultants." I implore anyone interested in this topic to go out and read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (and I assure you I am not Malcolm Gladwell nor do I benefit from the sale of his books -well I do because it helps me make my point, I just think that there are very relevant pieces in that book to the discussion we have here).


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry I should have made my post regarding memory a bit clearer. When I said memory is part of the system, what that really means is that each even that ever occurs is unique. This results in the idea that you can never actually test the human mind because if you apply one set tests on the mind, the mind forever changes due to memory so what you have is an ever changing black box. Yes you can test the physical aspects of the brain (as I'm sure you've done since you've studied phsychology) and I would concede to a 99.99999(8N) degree that the brain can be treated as a black box, but as far as the mind goes, I think memory prevents it from being a testable thing. In my earlier posts I emphasized baselines for all forms of credible measurements. If you take a changing mind, then you never have a baseline. Further more memory prevents the black box idea because now you can have the same inputs and obtain different outputs. Wouldn't it be odd if you pushed on the pedal and different things kept on happening, you speed up in one instance and you slow down in another. That's what I'm suggesting occurs with memory. 

 And it isn't memory itself that is an issue, it is the incorporation of memory in a system that prevents it from being a simple output device. A lot of things in science are easy to study and can be simplified into the black box because they are BIBO (bounded input, bounded output), but in the case of the mind you have Bounded input, unbounded output because a person's actions or thoughts are not directly linked to just the input, but the input + memory. If you studied computer science and I think they covered a bit of it earlier on in boolean logic stuff in my EE classes, we came across Latches where the output of the system relied on both the input signal and the clock or some stored information (ie. memory). It was easy to study latches, because there were usually only two possible states of the latch. Unfortunately we don't have that luxury with the mind.

 I also saw your thread, I remembered seeing that thread before but never got a chance to ask you how you captured the output. I know you used an analog source, but what did you use to capture the data? Could you specify the equipment and software you used to capture the data on your pc? I'll try to run the same tests or try to make the same set up to see if there are any possible issues such as lack of sensitivity, A-D and D-A issues, or perhaps even some software ones._

 

You can adjust for random variations and unexpected outputs by doing lots and lots of samples, then the few strange results can keep the psychologists happy but we get a decent aggregate picture.

 CD player Denon DCD900 analog out RCA cables-----Edirol UA-1EX USB sound card analog input set to 44.1khz-----PC Lenovo Y710 Windows Vista 4GB---ASIO drivers------Audacity set to 16/44.1 records wav files. Audacity used to plot the frequency spectra of the samples and export the numeric values to text files, imported into Excel and differences calculated and plotted as line graphs...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What I believe is a methodology. ... grotesque and confused to have equal footing with ideas that real, insightful and true..._

 

No need to repeat your beloved methodology. It's not what I'm talking of. I was talking of the terms «belief» and «believer» which you use so unreflectedly and frivolously – except for yourself and your own approach. Again: I don't «believe» in cable sound, I hear it. My method of evaluating gear is taylored to my needs: If it sounds to my taste under real-world conditions (= my usual listening environment and conditions), it serves my demands perfectly. There's no belief involved, only perception. It doesn't fit your idea of a perfect evaluation methodology, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with belief. I hope you can accept that. If not, I don't care as well.
.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can adjust for random variations and unexpected outputs by doing lots and lots of samples, then the few strange results can keep the psychologists happy but we get a decent aggregate picture.

 CD player Denon DCD900 analog out RCA cables-----Edirol UA-1EX USB sound card analog input set to 44.1khz-----PC Lenovo Y710 Windows Vista 4GB---ASIO drivers------Audacity set to 16/44.1 records wav files. Audacity used to plot the frequency spectra of the samples and export the numeric values to text files, imported into Excel and differences calculated and plotted as line graphs..._

 

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but memory does not lead to random outputs, it leads to an unpredicatable/random result. In the case of cables you have two possible outputs: 1. Able to detect something in the cables, 2. Not able to detect something in the cables. I'm not stating that memory leads to a new output (eg output 3) what I am stating is that memory prevents a person from using the same input and always getting the same output. If a third or fourth output arises, then yes you can take those into account as random variations. But that's rarely the case for well designed experiments, and is not the case here. By having memory, I'm stating that the same stimuli will lead to a different response. So say you have 2 possible outputs (A and B) and you have two inputs (1 and 2). If it is always true that 1 ==> A and 2==>B or even if 1==>A and 2==>A, then the mind could be studied as a black box (you can study inputs and outputs). But because of memory it is possible that 1==>A and then 1==>B the next time you run the test. The only way for the mind to be a black box is if a person's experiences did not affect their thoughts and responses to stimuli in the future -in other words you have a person who does not learn. That's my main reason for rejecting the blackbox notion of the mind. 

 Thanks for posting your testing set up. I'm trying to get more info on the audacity spectrum analysis I actually didn't know that audacity could do that for you.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just couldn't stand the steps and clicks anymore.
._

 

Just begun a project involving 0.5 dB, 45 position steps and clicks : ).


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* 
_This is opposed to the anti-cabler view that stipulates that the source of a person's perception must come from some physical property (hence the testing) and neglects all other things._

 

^

 Doesn't make sense. You're the one that seems to be arguing in terms of physical properties making a difference based on purities, etc. The "anti-cabler" view leans towards the hypothesis that placebo or other concepts are occurring that aren't really happening in the realm of physics and measurements.

 Hence the "it's all in your head" mantra some of us tend to adopt.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's no belief involved, only perception. It doesn't fit your idea of a perfect evaluation methodology, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with belief._

 

I hear you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And have no doubt that you hear these differences and they are consistent and real. I think that we just attribute it to different things. 

 You do and should enjoy your system more because of that. So do I and I can't help it. But I don't trust my senses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is canonical that perception -sincere, non-judgemental, reliable, experienced- is made consistent by the brain with prior expectations and information from other senses._


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hear you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And have no doubt that you hear these differences and they are consistent and real. I think that we just attribute it to different things. 

 You do and should enjoy your system more because of that. So do I and I can't help it. But I don't trust my senses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Man, if you can't trust your senses you are in the wrong hobby IMO?
 This hobby is all about stimulating the sense of hearing. If you can't handle spending the money or trying something new it is OK. Just please do not be the party pooper discounting everybody's opinion on this matter.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, if you can't trust your senses you are in the wrong hobby IMO?_

 

Why is that? Do you trust your eyes watching David Copperfield?

  Quote:


 This hobby is all about stimulating the sense of hearing. 
 

Stimulating doesn't mean you have to trust squat.

  Quote:


 If you can't handle spending the money or trying something new it is OK. 
 

I'm sure we can, we just prefer stuff that can actually be attributed to a physical reality rather that "perceptions" made by something ultimately unreliable.

  Quote:


 Just please do not be the party pooper discounting everybody's opinion on this matter. 
 

Opinions can be wrong in this case as it does not relate to a "taste", but instead is a debate of what the actual facts are.


 As it stands, cable believers are just that - believers. Until proof is provided to the scientific community and put under scrutiny it will stay that way.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is that? Do you trust your eyes watching David Copperfield?



 Stimulating doesn't mean you have to trust squat.



 I'm sure we can, we just prefer stuff that can actually be attributed to a physical reality rather that "perceptions" made by something ultimately unreliable.



 Opinions can be wrong in this case as it does not relate to a "taste", but instead is a debate of what the actual facts are.


 As it stands, cable believers are just that - believers. Until proof is provided to the scientific community and put under scrutiny it will stay that way._

 

Some of us do not watch David Copperfield.
 Trust is up to you? But if you don't you are missing out!
 Some can not, they try every excuse not to spend money.
 You want proof... Spend the money after doing the necessary homework to define the path to travel in this hobby. You can't get every answer on the internet with this hobby. It takes money and participation. How many mini meets have you been to or organize Shike? How many people in the industry have you really addressed your concerns too? Have you really done your homework? Just asking?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some of us do not watch David Copperfield._

 

Point still stands -- senses aren't trustworthy and you know it.

  Quote:


 Trust is up to you? But if you don't you are missing out! 
 

Trust doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

  Quote:


 Some can not, they try every excuse not to spend money. 
 

So you stereotype everyone that questions it? Besides, how does this have any merit in regards to the science of cables?

  Quote:


 You want proof... Spend the money after doing the necessary homework to define the path to travel in this hobby. 
 

Has nothing to do with the topic, and you're insinuating I haven't.

  Quote:


 You can't get every answer on the internet with this hobby. 
 

Never said you could, but you CAN research known scientific principles. You do realize the sub-forum you're in . . . right?

  Quote:


 It takes money and participation. 
 

Once again, nothing to do with topic and leans towards insinuation.

  Quote:


 How many mini meets have you been to or organize Shike? 
 

Irrelevant to the topic . . . insinuating some more are we?

  Quote:


 How many people in the industry have you really addressed your concerns too? 
 

Which industry? If you're talking the cable industry (I'm guessing, since that's the only thing moderately relevant here), they've replied to them . . . with marketing. It usually goes like this:

 Me: "How do these improve the sound"

 Them:

 "It does (insert made up terms here and fake quasi science that should be featured in Star Trek)"

 or

 "We don't know, BUT IT DOES!"

 They then follow up with a money back guarantee -- knowing full well that people are psychologically going to be inclined to believe it rather than not. It's the same reason known snake oil products have been able to sell for years.

 Also, since you're so obsessed with me I have had experience with boutique cables . . . never noticed a difference. I did like having locking RCA connectors though.

  Quote:


 Have you really done your homework? Just asking? 
 

This debating tactic of yours is extremely dirty and just as repetitious. You're using insinuation to try and discredit me, but then trying to hide behind the "I'm just asking questions" routine to prevent backlash should I sufficiently prove I have (even though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand).


 Maybe you should come back to this thread when you actually feel like talking about the facts and topic at hand rather than focusing on trivial items that in no way have relation to this thread.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Dirty tactics really? How? I know what the topic is very well. How can anyone prove the OP's point without doing the homework envolved to prove that cables do not make a difference and researching with opinions from the cable industry? I will take back everything I have said if you can prove it on my rig? Have a pair of Grado IC's and some DIY IC's. And some power cables too. Please prove how they sound the same? It would save me some money. Prove that the Oyaide Receptacle R1 doesn't make a difference or the Synergistic QLS-6 do not make a difference? You can discount opinions all you want, but until you do the grunt work for yourself it doesn't really mean anything. Come to the next Seattle meet, you might learn something? What have you researched for your point Shike? What experiments have you done? What gear have you used?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dirty tactics really? How?_

 

I find it hard to believe you're oblivious to this, but I'll provide an example.

 example:

 "This guy is a filthy liar . . . or is he? I'm just asking questions!"

 Journalists lacking integrity use such a tactic as it will associate "filthy liar" with "This guy" regardless of the fact it's being phrased as a question. It's used to insinuate and discredit a person or organization usually without actually addressing points or facts.

  Quote:


 I know what the topic is very well. How can anyone prove the OP's point without doing the homework envolved to prove that cables do not make a difference and researching with opinions from the cable industry? 
 

As far as current science shows, the OP is right. Cables don't make a difference unless there's something deficient with them. Until there's an instance that shows otherwise it will be the starting premise. Just like in java programming true false statements start false until proven true.

 The cable industry itself is biased . . . without clear scientific principles how do you gauge the factuality? We've already demonstrated that sense are not necessarily right, but instead may be the work of the mind making differences.


  Quote:


 I will take back everything I have said if you can prove it on my rig? Have a pair of Grado IC's and some DIY IC's. And some power cables too. Please prove how they sound the same? It would save me some money. Prove that the Oyaide Receptacle R1 doesn't make a difference or the Synergistic QLS-6 do not make a difference? 
 

Why do you feel the need to shift the burden of proof to me? It is your ears and your equipment you feel the need to test all the sudden. Do a proper DBT and don't whine about the results -- it's really that simple.

 Even if I did a DBT with your rig, you could cry I have tin ears or are biased and skewing the results. This is why we do not try to prove the absence of something, but wait for its existence to be proven instead.

  Quote:


 You can discount opinions all you want, but until you do the grunt work for yourself it doesn't really mean anything. 
 

Is that so? Well then I'm sure you've done all the DBTs and grunt work to prove it does make a difference right? How could one say they "did their homework" without performing such a task?

  Quote:


 Come to the next Seattle meet, you might learn something? 
 

This feels oddly condescending.

  Quote:


 What have you researched for your point Shike? 
 

The fact that there's no material evidence for cables is all that's necessary, but also first hand experience.

  Quote:


 What experiments have you done? What gear have you used? 
 

I've used the gear in my rig plus some Viablue's for testing. I've done DBT, measured all the basics on them, etc. Nothing notable came as a result.


----------



## pdupiano

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^

 Doesn't make sense. You're the one that seems to be arguing in terms of physical properties making a difference based on purities, etc. The "anti-cabler" view leans towards the hypothesis that placebo or other concepts are occurring that aren't really happening in the realm of physics and measurements.

 Hence the "it's all in your head" mantra some of us tend to adopt._

 

That's not the anti cabler view at all, for if the anti cabler admits that the effect is caused by something outside of physical measurements then they would have to concede that there is something going on and more importantly that they cannot measure it. Therefore this whole debate would be over and done with. The anti cabler does state that its all in a person's head, but refuses to acknowledge it, by which I mean that the anti cabler says that people cannot perceive a difference -even after admitting its in a person's head. They end up calling it a placebo or whatever and dismiss the perception altogether. 

 The anti cabler view keeps asking for forms of tests, and "scientific" reasons for why people perceive different things from cables. At the moment scientific reasons are bound by physical properties so all of the examples I have listed are possible sources of differences between cables. But remember that these differences will lead to differences in the transmission of the signal. In my view this change may or may not be the only reason for why people have different perceptions of the cable because I also accept that non-physical properties can affect a person's perception of the cable (eg. aesthetics of the cable). By non-physical property, I mean that it is not a physical property of the cable material (as I've listed, purity, shielding etc...) but rather a physical property that would affect the mind rather than the cable itself (aesthetics and cost). 

 When a person is doing AxB testing, I claim that they cannot separate the mind's effect on perception... But the anti cabler must hold that they can separate the mind's effect on perception from the testing and can therefore conclude that one cable or another cable's physical properties will lead to a person hearing something else or not hearing any differences between the two. That's the reason why I state it is a false conclusion, because people keep trying to ignore this other large piece of information calling it a placebo.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, if you can't trust your senses you are in the wrong hobby IMO?
 This hobby is all about stimulating the sense of hearing. If you can't handle spending the money or trying something new it is OK. Just please do not be the party pooper discounting everybody's opinion on this matter._

 

You can't live in the garden any more after you take a bite from the fruit of knowledge.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can't live in the garden any more after you take a bite from the fruit of knowledge. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's unfair to deduce a different approach on this topic from inferior knowledge. In fact it is just that: a different approach with different weightings. You're ready to sacrifice the trust in your senses in favor of a brain-controlled skepticism, whereas others – aware of the controversy – chose the opposite path and stick with their intuition.
.


----------



## choomanchoo

I will start by saying that I have skipped the entire thread only to comment on title alone, convincing anybody on an individuals opinion is pointless, that's the beauty of opinions, 


 As one of my favorite Head-fier's says, "If it sounds good to you, then it's good"


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's unfair to deduce a different approach on this topic from inferior knowledge. In fact it is just that: a different approach with different weightings. You're ready to sacrifice the trust in your senses in favor of a brain-controlled skepticism, whereas others – aware of the controversy – chose the opposite path and stick with their intuition.
._

 

You can use your senses as much as you want.
 Interestingly they never help finding the difference in a controlled dbt.

 It seems that all colours (=cables) will agree in the dark, after all.

 Also quite interestingly the question of burn-in of cables itself is actually very easy to explain. What happens is that actually your brain burns-in in different patterns/colours associated to other patterns. And in the end the build up of patterns takes over your senses and you can not help but hear difference in SQ.

 Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it.

 What you cable believers do is use shaky arguments aka "new not yet explored science" to create the truth, but such truth is worse than faith for 
 it kills any enterprise to learn more about the world as it is.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's unfair to deduce a different approach on this topic from inferior knowledge. In fact it is just that: a different approach with different weightings. You're ready to sacrifice the trust in your senses in favor of a brain-controlled skepticism, whereas others – aware of the controversy – chose the opposite path and stick with their intuition.
._

 

I like that term 'brain-controlled skepticism'. It's a very real one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 There's a balance to be made between
 a) being shackled by scientific method and not truly acknowledging its inherent imperfections and limitations. 

 b) being led too easily by the mind and its influences.

 We can be guilty of trusting scientific experimental results too much and being too ready to blame the mind for disparities rather than trying to adjust the scientific experiment or simply realizing that the truth may well remain unknown because of variabilities that cannot be controlled to validate the observed outcomes of scientific experimentation.

 We can be too skeptic of science and evidence, trusting our senses too much. 

 We know the dead ends that we can end up in going rabidly down either pathway.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're ready to sacrifice the trust in your senses in favor of a brain-controlled skepticism, whereas others – aware of the controversy – chose the opposite path and stick with their intuition.._

 

But your own discrimination abilities went away once sight and expectation were factored out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't know what clearer demonstration there is of these principles. Okay, maybe this..

 Again, I'm not judging our collective hallucinations. They're just artifacts of sensory inferrence processes that usually help our little brains detect, disambiguate, and predict relevant stimuli in a complicated, non-stationary and until very recently, extremely dangerous sensory world.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okay, maybe this.._

 

McGurk Effect (multimodal perception) --> YouTube

 "when multiple senses are stimulated simultaneously the brain begins to experience an information rich learning experience and laps it up like ice cream"


 .


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's not the anti cabler view at all, for if the anti cabler admits that the effect is caused by something outside of physical measurements then they would have to concede that there is something going on and more importantly that they cannot measure it._

 

I'm not sure where you're getting this . . . many people here know of the effects of placebo and admit to its existence.

  Quote:


 Therefore this whole debate would be over and done with. 
 

You'd think that, but the pro-cablers don't want to believe it's in their head.

  Quote:


 The anti cabler does state that its all in a person's head, but refuses to acknowledge it, by which I mean that the anti cabler says that people cannot perceive a difference -even after admitting its in a person's head. 
 

They can perceive a difference, but it's usually one that's a trick played mostly by their mind. That's the very definition of placebo when you get down to it.

  Quote:


 They end up calling it a placebo or whatever and dismiss the perception altogether. 
 

Yes, as the persons perception of a placebo is irrelevant. It might as well be a wood volume knob or other "tweaks".

  Quote:


 The anti cabler view keeps asking for forms of tests, and "scientific" reasons for why people perceive different things from cables. 
 

Yes, because certain pro-cablers argue they are immune of placebo and that the differences are too great. Read Jazz's posts for examples.

  Quote:


 At the moment scientific reasons are bound by physical properties so all of the examples I have listed are possible sources of differences between cables. But remember that these differences will lead to differences in the transmission of the signal. In my view this change may or may not be the only reason for why people have different perceptions of the cable because I also accept that non-physical properties can affect a person's perception of the cable (eg. aesthetics of the cable). By non-physical property, I mean that it is not a physical property of the cable material (as I've listed, purity, shielding etc...) but rather a physical property that would affect the mind rather than the cable itself (aesthetics and cost). 
 

Once again, we had a thread here over placebo before.

  Quote:


 When a person is doing AxB testing, I claim that they cannot separate the mind's effect on perception... But the anti cabler must hold that they can separate the mind's effect on perception from the testing and can therefore conclude that one cable or another cable's physical properties will lead to a person hearing something else or not hearing any differences between the two. That's the reason why I state it is a false conclusion, because people keep trying to ignore this other large piece of information calling it a placebo. 
 

I'm not sure who you're getting these views from. We argue the cables themselves aren't changing the sound . . . and they aren't in that case. If it's placebo then its the mind of those using it while cited changing their perceptions causing bias or making expectations they their mind will happily fill in the blanks for.

 This could be any tweak, like wood blocks, a jar of rocks, etc. That's the point, just because your brain is making a difference is exclusive from the fact that the cable _isn't_.

 EDIT:

 Either way I'm going to step out of this debate. Those that want to believe will do so regardless.


----------



## ipm

have a look at this. it seems to be on point.

James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better - JREF - Gizmodo


----------



## BIG POPPA

The reason I do not agree with the OP original point is because I have had the luxury to demo some cables recently like the Oyaide Tunami, Acrolink 6N-P4030P, Grado IC's, Blue Jean Cables, on my rig. Also I have DIY'ed many Power cables Senn cables and IC's for my rig. Have talked to Kimber Kable, attended a demonstration and discussion with Transparent Cable, have numerous discussions with a reputable distributor about cables with a lot of A/Bing different cables. I have done my homework and have enough experience with cables to respectfully disagree with the OP's point. I have spent enough money to find out the qualities and disadvantages of each metal used making cables. 
 For most of my experience with people who are on the opposite side of the coin are new to the hobby, casual hobbyist, do not get off the computer enough to find out out on there own, not willing to spend the money to find out if a cable really works with their rig, have crummy gear with a crummy source, crummy amp and crummy cans. Some accessories are meant for better gear, like power cables and IC's. If you are new to the audio hobby or just starting out. I do not reccommend to look at cables until you get more familiar with the gear you have and get real intimate with its strengths and weakness's. When you do you may want to upgrade something else in your rig?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But your own discrimination abilities went away once sight and expectation were factored out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't know what clearer demonstration there is of these principles..._

 

Sight isn't a problem: my cables aren't in my field of vision during listening to music. I think expectation – knowing which sound belongs to which cable – helps with concentrating on the typical characteristics of each. It may be harder to retrieve the connection between sound and specific cable without at least a picture of it in the mind's eye. But I'm not pretending that it's impossible to pass a cable DBT, it's just relatively hard, also given the constant signal fluctuation. I have halfways passed a headphone-cable blind test myself, and two respected audio professionals I know (both not involved in the cable business) have assured me to have passed cable DBTs. 

 I for one don't really care for blind tests, since – as mentioned – my evaluation method is oriented on a real-world scenario: I want my system to sound as I like it to in the real world, not in a clinical situation. There's the pretension that so far nobody has been able to discern different amps and source devices in DBTs. If that's true, that alone would be reason enough for me to remain skeptical about DBTs.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure where you're getting this . . . many people here know of the effects of placebo and admit to its existence.
 You'd think that, but the pro-cablers don't want to believe it's in their head.
 They can perceive a difference, but it's usually one that's a trick played mostly by their mind. That's the very definition of placebo when you get down to it.
 Yes, as the persons perception of a placebo is irrelevant. It might as well be a wood volume knob or other "tweaks".
 Yes, because certain pro-cablers argue they are immune of placebo and that the differences are too great. Read Jazz's posts for examples._

 

I'm not sure how I deserve this special mention in your essay. Never have I pretended that the «difference was too great» or to be immune to placebo effects. On the other hand I could indeed live with a 100% consistent and reliable placebo effect, if that's what I'm experiencing with my cables. Then again, this 100% consistency gives me 97.5% certainty that the effect is real. That's a high percentage, compared to 90% trust in evolution theory, 95% trust in the big bang theory and 99% likelyhood of the earth orbiting the sun (more precisely: all matter in the universe orbiting around a common center of gravity). I'd even go so far as to postulate a fluctuation of reality in favor of positive and negative cable-sound experiences depending on (subconscious?) expectations or other unknown preconditions – rather than doubting a real cable effect. It may be that the computer simulation called reality approaches the borderline of resolution here, with aural perception of ultra-fine sensory nuances under involvement of human emotions shifted to an extremely high sublimation level – whereas the subatomic material level of reality is still farther away from this scenario. (Just halfways kidding! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
.


----------



## rosgr63

I agree with Big POPPA that the cables should be the last part to upgrade in the chain, after the source, amp, HP's.
 I personally notice more chance from different HP cables than interconnects.


----------



## Chef

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I like that term 'brain-controlled skepticism'. It's a very real one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There's a balance to be made between
 a) being shackled by scientific method and not truly acknowledging its inherent imperfections and limitations. 

 b) being led too easily by the mind and its influences.

 We can be guilty of trusting scientific experimental results too much and being too ready to blame the mind for disparities rather than trying to adjust the scientific experiment or simply realizing that the truth may well remain unknown because of variabilities that cannot be controlled to validate the observed outcomes of scientific experimentation.

 We can be too skeptic of science and evidence, trusting our senses too much. 

 We know the dead ends that we can end up in going rabidly down either pathway._

 

There's a difference between science and shoddy journalism. The faults you're expressing in science aren't actually a part of science. It's like when someone reads a newspaper article that reports a few details of an experiment, but then they never read the study itself. Good experimenters know exactly what they're testing and discovering. I don't like when you slander science as being somehow misleading. Science isn't misleading, dumb people are misleading. If I tell someone a banana I'm holding is a foot long, and they draw the conclusion that all bananas are a foot long, that's their mistake. Science told me the banana I'm holding is a foot long, not that all bananas are. If I do a DBT with a single piece of equipment and a control, the only conclusion science draws is between those two objects... That's why many, many DBTs are necessary to draw convincing conclusions. But that doesn't make it misleading, or defy the value of science as an influence on one's decisions. The fact is without science our decisions would be completely random. As consumers we desire to make the decision that is most secure and likely to reward. As experimenters we desire to find out if something is secure or rewarding. The problem with most Head-Fiers is that they think more money = more good. Sure, they'll have a few odd exceptions to flatter themselves with, but in general that's about the only science they apply to their purchases (that more expensive things tend to be better). But the thing is, you could buy a car made out of gold and that won't make it go faster. You can by headphones made by Tibetan monks in the mountains from the finest spidersilk in all of Australia, and it won't make them sound better. And that's basically what most of the expensive audio equipment in this forum comes down to, odd production methods with bizarre materials, and no real reason to believe they're better except for price.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chef* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a difference between science and shoddy journalism. The faults you're expressing in science aren't actually a part of science. It's like when someone reads a newspaper article that reports a few details of an experiment, but then they never read the study itself. Good experimenters know exactly what they're testing and discovering. I don't like when you slander science as being somehow misleading. Science isn't misleading, dumb people are misleading. If I tell someone a banana I'm holding is a foot long, and they draw the conclusion that all bananas are a foot long, that's their mistake. Science told me the banana I'm holding is a foot long, not that all bananas are. If I do a DBT with a single piece of equipment and a control, the only conclusion science draws is between those two objects... That's why many, many DBTs are necessary to draw convincing conclusions. But that doesn't make it misleading, or defy the value of science as an influence on one's decisions. The fact is without science our decisions would be completely random. As consumers we desire to make the decision that is most secure and likely to reward. As experimenters we desire to find out if something is secure or rewarding. The problem with most Head-Fiers is that they think more money = more good. Sure, they'll have a few odd exceptions to flatter themselves with, but in general that's about the only science they apply to their purchases (that more expensive things tend to be better). But the thing is, you could buy a car made out of a gold and that won't make it go faster. You can by headphones made by Tibetan monks in the mountains from the finest spidersilk in all of Australia, and it won't make them sound better. And that's basically what most of the expensive audio equipment in this forum comes down to, odd production methods with bizarre materials, and no real reason to believe they're better except for price._

 

If your work revolves around life and death management strategies that are based on the scientific method, and you see where the scientific method has failed in some ways over the years you've been practicing your specialty and why it failed, then you'll understand what I mean. This is why Big Poppa so correctly emphasises the value of experience as opposed to soap boxing from the comfort of am arm chair. I'm fully aware of DBT's and their usefulness. I'm also aware that they aren't a panacea and that we need to appreciate their potential limitations and blatant weaknesses because of the controlled environments we create while conducting them. We should not be schackled by the tools we create to solve our problems and questions.

 The problem here is that you may well be assuming too much in that if the opinion is not anti-cable, then it can't be a scientific one and that an opinion that challenges science and it's methods cannot come from one who respects science and its methods. While training, I tell my potential graduates that they aren't being trained to be "Yes Men" who merely listen to and spout what others have discovered. They should question what they hear at all times. The scientific method is in evolution (methodology and analysis) and so are the findings. 

 I'm trying to promote an attitude here rather than share conclusions that I've personally come to. Conclusions are always open to some degree of interpretation and formulation to get to them. This is why in this context, I'll avoid sharing mine. Afterall, what's the point? Everyone seems to have his or her mind already made up.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If your work revolves around life and death management strategies that are based on the scientific method, and you see where the scientific method has failed in some ways over the years you've been practicing your specialty and why it failed, then you'll understand what I mean._

 

My work does - and none of what you're saying rings true. Yes, there are cases where results have been falsified, and researchers have been unduly influenced by consulting money (e.g. from pharmaceuticals). And that only emphasizes why people do need to be truly blind when they conduct tests and how the process is corrupted when research standards are violated.

 People also mis- and over-interpret their results. And the beauty of hypothesis testing is that such conjecture can be directly falsified once better hypotheses and experiments are developed from accumulating knowledge. Through this method, collective knowledge is continually corrected and refined and is accumulating in this way at an explosive pace. For example, in my field (neuroscience) more has been learned about the brain in the last 10 years than was learned in the previous 50 years. But the techniques and mathematics underlying hypothesis testing are remarkably stable.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My work does - and none of what you're saying rings true. Yes, there are cases where results have been falsified, and researchers have been unduly influenced by consulting money (e.g. from pharmaceuticals). And that only emphasizes why people do need to be truly blind when they conduct tests and how the process is corrupted when research standards are violated.

 People also mis- and over-interpret their results. And the beauty of hypothesis testing is that such conjecture can be directly falsified once better hypotheses and experiments are developed from accumulating knowledge. Through this method, collective knowledge is continually corrected and refined and is accumulating in this way at an explosive pace. For example, in my field (neuroscience) more has been learned about the brain in the last 10 years than was learned in the previous 50 years. But the techniques and mathematics underlying hypothesis testing are remarkably stable._

 

So how does this relate to audio in the real world? How would you upgrade your rig? How would you be able to tune it? This stuff would slow you down enjoying music? How is this realistic, really? Understand your point, but is this really feasible?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The reason I do not agree with the OP original point is because I have had the luxury to demo some cables recently like the Oyaide Tunami, Acrolink 6N-P4030P, Grado IC's, Blue Jean Cables, on my rig._

 

But all these demos have been done in an uncontrolled sighted fashion, which makes any conclusions you may draw **unreliable**.

  Quote:


 Also I have DIY'ed many Power cables Senn cables and IC's for my rig. Have talked to Kimber Kable, attended a demonstration and discussion with Transparent Cable, have numerous discussions with a reputable distributor about cables with a lot of A/Bing different cables. 
 

See above

  Quote:


 I have done my homework and have enough experience with cables to respectfully disagree with the OP's point. 
 

See above

  Quote:


 I have spent enough money to find out the qualities and disadvantages of each metal used making cables. 
 

See above

  Quote:


 For most of my experience with people who are on the opposite side of the coin are new to the hobby, casual hobbyist, do not get off the computer enough to find out out on there own, not willing to spend the money to find out if a cable really works with their rig, 
 

Sigh, I have been interested in audio for the last 40 years, back to the dark days of vinyl, have bought and sold many different items, including many different cables and have experimented widely with kit including cables of different materials and constructions. In addition I have actually tested said cables in a manner (albeit crudely) which does not allow any personal biases to intefere with the evaluations viz removing knowledge of the items under test , have you ?


  Quote:


 have crummy gear with a crummy source, crummy amp and crummy cans. 
 

Please support this pointlessly inflammatory assertion with some concrete examples, cite equipment, listeners and the values on the parameters which make said kit crummy. Please also prove empirically that your gear is not equally crummy. Price and manufacturer is not proof.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So how does this relate to audio in the real world? How would you upgrade your rig? How would you be able to tune it? This stuff would slow you down enjoying music? How is this realistic, really? Understand your point, but is this really feasible?_

 

He's not shopping for cables.

 Numbers and a passable blind test are only necessary here to quantify if there is a readily audible difference. He is not evaluating what is better or worse like he would if he were shopping for headphones. In that case, listening is important. Also preferably blind listening so one is not influenced by price tag, name brand, and appearance. But it wouldn't be a blind test to determine IF there are differences, but what those differences are.

 You emphasize listening experience with cables, but listening experience is meaningless if numbers show that there are no audible differences. There are audible differences between headphones, just look at any graph on Headroom.

 No matter how many cables you've heard, if there is no numerical difference then the differences heard are placebo. That just makes sense. I wouldn't trust numbers to tell me what something sounds like, but I would trust them to tell me if what I'm hearing is physically the same. That's what numbers are good at. Blind tests not so much, but they're theoretically easy.

 I can say that I sprint a 100m dash in three seconds. But no matter how often I say it, and no matter how thoroughly I convince myself that it's true, and no matter how often I practice, that doesn't stop it from being physically impossible.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My work does - and none of what you're saying rings true. Yes, there are cases where results have been falsified, and researchers have been unduly influenced by consulting money (e.g. from pharmaceuticals). And that only emphasizes why people do need to be truly blind when they conduct tests and how the process is corrupted when research standards are violated.

 People also mis- and over-interpret their results. And the beauty of hypothesis testing is that such conjecture can be directly falsified once better hypotheses and experiments are developed from accumulating knowledge. Through this method, collective knowledge is continually corrected and refined and is accumulating in this way at an explosive pace. For example, in my field (neuroscience) more has been learned about the brain in the last 10 years than was learned in the previous 50 years. But the techniques and mathematics underlying hypothesis testing are remarkably stable._

 

The devil is in the details as you say. The basic fundamentals are as you say remarkably stable. It's one thing to know a basic principle. It's entirely another to implement that principle and use it effectively. 

 There's another big influence that invalidates results, or even moreso, affects the interpretation of those results, i.e., personal bias, whatever the reason for it. It can also be just plain errors in implementation and overlooking important confounders. It's not always only about the money.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Nick I know were you stand on the issue. We have talked about this before. OK on the crummy issue for example. If you are using a computer with some Dennon d2000 and maybe a fiios amp or something similar are cables really going to help you? You have bigger issues to deal with. If you use a step up/down transformer is a power cable going to be very beneficial?
 To me this is a hobby, not a science project. Probably never try things in a controlled environment. What really is the benefit when I want to purchase something now? I listen to my rig about 4 hours a day, everyday. I know what my rig can and can't do.
 With different metals, What is the difference between Silver, SPC, Gold, Rhodium, Copper, and Brass? They all have qualities, they all have weaknesses? Who else has listened to a the different metals? With my tube amp I prefer Rhodium IC's with 16AWG SPC, With my CD player I prefer Gold plated IEC's with 14AWG copper wire. Why is that? Trial and error? 
 Yes I go to demonstrations, some may discount them, but it is good to see somebody else opinion's how cables should work? It is part of learning. I am a doer in this hobby. No one that just waits on the side lines for something to happen. I go to meets, like them so much I organize them in the Seattle area. Have tried several pieces of the equipment. in the last few years. To me it is just difficult to believe cables don't make a difference. It just depends on how much time you listen to your rig and if your rig would honestly benefit from them?


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To me it is just difficult to believe cables don't make a difference. It just depends on how much time you listen to your rig and if your rig would honestly benefit from them?_

 

From your standpoint it must be also very difficult to believe that many people die of hunger, since you have no such problem. But the truth is they do die, every minute.
 You live in a world of your own, obviously you work on your own belief system most of the time. 
 And it is evident you owe a very strong belief regarding cables (metals) make difference, you disqualify people who do not have good enough equipment and who do not spend enough money hence "will never be able to find the truth" as you had. Do you really believe that seeking to improve your rig endlessly is what makes this hobby interesting. There are many people outthere who prefer listening to music than spending their money and time on nonsense. 
 Imagine a top violinist upgrading his Stradivari violin every day (for Stradivari is also not perfect, as nothing is in this world). 
 Pretending to know the paths to perfection is kidding yourself - if this is what your hobby is - you are never enjoying music, do you ?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Imagine a top violinist upgrading his Stradivari violin every day (for Stradivari is also not perfect, as nothing is in this world). 
 Pretending to know the paths to perfection is kidding yourself - if this is what your hobby is - you are never enjoying music, do you ?_

 

Not even upgrading his violin, more akin to upgrading the resin he puts on the strings. Relative to the headphones, amp, and DAC, I hope even cable believers have to admit that cables are a minor upgrade. The headphones are like the violin, the amp the strings, the DAC the bow. Just figuratively, because I don't know what kind of difference strings or bows make with a violin.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Cables are do not make a difference like headphones ,sources or amps; but you need them to listen to music. 
 I enjoy music alot. I pick new music usually once a week. I like tweeking my rig. Like rolling cables, tubes, fuses. To me this hobby is fun not being a science project.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From your standpoint it must be also very difficult to believe that many people die of hunger, since you have no such problem. But the truth is they do die, every minute._

 

That's quite an unfair statement. We all know that we're lucky not to suffer from hunger and for being able to enjoy the luxury of listening to music and perfectioning our playback systems. We all live in our own world!
  Quote:


 _Imagine a top violinist upgrading his Stradivari violin every day (for Stradivari is also not perfect, as nothing is in this world). Pretending to know the paths to perfection is kidding yourself - if this is what your hobby is - you are never enjoying music, do you ?_ 
 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not even upgrading his violin, more akin to upgrading the resin he puts on the strings. Relative to the headphones, amp, and DAC, I hope even cable believers have to admit that cables are a minor upgrade. The headphones are like the violin, the amp the strings, the DAC the bow. Just figuratively, because I don't know what kind of difference strings or bows make with a violin._

 

Yes, bow, strings and colophony have an impact on the sound and the playability. But a musical instrument isn't meant to ever sound «perfect», since there's no paradigm for such a sonic ideal. In contrast to a system for music reproduction. There the degree of perfection is measurable (in the form of linearity, absence of noise and distortion) and perceptible. And to some even cables contribute to the perfection. Perfectioning the sonic performance of a playback system is part of the hobby called high-fidelity. – Now it's your turn to value «the music» higher than sound and system listening... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We all live in our own world!
 Yes, bow, strings and colophony have an impact on the sound and the playability. But a musical instrument isn't meant to ever sound «perfect», since there's no paradigm for such a sonic ideal. In contrast to a system for music reproduction. There the degree of perfection is measurable (in the form of linearity, absence of noise and distortion) and perceptible. And to some even cables contribute to the perfection. Perfectioning the sonic performance of a playback system is part of the hobby called high-fidelity. – Now it's your turn to value «the music» higher than sound and system listening... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

If you do live in your own world, you do not need science, nor this forum, nor talking to me ? 

 But still you are in this forum talking to people. I would say you want to share your world with others and for that you need to find common ground. Lets say one such is an affection for music. You might convince some people of the importance of quality of reproduction but the moment you deviate to fiction, you can not convince me.

 At the present state of technology regarding music reproduction I think it is mostly unethical to intrigue people that there is a lot of space of improvement especially when it is involving spending insane amounts of money. Cables are such a sticking-out issue. 

 The only critical issue for good sound are good speakers . All blabery of "system synergy" is blown out of proportion. The same good speakers can be driven by several kilo $ Krells or a well designed kilo $ vintage Bedini, no problem. What cables are in between is negligeable.
 My point being - nobody wants to tear your world apart - but it can not be accepted if you try to mislead people using shaky arguments based on fiction to drag them in to spending ridiculous amounts of money.
 So, science is necessary for anyone who wants to know the facts.


----------



## d.g

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cables are do not make a difference like headphones ,sources or amps; but you need them to listen to music. _

 

Shouldn't that be "You need them to make an electrical connection in order to listen to music" ?

 A cable is a transmission device for an electrical signal, once a suitable conductor of adequate size has been chosen you should not need to specify different materials to change how a source component sounds, if the connection is good enough, the cable becomes a fit and forget item, it just does a job.


----------



## BIG POPPA

It is not Science it is synergy when it comes to audio. Where does science come in when you have 2000.00 dollars burning a hole in your pocket in the audio store.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *d.g* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shouldn't that be "You need them to make an electrical connection in order to listen to music" ?

 A cable is a transmission device for an electrical signal, once a suitable conductor of adequate size has been chosen you should not need to specify different materials to change how a source component sounds, if the connection is good enough, the cable becomes a fit and forget item, it just does a job._

 

If they are good enough for you great? For me I like to tweek the sound of my rig. Have the means to do so at my leisure. It is just a hobby Right?


----------



## bdr529

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is not Science it is synergy when it comes to audio. Where does science come in when you have 2000.00 dollars burning a hole in your pocket in the audio store._

 

marketing science


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The devil is in the details as you say. The basic fundamentals are as you say remarkably stable. It's one thing to know a basic principle. It's entirely another to implement that principle and use it effectively. 

 There's another big influence that invalidates results, or even moreso, affects the interpretation of those results, i.e., personal bias, whatever the reason for it. It can also be just plain errors in implementation and overlooking important confounders._

 

Absolutely. That's what the peer-review process is for. Every scientific manuscript published in a reputable journal is reviewed by 3-4 scientists who are experts in the particular area of that paper, statistics and experimental methodology. And more than half of papers are rejected. The rest are allowed through after sometimes extensive changes in technique, analysis and interpretation.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not always only about the money._

 

?? The goal is discovery and (in probably 1/3 of labs in North America) to advance public health. i.e. to eventually discover treatments and molecules that really are effective at keeping you alive/lucid/mobile longer without harming you. 

 That's how guesswork, opinions and unfounded speculation almost never see the light of day in matters of scientific importance.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bdr529* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_marketing science_

 

Marketing science? I'm in the financial sector for profession. What is the simple way for us hobbyist to upgrade our rigs?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you do live in your own world, you do not need science, nor this forum, nor talking to me?_

 

The emphasis was on «we», not «I» – I was addressing the fact that we live in a part of the world characterized by opulence and are partly blind for the livelihood problems in other parts.

  Quote:


 _My point being - nobody wants to tear your world apart - but it can not be accepted if you try to mislead people using shaky arguments based on fiction to drag them in to spending ridiculous amounts of money._ 
 

Well, you have to accept my shaky arguments as they are. We live in a free world and communicate through an uncensured forum. Your world view obviously differs from mine, but I can easily accept your statements nonetheless – as statements of yours. I reject your anxious moralism, though.

  Quote:


 _So, science is necessary for anyone who wants to know the facts._ 
 

You may not know it, but there are «facts» beyond science, if there is such a thing like certainty at all. However, the scientific facts you're speaking of are none. Cables are still allowed to alter the sound without violating any physical law.
.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Marketing science? I'm in the financial sector for profession. What is the simple way for us hobbyist to upgrade our rigs?_

 

Buy something that makes a difference, but one backed by scientific measurement. That's simple, right? Ultimately you must always use your ears, but use your eyes first. If a graph says two components perform the same, it's a waste of time trying to hear a difference (and a waste of money if your mind tricks you into actually hearing one).

 As what JaZZ says, if the purpose of musical reproduction is linearity and a lack of distortion and noise, buy what is most linear and has the lowest distortion and noise. Show me a cable that has measurably and audibly lower distortion and noise and I will make effort to become a believer (once I run out of headphones to upgrade to, anyway). Specifically, better than my Blue Jeans. I'm not talking ratty cheapo cables that may well have something wrong with them.

 Of course, I can argue that it's not all about those three things. Grados are far from the end-all in any of them, but I still love them because of their colored response. If you like your cables even though they sound the same physically, alright. I just wouldn't be comfortable knowing I paid money for nothing real.


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I enjoy music alot. I pick new music usually once a week. I like tweeking my rig... To me this hobby is fun.._

 

x2 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can't handle spending the money or trying something new it is OK.._

 

I've spent over $4000 on headphone gear alone 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But only $140 was on cables.


----------



## d.g

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If they are good enough for you great? For me I like to tweek the sound of my rig. Have the means to do so at my leisure. It is just a hobby Right?_

 

That it is, a nice by product of enjoying music too! 

 I prefer not to change the sound of my equipment with cables following on from being sold some expensive cable a good few years back, I went to my local hifi store with an issue with my system in that it was too forward in the treble and higher volumes I found harsh, straight away they recommended a fantastic cable that would do the job, made by a British loudspeaker company, it was a solid core and would tame my treble as treble frequencies tend to travel down the outside of conductors....I don't think the cable changed anything, what was at fault were the loudspeakers, changing them a few months later brought a huge improvement! The point about the cable was that it was effectively solid core mains cable in a fancy rubberised sleeving, for which I paid maybe 4-5 times too much. 

 I'm not an advocate of the cheapest will do, I buy cables now to suit specific tasks and seek out the best conductors I can at the best value price. 



 I think where some people go wrong is by simply not being able to admit they like cables as they are expensive luxury items to lavish on their systems, take expensive watches as another example - they wont tell the time that much better than a cheaper type of watch but people who buy them don't get criticized for spending thousands on them as generally speaking they don't buy them stating to everyone else that they purchased said watch because it tells the time more accurately than a cheaper type.

 If people could do that with cables then this discussion perhaps wouldn't even need to take place.

 No side will ever win nor convince the other side that they are right/wrong, and just remember, while you are listening to cables you are not listening to the music, which is surely what its all about, isn't it?


----------



## BIG POPPA

Hey Head Injury, right now I an very satisfied with my amps, sources, headphones. I have a lot of gear. Enjoy it everyday. To worry about scientific method to justify a piece of equipment is cumbersome. Do not know any audiophiles personally who use the scientific method to buy any equipment. And I know a lot of audiophiles.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey Head Injury, right now I an very satisfied with my amps, sources, headphones. I have a lot of gear. Enjoy it everyday. To worry about scientific method to justify a piece of equipment is cumbersome. Do not know any audiophiles personally who use the scientific method to buy any equipment. And I know a lot of audiophiles._

 

I didn't say you should go do it immediately. I said that's the best and simplest way to go about upgrading. Which is what you asked.

 I'm glad you're satisfied. I am too, and I don't even buy $100 cables!

 To worry about price and placebo to justify a piece of equipment is just as cumbersome.

 I imagine if more audiophiles used the scientific method not to buy but to justify buying, many of our wallets would be a lot heavier, and unfortunately many companies would be out of business.

 Also, please do not tie the term "audiophile" directly to those who don't listen to science, thereby barring those who do from fitting under the term. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.


----------



## pyo2004

Low-Inductance DIY Speaker Cables

 Thought I'd share.


----------



## ipm

The fun idea is right if you ask me, but it still does not get at the question of how does one convince someone that cables do not make a differnece.

 No matter how irrelevant it may seem, hard evidence is difficult to obtain but it can be convincing.

 I would like to see a head-to-head comparison of some kind that uses various cables on a fixed rig, and that produces results that are quantifiable, measureable, and repeatable.

 Has anyone seen test results of this kind published? 

 Beyond that, I guess it’s completely subjective.


----------



## BIG POPPA

No Worries Head Injury. If some of us head-fiers want to learn and make it a science project to learn more great.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You may not know it, but there are «facts» beyond science, if there is such a thing like certainty at all. However, the scientific facts you're speaking of are none. Cables are still allowed to alter the sound without violating any physical law.
._

 

Yes, there is a relatively new quantum theory about the holographic universe (see David Bohm). If this holds (future will tell) everything will have to be revised and also new technologies of recording and reproducing music will be necessary. Until then talking about "facts" beyond science is wishful thinking/talking as long as they can not be identified in other words for everything that can not be understood there is always a last resort - god.
 But we are talking about cables/wire ...


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The fun idea is right if you ask me, but it still does not get at the question of how does one convince someone that cables do not make a differnece.

 No matter how irrelevant it may seem, hard evidence is difficult to obtain but it can be convincing.

 I would like to see a head-to-head comparison of some kind that uses various cables on a fixed rig, and that produces results that are quantifiable, measureable, and repeatable.

 Has anyone seen test results of this kind published? 

 Beyond that, I guess it’s completely subjective._

 

nick_charles did it.

 He humbly admits that it's rough, and his equipment was far from the best, but it's a great test. I read through it last night, and it removed most if not all of my doubt. Now nothing short of strong evidence supporting differences will sway me.

 pyo2004, what do the numbers tell us? That project says inductance is most important. Blue Jeans Cable says capacitance is. And their LC-1 cable handily beats all of the examples in the chart with regards to capacitance. Of course, they're hardly to be trusted more since they're selling cables. Has there been any solid studies of what capacitance, inductance, and resistance do to the sound? Specifically, the audible range?


----------



## pyo2004

To be honest, I don't know what's more important in audio cables, but if anyone wants very sexy cables, I guess you can just make them yourself is my point. Since after all, they're just cables. It's not like you buying something that requires expertise beyond braiding and buying quality materials.
 My thoughts though, no matter which cables you choose from that list, the capacitance, inductance, resistance are all approximately zero.

 *Edit. I actually teach a lab class to undergrad physicsts. One of their labs was on transmission lines. In order to see the effects of distortion in a transmission line, we had to use 100 feet of gauge 16 cable. The company which manufactures the cable has a data sheet showing that even at 100 feet, the attenuation at 1Mhz is 0.26db, at 10Mhz is about 0.98 db. So in the concert A of 440 Hz, even at a length of 100 feet, there is negligible attenuation while using 16 gauge wire. Attenuation really starts to affect the cable around the gigahertz range.
 Here's the data sheet.
http://www.generalcable.com/NR/rdonl...4_095_RG8U.pdf
 I'm sure you can find data sheets on other generic audio cables.
 Anyways, these are all numbers. The truth is, there is no physical difference in sound using different wires especially when it's say 10 feet long around the audible range. However if music was only about science, then none of us would be moved by it.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, there is a relatively new quantum theory about the holographic universe (see David Bohm). If this holds (future will tell) everything will have to be revised and also new technologies of recording and reproducing music will be necessary. Until then talking about "facts" beyond science is wishful thinking..._

 

I hold David Bohm's hypothesis in high esteem. It would indeed be more than a scientific revolution if it turned out to be true. And it's not impossible, like Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic field. In front of this background the anti-cable-sound hysteria looks like a relict from a stubborn age where people believed that all «facts» were laying on the table and reality is a consistent continuum.

 But by «facts beyond science» I actually meant simple things from our everyday life, such as the transience of humans, the consistent day-and-night rhythm, the emotional symbiosis between mother and child... things of that kind known as facts independent of science.
.


----------



## BIG POPPA

It is like trying to use scientific method to prove "why my wife is my best friend"? With this hobby there are emotions involved and stimulating of the senses. You can't use science for that?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Looks like Patrick is going to hold on to his "$50,000" power cord.

Reserve not met at $1275.00 on AudiogoN (just ended).


----------



## Chef

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is like trying to use scientific method to prove "why my wife is my best friend"? With this hobby there are emotions involved and stimulating of the senses. You can't use science for that?_

 

That question is more like "Why do I enjoy music?" than it is "does my audio reproduction equipment maintain fidelity?" The former is a question that involved a lot of personal history, chemical reactions in the brain, and is incredibly expensive to test... The latter is basically trying to see if the signals we know the brain can read match those of the intended production, which by comparison is a lot easier to test. Sure, it's theoretically possible that there are signals we don't know about and therefore aren't testing, but it's also theoretically possible everything is the product of one's imagination and that one is the god of his or her own universe. What does a rationale person do with theories that can't be tested, proven, or even show themselves to be remotely more probably than any other random theory?

 You act like science is something mechanical and cold that can't explain emotions... Which is kind of ignorant when you consider science has come far enough that we can produce drugs to induce specific emotions. I'd say there's a pretty clear cause and effect relationship to any romantic feelings.

 It's not wrong at all to suggest something might contradict previously held beliefs, just please put up some reasonable reason for other people to believe so. I'm by no means 'anti-cable' which is a word getting tossed around in this thread like we're somehow a religious faction. I just have a lot of reason to believe the basic standard cables have the most fidelity in terms of music reproduction... Mainly because, as I posted the study earlier in this thread, very expensive cables test equal in short lengths, and fail in long lengths. It doesn't get simpler than that.


----------



## JxK

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chef* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...It's not wrong at all to suggest something might contradict previously held beliefs, just please put up some reasonable reason for other people to believe so. I'm by no means 'anti-cable' which is a word getting tossed around in this thread like we're somehow a religious faction. I just have a lot of reason to believe the basic standard cables have the most fidelity in terms of music reproduction... Mainly because, as I posted the study earlier in this thread, very expensive cables test equal in short lengths, and fail in long lengths. It doesn't get simpler than that._

 

x2. Scientific Method 101. We assume something doesn't exist until it is proven otherwise. Until/Unless someone manages to actually demonstrate quantitatively, measurably, and repeatedly that boutique cables make a difference, wasting money on cables is just silly.

 Edit: Think of the cable question this way. I can spend $3000 on something that maybe-possibly-but unlikely will make a marginal difference in my system. Or I can spend those same dollars on new CDs for instance, which will absolutely and without doubt benefit me. It's not even much of a "question" in my book.


----------



## ipm

Head Injury, thanks for the link. 

 I read the thread just now. Has any magazine/web site dared to publish a similar test?

 Does this forum have a pass-around section? 

 The site admin people could collaborate to get a manufacturer or two to send a sample of equipment for testing that could be shipped from member to member that signs up to do the tests.

 Some outdoor equipment forums I belong to do this. 

 Typically, they limit the tests to long-term members that are more involved than the average guy. 

 They routinely pass around stuff that costs 500$ to 1000$ with no trouble. 

 That could work with cables at least.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_x2. Scientific Method 101. We assume something doesn't exist until it is proven otherwise. Until/Unless someone manages to actually demonstrate quantitatively, measurably, and repeatedly that boutique cables make a difference, wasting money on cables is just silly.

 Edit: Think of the cable question this way. I can spend $3000 on something that maybe-possibly-but unlikely will make a marginal difference in my system. Or I can spend those same dollars on new CDs for instance, which will absolutely and without doubt benefit me. It's not even much of a "question" in my book._

 

You need to make a choice, it would seem. However, what about those who can do both, rather than have funds for only one of the two? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 In your situation, getting more CD's or improving your amp/dac or cans would be the no brainer.


----------



## BIG POPPA

I have found that the Rhodium IC's and Rhodium over silver plated power cable make my amp sound its best. Can't explain it, just the way it is. Sounds are subjective. Everybody likes different music. The same song will do different things to different people. Just like power cables and IC's. If you demo enough cables you will find the right ones for your rig? Some people like Blue Jeans Cables, some what more from their cables. I want more from them. And I know how to get it.


----------



## JohnFerrier

I recommend changing the discussion to how to teach fish to recite poetry, or something.


 .


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is like trying to use scientific method to prove "why my wife is my best friend"? With this hobby there are emotions involved and stimulating of the senses. You can't use science for that?_

 

Its actually nothing like that at all.

 If you are going to take a completely scientific hobby (building amps, speakers, computer, sources, etc, didn't come from nowhere, science is the only reason this hobby exists) and dumb it down to the point of blind ignorance, you might as well just pick your gear based on color, grab some skull candies, and call yourself and audiophile.


----------



## BIG POPPA

We are talking about cables. You pick the right ones they will make your rig sing. How can you measure something that sounds good to you? How do you measure the value a song that makes your toes tap? The point that I was making is that with cables there are qualities you can't measure but they sure make you happy.


----------



## JxK

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We are talking about cables. You pick the right ones they will make your rig sing. How can you measure something that sounds good to you? How do you measure the value a song that makes your toes tap? *The point that I was making is that with cables there are qualities you can't measure but they sure make you happy.*_

 

Honestly, of all the arguments the pro-cable crowd makes, this is the one that just rubs me the wrong way. 

 If there's a difference between cables then that difference will be an electrical property - quantifiable and measurable. If there is some hitherto unknown force responsible, well, that's a Noble Prize waiting to happen. Scientists and universities the world over would be working to find this mysterious property in the name of fame, fortune, and scientific knowledge.

 Funny how they aren't. Funny how the only people who talk about this mystery force are the ones who stand to profit from its supposed existence.

 Call my a cynic, but I smell a scam.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Honestly, of all the arguments the pro-cable crowd makes, this is the one that just rubs me the wrong way. 

 If there's a difference between cables then that difference will be an electrical property - quantifiable and measurable. If there is some hitherto unknown force responsible, well, that's a Noble Prize waiting to happen. Scientists and universities the world over would be working to find this mysterious property in the name of fame, fortune, and scientific knowledge.

 Funny how they aren't. Funny how the only people who talk about this mystery force are the ones who stand to profit from its supposed existence.

 Call my a cynic, but I smell a scam._

 

What do you mean a scam? Just because I have done the homework and pleased with the results with my rig? What do I have to gain? Nothing! Just sharing my opinion.


----------



## JxK

Ha, I don't mean you're trying to scam us. I meant that the boutique cable companies, whether through intent or ignorance, are trying to scam us. Sorry if you mistook me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But the previous point still stands. When the only people claiming that cables make a difference are the ones who stand to profit from them, I get suspicious. Since scientists and universities aren't fighting to discover this force and win themselves that Noble Prize, I can only come to the conclusion that the cable makers are running a scam.

 When we apply a healthy dose of cynicism to life, we stand to profit (or in this case save money).


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pdupiano* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I posted something more regarding wave propagation in a crystalline medium, it should be the second to most recent post. Impurities affect much more than resistance because you have to view an electron as a wave-particle. And as for the purity of the coat hanger, I would go so far as to state that it wasn't copper at all and could very well be a different metal all together in which case comparing purities would be a horrible thing to do (unless you want to make rash conclusions). _

 

Whoa, quantum mechanics, that's usually when I have to stop, it's just too complex. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But when you are at this level there are a multitude of other things that are going on that just as well could impact electrow flow. Like the photoelectric effect. A photon hits a part of the conductor, like the bare metal on the RCA plug, and knocks out an electron. It must be akin to an earthquake on this scale.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like Patrick is going to hold on to his "$50,000" power cord.

Reserve not met at $1275.00 on AudiogoN (just ended).




_

 

Thanks for the link to Patrick's posts.

 The thread about his rabbits eating his power chord us the funniest I have ever seen.

 Does anyone know why he has been banned?


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We are talking about cables. You pick the right ones they will make your rig sing. How can you measure something that sounds good to you? How do you measure the value a song that makes your toes tap? The point that I was making is that with cables there are qualities you can't measure but they sure make you happy._

 

Big Poppa, I am thinking of making my own cable.

 Do you know how I can give it these mysterious qualities, or are they a trade secret?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sounds are subjective._

 

No. The sounds we perceive are subjective, or what the sounds do with regards to our emotions. The physical property "sound" is very much objectified. And the physical property of cables, according to the scientific method, blind tests, and nick_charles's experiment, do not in any audible way affect the physical property "sound".

 You're falling back on the same "subjective" and "emotions" argument. That's not what (most) of the "anti-cablers" are arguing against. You can have whatever reaction you want to the sound coming from your cables. That does not and will not change the fact that it's physically identical. Everything you get from your cables, your mind is adding on its own. We are not trying to deny you your emotions. We're trying to explain that those emotions are not in any way tied to the actual physical performance of the cable.

 I emphasize physical because that's what's important in the OP's question. You, on the other hand, are emphasizing emotions and subjective qualities because you experience them. They do not, we argue, come from the cables, so cables make no difference.

 I really should duck out of this thread. I don't have the scientific background that can truly support the "anti-cablers" and sway "pro-science" "pro-cablers", and I don't have the experience that will convince (or help to convince) "anti-science" "pro-cablers". Also, I feel dirty.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If there's a difference between cables then that difference will be an electrical property - quantifiable and measurable. If there is some hitherto unknown force responsible, well, that's a Noble Prize waiting to happen. Scientists and universities the world over would be working to find this mysterious property in the name of fame, fortune, and scientific knowledge._[/i]

 

I'd also like to know the electrical manifestations of the perceived sonic effects. But think of amps: The signal differences among them are minuscule, below any accepted hearing threshold, yet there are significant differences not even disputed by many objectivists (after all sonic differences caused by amps are more plausible than those from cables).

  Quote:


 _Funny how the only people who talk about this mystery force are the ones who stand to profit from its supposed existence._ 
 

I make my own cables, but don't sell them. So your statement is at least not entirely true. On the other hand, I don't really talk about a mystery force.
.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd also like to know the electrical manifestations of the perceived sonic effects. But think of amps: The signal differences among them are minuscule, below any accepted hearing threshold, yet there are significant differences not even disputed by many objectivists (after all sonic differences caused by amps are more plausible than those from cables).
._

 

I've wanted to read a thread on this issue for a long time.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Head Injury no worries, I make my own cables, buy a few cables, try a few cables on my rig. At least my opinions are by my own experience. Some people will always be split on anything. That is what makes this hobby fun.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ But think of amps: The signal differences among them are minuscule, below any accepted hearing threshold, yet there are significant differences not even disputed by many objectivists (after all sonic differences caused by amps are more plausible than those from cables)._

 

Jazz, I am afraid your premise is very wrong.

 If you look in any respectable Hi Fi mag, Im sure you have some around your home, when they test an amp they will include a frequency response plot (amplitude vs frequency). Do you notice how this is not a perfectly straight horizontal line?
 Notice how they don't include this graph when they test cables, the reason for this is it is a flat line. (eg The cable does nothing to the signal)

 With amps there is always a roll off at the high and low frequencies, this occurs at different frequencies for different amps, this is measurable (you can see it in the amplitude vs frequency plot) and audible.

 When you purchase an amp it has this thing called a specification. This normally includes the frequency value of the roll off at the high and low frequencies and is called 'frequency response', you can see when this happens on the frequency response plot. Again, you do not generally find this information with a cable, have you ever wandered why this should be the case?

 If you are interested in Hi Fi you must know this stuff, it is so basic and essential.

 Perhaps this is the definitive argument to convince that audio cables don't make a difference eh? Somehow I doubt it!


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Jazz, I am afraid your premise is very wrong.

 If you look in any respectable Hi Fi mag, Im sure you have some around your home, when they test an amp they will include a frequency response plot (amplitude vs frequency). 
 Notice how they don't include this graph when they test cables, the reason for this is it is a flat line. (eg The cable does nothing to the signal)

 For some amps, you will see that this curve is not flat. Also there is always roll off at the high and low frequencies, this occurs at different frequencies for different amps, this is measurable (you can see it in the amplitude vs frequency plot) and audible.

 When you purchase an amp it has this thing called a specification. This normally includes the frequency value of the roll off at the high and low frequencies and is called 'frequency response', you can see when this happens on the frequency response plot. Again, you do not generally find this information with a cable, have you ever wandered why this should be the case?

 If you are interested in Hi Fi you must know this stuff, it is so basic and essential._

 

I have access to a lot of measurements in hi-fi magazines. There was a time a was very interested in them – it was when I was into speakers. 

 When you're talking of roll-offs: what dB values do you have in mind? And what values do you consider relevant for audibility? As mentioned, with most modern amps the measured values are so close to perfection that they're not considered responsible for audible differences according to the established hearing threshold. We're talking of roll-offs like 0.1 dB at 20 Hz and 20 kHz, or at best double that value. Even a 1-dB drop-off doesn't necessarily mean to be audible or relevant if it is limited to 0.25 or 0.4 dB at 25 Hz and 16 kHz. THD is usually below 0.02% or even 0.002% and the like at normal listening levels. Noise is rarely audible at all or masked by the one on the recordings.

 So there's in fact no reason to expect sonic differences from modern solid-state amps. If you don't believe me, read the specs on HeadRoom's amplifier line-up. According to them you could buy their cheapest amp and have the sound quality of the most expensive.
.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Jazz,

 Do you agree that cable frequency response is effectively flat across ALL frequencies from 0 HZ (DC) to at least 100KHz, and for amps this not the case. This point is extreamly significant as it is why cables are so controversial when a claim of a sound 'signature' is claimed for a cable.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ 'When you're talking of roll-offs: what dB values do you have in mind? And what values do you consider relevant for audibility? '_

 

I'm sure you know this is a huge thread subject in itself, you are a difficult man to tie down, are you a politician by any chance?

 To answer you the threshold this becomes audible can be shown in an ABX test. This threshold may differ slightly from person to person. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ So there's in fact no reason to expect sonic differences from modern solid-state amps. If you don't believe me, read the specs on HeadRoom's amplifier line-up. According to them you could buy their cheapest amp and have the sound quality of the most expensive._

 

No there is no reason to expect difference in two well made amps with similar characteristics and power output..

 As you were into speakers you will know there is a big relationship between an amplifiers cost and max rated power output. You should include this parameter when you make this statement.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I really should duck out of this thread. I don't have the scientific background that can truly support the "anti-cablers" and sway "pro-science" "pro-cablers", and I don't have the experience that will convince (or help to convince) "anti-science" "pro-cablers". Also, I feel dirty._

 

All you have to know is that no differences has been proven by rigorous test.
 Until such a time comes, it's all up to 'them' to convince 'us'. 
 We can continue to do DBX tests and prove that these exact cables in this exact situation with these exact people do not show a difference, but this information is only relevant under these exact circumstanses and can't be generalized. On the other hand, if just in one instance it is shown in a DBX test that there is a difference, our claim that 'no cables within reasonable physical parameters show a sonic difference' will have been debunked. 
 No need to feel dirty, it's all in their hands.


----------



## JxK

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* 
_I really should duck out of this thread. I don't have the scientific background that can truly support the "anti-cablers" and sway "pro-science" "pro-cablers", and I don't have the experience that will convince (or help to convince) "anti-science" "pro-cablers". Also, I feel dirty._

 

You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another:

 Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. 

 If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. 

 If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says?

 Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism.


----------



## d.g

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another:

 Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. 

 If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. 

 If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says?

 Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism._

 

A very good point well made - studios and professionals quite often use something like Van Damme cables which are very well made and specified for individual purposes.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you agree that cable frequency response is effectively flat across ALL frequencies from 0 HZ (DC) to at least 100KHz, and for amps this not the case. This point is extreamly significant as it is why cables are so controversial when a claim of a sound 'signature' is claimed for a cable._

 

Can you tell me why exactly the curves below and above the audible spectrum are extremely significant?

  Quote:


 _I'm sure you know this is a huge thread subject in itself, you are a difficult man to tie down, are you a politician by any chance?_ 
 

No – I just don't want to be tied down. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


 _To answer you the threshold this becomes audible can be shown in an ABX test. This threshold may differ slightly from person to person._ 
 

Apart from that, there are officially accepted thresholds. 

  Quote:


 _No there is no reason to expect difference in two well made amps with similar characteristics and power output.._ 
 

Isn't this a contradiction to the above-mentioned «nonlinearity» issue? To simplify matters I have left out the power; there are cases where it's insufficient, but under normal circumstances even cheap speaker amps can drive the speakers way below maximum output power, thus without increased distortion. And most headphone amps have enough power to drive any headphone without problems (K 1000 excluded) – at normal listening levels.

 Personally I heard a difference before and after a modification making for even higher HF extension on my Metaxas Solitaire speaker amp. But the measuring difference is effectively limited to the ultrasonic range, hence shouldn't matter according to the official doctrine. If you think it does, we're not far from cable frequency-response issues.

 Believe me: I have auditioned a lot of amps – speaker and headphone. The sonic differences I heard had nothing to do with frequency response (where they didn't differ significantly) and rarely with power reserve. If anything, it's rather placebo effect.
.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another:

 Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. 

 If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. 

 If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says?

 Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism._

 

Just for your information: recording studio's typically use many miles of cables, so your "few extra dollars" is way off the mark. It would more likely mean millions of extra dollars. And production costs are a very real consideration for recording studios.

 By the way, I don't think the livelihood of these professionals depends on accurate sound reproduction. It depends on producing a recording that is good enough to be accepted by the masses for as little money as possible.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another:

 Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. 

 If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. 

 If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says?

 Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism._

 

And to add some more info: studios that do care about sound quality (unlike the big companies that supply us with mainly junk) actually use quality cabling. Like for instance OTR.
  Quote:


 Currently, we have our proprietary silver cable through out the recording rooms providing the clarity of sound that an audiophile requires


----------



## 883dave

As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't need science to figure this out. A little logic, common sense, and a rational dose of cynicism is enough. I made one argument like this above. Here is another:

 Take a look at the recording industry. The world's top studios - studios like Abbey Road, Airstudios, and the like - spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on their equipment. They use the best monitoring equipment found in the world. 

 If these boutique cables really made real difference, do you honestly think these studios would balk at spending a few extra dollars to purchase them? You will find that these studios use regular everyday cables, none of that silver-cryo-oxygen free nonsense. 

 If professionals whose livelihood depends upon accurate sound reproduction don't bother with these cables, what does it say about their efficacy? Hell, they don't even bother buying them 'just in case'. What do you think it says?

 Logic, common sense, and rational cynicism._

 

I wonder what Bob Ludwig and Steve Hoffman would say to this?


----------



## d.g

The point is that studios do use high quality cables, but perhaps don't rely on the really esoteric types available on the market for bank busting sums...


----------



## robb01

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests_

 

that would be most helpful


----------



## eucariote

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests_

 

Here ya go. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


This lays out standard experimental theory, design, testing and statistical methods quite nicely.






 If you don't have the patience for a 1400 page book, the simplest statistical test is the t-test (to assess if two effects are the 'same' or 'different') but the standard is the F-test, i.e. the analysis of variance (ANOVA) that can be used for any number of groups and variables. If there is a significant effect you then have to conduct a subsequent test of multiple comparisons to see what it was.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eucariote* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here ya go. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



This lays out standard experimental theory, design, testing and statistical methods quite nicely.




_

 

Thanks...

 I know how the tests are set up....

 Do you have a link to tests on the results of cable tests?

 What would be helpful would be links to the "ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc" that people keep quoting from...

 As far as I know "Science" is based on experiment and data not "hearsay"


----------



## eucariote

^ ah, that. Here's a couple.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests_

 

"The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing", Shanefield, Daniel, Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61. 

 "Flying Blind", Nousaine, Tom, A case against long term listening,Audio, Mar 97, pg 26-30. 

 "Can you Trust Your Ears?", Nousaine, Tom, Stereo Review, Aug 97, pg 53-55. 
 "Can you Trust Your Ears?", Nousaine, Tom, Presented at the 91st AES Convention, Oct 91, Print #3167 

 "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Clark, David, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol30, no 5, May82, pg 330-338. 

 "High-Fi Audio Pseudoscience", Davis, Fred E., Skeptical Inquirer, vol 15, no 3, Spring 91, pg 250-254. 

 "More on Hi-Fi Audio Claims", Davis, Fred E., Skeptical Inquirer, vol 16, no 1, Fall91, pg 90, 91. 

 "Speaker Cables: Testing for Audibility", Davis, Fred E., Audio, Jul 93, pg. 

 "Speaker Cables: Science or Snake Oil", Pass, Nelson, Speaker Builder, Feb 80, pg. 

 "The Wire and Cable Scene: Facts, Fictions and Frauds", Aczel, P. The Audio Critic, Part I- Issue 15, Spring-Winter 90-91; Part II-Issue 16, Spring-Fall 91, pg 51-57; Part III- issue 17, Winter 91-92, pg.50-52. 

 "Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian, Audio lab test, Audio Scene Canada, Jun 81, pg 24-27. 

 "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51. 

 "The Truth About Speaker Cables", Hoffman, Williwam R., Popular Electronics, Jul 95, pg 46-48, &93. 

 "Cross Talk, Do Cables Have a Sonic Personality all their Own?", Kessler, Kehn & Nousaine, Tom, Video, May 96, pg. 36-40. 

 "Does Wire Directionality Exist?", Lampen, Stephen, Speaker Builder, 3/98, pg 30, 31. 

 "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", Carlstrom, D., Kruger, A., & Greenhill, L., The Audio Amateur, 3/1982, pg 30, 31. 

 "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G, Stereo review, Jan 1986, pg 50-57. 

 "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Pholmann, Ken C., Stereo Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84. 

 "Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", Benjamin, Eric and Gannon, Benjamin, 105th AES Convention, 1998, Print 4826. 

 "Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894. 

AES E-Library: Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things

 Ten years of A/B/X Testing
 Experience from many years of double-blind listening tests of audio equipment is summarized. The results are generally consistent with threshold estimates from psychoacoustic literature, that is, listeners often fail to prove they can hear a difference after non-controlled listening suggested that there was one. However, the fantasy of audible differences continues despite the fact of audibility thresholds. David L. Clark

Power cable long term blind test - Hydrogenaudio Forums

ABX Double Blind Tests: Interconnects and Wires

ABX Double Blind Comparator Data

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

 Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. Authors:Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
 Affiliation:Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA, USA
 JAES Volume 55 Issue 9 pp. 775-779; September 2007 

http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/pnwrecaps/2000/lampen/


 Which of the Two Digital Audio Systems Best Matches the Quality of the Analog System?
 Aarts, Ronald; Engel, Jan; Reefman, Derk; Usher, John; Woszczyk, Wieslaw
 31st International Conference: New Directions in High Resolution Audio (June 2007)

 In double-blind tests, casual and professional listeners could not reliably identify high-bandwidth and high-resolution (192 kHz 24bit versus 48 kHz 24bit)

 Measuring Audible Effects of Time Delays in Listening Rooms
 Comb filter and all-pass time delay effects from stereo speakers in a representative listening room were auditioned and analyzed using a Time Delay Spectrometry analyzer. Considerable care was required to produce measurements that correlated with the audible effect. Conclusions are presented on the sonic relevance of some time, phase, and response measurements of speakers designed for stereo music reproduction. No one to date has been able to detect the presence of this circuit in hundreds of sensitive double-blind tests on speech or music program Clark, David AES Convention:74 (October 1983) Paper Number

 Here are a few to be getting on with...


----------



## JxK

Impressive. And I'll bet that each and every one of those links reaches the exact same conclusion. I suppose James Randi will just end up keeping his million dollars.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JxK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Impressive. And I'll bet that each and every one of those links reaches the exact same conclusion. I suppose James Randi will just end up keeping his million dollars._

 

To the best of my knowledge there has only ever been 1 successful DBT of audio cables. That was using the unamped output of a turntable MM cartridge and the cables were 1M and 6M long, the source signal being a few 10s of mV.


----------



## BIG POPPA

All those articles look like a boot camp for noob's?


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All those articles look like a boot camp for noob's?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hi - How does this look like :

 QLS-6

 The only power strip that is Quantum Tunneled!
 Synergistics new Quantum Line Strip features 6 widely spaced individual outlets housed in a 24" long by 1 5/8 wide by 1 1/2" tall chassis. All of the outlets are switched, and you can power it with your favorite cord. The quantum tunnelling helps the strip offer up a relaxed sound with a wide and deep stage. This is one giant killer of a strip! It beat the Oyaide MTB-6 with R-1 receptacles in listening tests. Amazing!

 What is Quantum Tunneled ?

 New financial fraud jargon from Wall Street ?

 AMAZING !


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi - How does this look like :

 QLS-6

 The only power strip that is Quantum Tunneled!
 Synergistics new Quantum Line Strip features 6 widely spaced individual outlets housed in a 24" long by 1 5/8 wide by 1 1/2" tall chassis. All of the outlets are switched, and you can power it with your favorite cord. The quantum tunnelling helps the strip offer up a relaxed sound with a wide and deep stage. This is one giant killer of a strip! It beat the Oyaide MTB-6 with R-1 receptacles in listening tests. Amazing!

 What is Quantum Tunneled ?

 New financial fraud jargon from Wall Street ?

 AMAZING !_

 






 Suspiciously snake oil indeed.


----------



## Arjisme

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All those articles look like a boot camp for noob's?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What do you mean?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With regard to volume, I had a startling experience with this when comparing the AKG 702 stock cable with the ALO SXC Cryo. I had to turn the volume up when I switched to the stock cable. I was really surprised at the difference since my last experience was with the HD650 and Cardas cable where I was most disappointed. I can't say to this day, whether or not there was really any difference in sound between the stock and Cardas cables._

 

I have just made my second cable for my K702s. I have not tested them extensively, but the only difference between them so far is that each needs the volume reset. I wonder now how many people have bought a different cable and mistaken a sound improvement for a slight change in volume?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing", Shanefield, Daniel, Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61. 
 .
 .
 .
 Measuring Audible Effects of Time Delays in Listening Rooms . . . No one to date has been able to detect the presence of this circuit in hundreds of sensitive double-blind tests on speech or music program Clark, David AES Convention:74 (October 1983) Paper Number_

 







 Thanks for the effort!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To the best of my knowledge there has only ever been 1 successful DBT of audio cables. That was using the unamped output of a turntable MM cartridge and the cables were 1M and 6M long, the source signal being a few 10s of mV._

 

What Hifi's series 'The Big Question' has produced a series of results where forum members have been able to detect sound differences in a whole raft of different cable/kit blind tests. Most recently was an almost perfect identification of high bit rate downloads over CDs.

 Thanks for the earlier post with the list of articles about ABX tests, superb!


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have just made my second cable for my K702s. I have not tested them extensively, but the only difference between them so far is that each needs the volume reset. I wonder now how many people have bought a different cable and mistaken a sound improvement for a slight change in volume?_

 

That should not be. A headphone cable should not exceed ~1 Ω, so on a 62-Ω headphone it should not cause a noticeable difference in volume.
.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What Hifi's series 'The Big Question' has produced a series of results where forum members have been able to detect sound differences in a whole raft of different cable/kit blind tests. Most recently was an almost perfect identification of high bit rate downloads over CDs._

 

Interesting, are any of these online ?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've wanted to read a thread on this issue for a long time._

 

If we go by known measurements there shouldn't be a real difference. I think most difference are placebo, or lack of level matching. That is of course providing both are similar in their capabilities.

 The headroom example falls apart as they don't provide enough measurements and results to honestly compare them.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_






 Suspiciously snake oil indeed._

 

The QLS-6 can speak for itself. You will have to audition it sometime? Just because you do not understand what it does, does not mean it doesn't work? With audio everybody has a different path to take. Very happy with mine. About 30 years in the making.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With audio everybody has a different path to take._

 

Yep. Some walk, some run, some quantum tunnel their sneakers


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The QLS-6 can speak for itself. You will have to audition it sometime? ._

 

Audition only ? I thought you can also communicate with it through the quantum tunnel ?

 For 400 $, would be nice it would tell the weather at least.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If we go by known measurements there shouldn't be a real difference. I think most difference are placebo, or lack of level matching. That is of course providing both are similar in their capabilities.

 The headroom example falls apart as they don't provide enough measurements and results to honestly compare them._

 

Good try! But why bother with these specs at all? After all they're perfectly in line with your world view. So their cheapest home amp sound as good as their most expensive. Doesn't that correspond to your credo?

 BTW, I know enough measuring data to tell that Headroom's specs are absolutely credible and on a normal level for modern solid-state amps.
.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That should not be. A headphone cable should not exceed ~1 Ω, so on a 62-Ω headphone it should not cause a noticeable difference in volume.
._

 

Of the two cables I have made I have the volume at between 9 and 10, rather than the stock cable's 9 maximum.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good try! But why bother with these specs at all? After all they're perfectly in line with your *world view*. So their cheapest home amp sound as good as their most expensive. Doesn't that correspond to your credo?

 BTW, I know enough measuring data to tell that Headroom's specs are absolutely credible and on a normal level for modern solid-state amps.
._

 


 You mean cable (or amp) view. And what has this to do with credo (=belief) ?
 Belief = a wish that something is true (ex. God is !).

 Regarding amps: all correctly designed SS amps sound the same - proven in DBT many many times among other check Sir Nick Charles links above ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting, are any of these online ?_

 

If you search through the What Hifi forum you will find discussions about the various Big Questions. Otherwise you need to buy the magazine.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have just made my second cable for my K702s. I have not tested them extensively, but the only difference between them so far is that each needs the volume reset. I wonder now how many people have bought a different cable and mistaken a sound improvement for a slight change in volume?_

 

I thought this may have been the case with the stock K702's so I turned up the volume but the sound was indeed still different. There was a significant loss of high frequency response and sparkle when compared with the ALO cable.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good try! But why bother with these specs at all?_

 

To check for any possible problems with the design and to make sure it can sufficiently drive headphones with no gross deficiencies.

  Quote:


 After all they're perfectly in line with your world view. 
 

You're going to have to preface this with something as it makes no sense really.

  Quote:


 So their cheapest home amp sound as good as their most expensive. 
 

Never said that sparky.

  Quote:


 Doesn't that correspond to your credo? 
 

What _are_ you getting at?

  Quote:


 BTW, I know enough measuring data to tell that Headroom's specs are absolutely credible and on a normal level for modern solid-state amps. 
 

Cool story bro, what's their output impedance, IMD percentage, acceptable load to be driven, and measurements at that loads highest and lowest impedance?

 The measurements they provide are credible, but they don't provide enough. Would you dare buy a speaker amp not knowing if it would clip at a specific load? If you would then maybe you'd by Headroom for your headphones, cause it's a guess at best.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The QLS-6 can speak for itself. You will have to audition it sometime? Just because you do not understand what it does, does not mean it doesn't work? With audio everybody has a different path to take. Very happy with mine. About 30 years in the making._

 

Sometimes I pray at my TV to make it look better. I don't understand why it works, but it sure works! Everyone has a different path for sure.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To check for any possible problems with the design and to make sure it can sufficiently drive headphones with no gross deficiencies._

 

As I understood, you were doubting HeadRoom's specs for their amps. So I was asking: «Why that» – if it corresponds to your belief that all amps sound the same (roughly spoken), because they're all wires with gain?

  Quote:


 _Never said that sparky._ 
 

What does «sparky» mean in this context? – I was the one who said that – as a consequence of the axiom «equal specs = equal sound», to reproduce your point of view.

  Quote:


 _Cool story bro, what's their output impedance, IMD percentage, acceptable load to be driven, and measurements at that loads highest and lowest impedance?_ 
 

For me the published specs are good enough to deduce that the rest of the measuring criteria are on a similar level – close to perfection (as with virtually all solid-state measuring specs I've seen). If you know enough about electronics you may know that solid-state amps usually have very low output impedances. So personally I don't care for this point. Of course you're free to do that if you're picky about amps. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _The measurements they provide are credible, but they don't provide enough. Would you dare buy a speaker amp not knowing if it would clip at a specific load?_ 
 

That's a very hypothetical question. Which modern solid-state amp does have problems with which impedances? Granted, there are a few speaker amps with problems with loads below 4 Ω, but that's not relevant for the examples at hand. With headphone amps you don't have to care for headphone impedances – certainly not with HeadRoom amps.

 What was your point again? That different amps do measure different? Yes, but only so much – and virtually all measuring data (in terms of signal alteration) are below the officially approved hearing threshold. Agreed?
.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DayoftheGreek* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sometimes I pray at my TV to make it look better. I don't understand why it works, but it sure works! Everyone has a different path for sure._

 

Plug your TV into a silver plated wall receptacle. That will improve your picture. They are around 50 bucks. That is an easy fix.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As I understood, you were doubting HeadRoom's specs for their amps. So I was asking: «Why that» – if it corresponds to your belief that all amps sound the same (roughly spoken), because they're all wires with gain?_

 

I don't doubt what they give, they just don't give enough.

  Quote:


 I was the one who said that – as a consequence of the axiom «equal specs = equal sound», to reproduce your point of view. 
 

Reproducing my POV wrong isn't reproducing it.

  Quote:


 For me the published specs are good enough to deduce that the rest of the measuring criteria are on a similar level – close to perfection (as with virtually all solid-state measuring specs I've seen). If you know enough about electronics you may know that solid-state amps usually have very low output impedances. So personally I don't care for this point. Of course you're free to do that if you're picky about amps. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

There's been plenty of poory built amps in the past . . . how many people are still getting amps fixed that were built buy that one guy on this forum that hightailed it?

  Quote:


 That's a very hypothetical question. Which modern solid-state amp does have problems with which impedances? Granted, there are a few speaker amps with problems with loads below 4 Ω 
 

Actually, there's more speakers amps that don't rather than do support 4ohms.

  Quote:


 but that's not relevant for the examples at hand. 
 

It is relevant which you'll see in a moment.

  Quote:


 With headphone amps you don't have to care for headphone impedances – certainly not with HeadRoom amps. 
 

You DO have to care. An AMB Labs amp maxes out at 300ohm capability . . . so it would have large problems with say an HD650. This is why it's important to _know_ what they're capable of rather than assuming like you're so quick to do.

  Quote:


 What was your point again? That different amps do measure different? Yes, but only so much – and virtually all measuring data (in terms of signal alteration) are below the officially approved hearing threshold. Agreed? 
 

Many measure well in certain aspects, but you must examine more than that to make sure everything's up to snuff. Beyond that if they measure close enough there shouldn't be an audible difference.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Reproducing my POV wrong isn't reproducing it._

 

So in which respect was I wrong? It would be more productive if you could offer your version instead of speaking in riddles. 

  Quote:


 _There's been plenty of poory built amps in the past . . . how many people are still getting amps fixed that were built buy that one guy on this forum that hightailed it?_ 
 

I think you're trying to nebulize the discussion. Those were tube amps, as you may remember. And we don't know their measuring specs. Apart from that they were reported to sound excellent nonetheless. But let's not lose track!

  Quote:


 _It is relevant which you'll see in a moment. You DO have to care. An AMB Labs amp maxes out at 300ohm capability . . . so it would have large problems with say an HD650. This is why it's important to know what they're capable of rather than assuming like you're so quick to do._ 
 

I'm so quick because I'm 100% sure that those HeadRoom amps can drive the HD 650 and the HD 800 and the T1... And litterally every solid-state headphone amps I've tried has smoothly driven all headphones I've attached to them. The amp you're speaking of must be an exotic.

  Quote:


 _Many measure well in certain aspects, but you must examine more than that to make sure everything's up to snuff. Beyond that if they measure close enough there shouldn't be an audible difference._ 
 

So far you haven't addressed absolute numbers. Which data would you consider above the hearing threshold? I don't think it applies to the published HeadRoom specs, do you? What other criteria would you consider important, e.g. what IMD numbers are you expecting to come into play to save the hierarchy among HeadRoom's line-up? Or which output impedances are there implanted into the cheaper models to make them sound cheaper?

 And a general question: Do you hear sonic differences with different amps? Have you auditioned a HeadRoom amp or two? – I haven't, but would like to (and I'm sure they sound good, although they're ugly).
.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And a general question: Do you hear sonic differences with different amps? Have you auditioned a HeadRoom amp or two? – I haven't, but would like to (and I'm sure they sound good, although they're ugly).
._

 

They sound great and this discussion is quite fascinating. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They're spartan in appearance yes, and like cables and other audio equipment, their spartan appearance has the opposite effect with regard to expectations.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Prog Rock Man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of the two cables I have made I have the volume at between 9 and 10, rather than the stock cable's 9 maximum._

 

Do you have an ohmmeter at your disposal?
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They sound great..._

 

I'm sure they do. 

  Quote:


 _They're spartan in appearance yes, and like cables and other audio equipment, their spartan appearance has the opposite effect with regard to expectations. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_ 
 

You mean they sound better than you would expect? Now if that's not a clear disproof of the placebo effect! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mean they sound better than you would expect? Now if that's not a clear disproof of the placebo effect! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

Actually...

 If you pay a lot of money for something that looks like a piece of crap, it's reasonable to think that your expectations of the sound will be even _higher_


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Head Injury* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually...

 If you pay a lot of money for something that looks like a piece of crap, it's reasonable to think that your expectations of the sound will be even higher



_

 

The Ugly Duckling. Haha!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So in which respect was I wrong? It would be more productive if you could offer your version instead of speaking in riddles._

 

You're making it sound like I assume all amps sound the same - regardless of anything.

  Quote:


 I think you're trying to nebulize the discussion. Those were tube amps, as you may remember. And we don't know their measuring specs. Apart from that they were reported to sound excellent nonetheless. But let's not lose track! 
 

The point is it was screwed circuitry that caused an issue, and didn't show till someone measured and actually opened the box up to find crap quite frankly.

  Quote:


 I'm so quick because I'm 100% sure that those HeadRoom amps can drive the HD 650 and the HD 800 and the T1... 
 

Evidence? Or are you a hundred percent assuming too?

  Quote:


 And litterally every solid-state headphone amps I've tried has smoothly driven all headphones I've attached to them. The amp you're speaking of must be an exotic. 
 

An exotic? Hardly . . . have you not heard of AMB Labs? The Mini^3 only goes to 300ohms, while the M^3 is much more capable.

 Not all amps are equivalent or made for all loads. On the other hand I don't think it's particularly expensive accomplishing good amp design either, and gets blown out of proportion too.

  Quote:


 So far you haven't addressed absolute numbers. Which data would you consider above the hearing threshold? 
 

That's rather vague - in terms of a question. The numbers they provide only tell so much. What's the THD of the amp at 16ohms and 650ohms? Are we to assume it's impervious to different loads for no reason?

  Quote:


 I don't think it applies to the published HeadRoom specs, do you? What other criteria would you consider important, e.g. what IMD numbers are you expecting to come into play to save the hierarchy among HeadRoom's line-up? Or which output impedances are there implanted into the cheaper models to make them sound cheaper? 
 

I'm not implying anything unlike you. I _hope_ Headroom wouldn't sabotage one of their own products to create an artificial tier. Again though, I'm not going to assume one way or the other like you seem to.

  Quote:


 And a general question: Do you hear sonic differences with different amps? 
 

Depends if they reach levels that are measurably inaudible and don't cause problems with the transducers. If we can talk about speaker amps for a moment, if I hooked my Magnepans to an old 5.1 receiver it would surely burn up and sound awful. While it may not be as dramatic with headphones there's no doubt that something such as clipping will cause distortion.

 All of the amps I've purchased meet the needs of my headphones, so I really can't tell a difference. The only time I could tell a difference is when the ground opamp on the Mini^3 was going shot.

  Quote:


 Have you auditioned a HeadRoom amp or two? – I haven't, but would like to (and I'm sure they sound good, although they're ugly). 
 

You keep saying "I'm sure", but you haven't even touched one. They may be great amps, but headroom doesn't provide enough information for anyone to be sure.

 And all of this doesn't take into subjective taste - such as people that use high distorting tubes or force them into clipping (not talking about low distortion designs, though they may have their own problem).


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have an ohmmeter at your disposal?
._

 

Well I have a multimeter and so far I have only learned how to us it to check continuity. I did think myself that cable resistance and some for of attenuation is going on. This is day two of the new cable and day one of some new ICs I made. I can now listen with the volume from 8 to 12. Even 7 and 1 are do-able without 7 being a total loss of sound and at 1 there is still no clipping or distortion. But it feels too loud for my ears.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're making it sound like I assume all amps sound the same - regardless of anything._

 

Yes, I did. But that was just a working hypothesis to have a starting point. You have the opportunity to correct it anytime.

  Quote:


 _Evidence? Or are you a hundred percent assuming too?_ 
 

100% assuming, too. I take it from the reviews I've read about the good synergy between HeadRoom amps and the 300-Ω Sennheisers. So I'm indeed 100% sure that HeadRoom amps can drive 300-Ω headphones. And 600-Ω headphones as well. 

  Quote:


 _An exotic? Hardly . . . have you not heard of AMB Labs? The Mini^3 only goes to 300ohms, while the M^3 is much more capable._ 
 

No, I don't know this company, but I've heard of the M^3. The Mini^3 apparently is an exception among headphone amps. A budget model, as it seems?

  Quote:


 _Not all amps are equivalent or made for all loads. On the other hand I don't think it's particularly expensive accomplishing good amp design either, and gets blown out of proportion too._ 
 

I can't speak for amp designs in detail, but I think it's easy to build a headphone amp that measures perfect. And still I don't agree on the criticalness of impedance matching. I don't know one single solid-state amp with impedance restrictions. Even if we accept this exceptional case, the call still stands that with solid-state amps you (usually) don't have to care for headphone impedances. And any sonic mismatches are unlikely to be caused by such problems.

  Quote:


 _That's rather vague - in terms of a question. The numbers they provide only tell so much. What's the THD of the amp at 16ohms and 650ohms? Are we to assume it's impervious to different loads for no reason?_ 
 

Not at all. But these HeadRoom specs are in line with other solid-state amps, and since they offer a near-perfect picture, deviations from them towards different load impedances won't destroy it. Not in headphone amps. Even if the THD is increased by a factor of 3 at low impedances (which is a realistic scenario) it is still way below audibility*. As mentioned, I have access to many measuring results, and among solid-state amps they're definitely no evaluation criterion, since frequency responses are linear enough, distortion figures low enough to be inaudible by a large margin – at least *according to established psychoacoustics.

  Quote:


 _I'm not implying anything unlike you. I hope Headroom wouldn't sabotage one of their own products to create an artificial tier. Again though, I'm not going to assume one way or the other like you seem to._ 
 

Combine your statements («I don't think it's particularly expensive accomplishing good amp design either, and gets blown out of proportion too» ... «all of the amps I've purchased meet the needs of my headphones, so I really can't tell a difference») with the manufacturer specs at hand, and it would be a logical assumption from your part that all HeadRoom desktop amps will most likely sound the same. Yet you're desperately trying to obfuscate this self-evident possibility. I don't have to tell you why. 

  Quote:


 _You keep saying "I'm sure", but you haven't even touched one. They may be great amps, but headroom doesn't provide enough information for anyone to be sure._ 
 

You know, «I'm sure» means: «I'm not 100% sure, but I think...». I get this impression from the multitude of positive reviews. That's where our approaches differ fundamentally: I don't rely on specs (as they tell nothing in the context of headphone amps – see above), but rather on reviews and of course personal audition.

 This excursion to amplifiers actually served for demonstrating that cables and electronics can be treated equally when it comes to measuring data (although they still differ by one or two magnitudes): If properly designed and made, they don't show significant* differences. This also applies to the reported blind-test results. In this forum corner you'll find several proponents of the «all amps sound the same» philosophy. You belong to them yourself in my book, despite your reservations. 

 My point is that if you think all cables sound the same, because the measured differences are too small to be audible, you also have to think that more or less all (solid-state) amps sound the same – for the very same reason. This based on established hearing-threshold figures. (_Nick Charles_ is an expert in this field. Maybe he will help us out with this.)

 My point behind the point is that I don't take established hearing-threshold paradigms as seriously as some. There's more to be discovered in audio electronics and psychoacoustics than commonly accepted (or rather: ...whereas many think there's nothing more to be discovered at all). That's why I can live with the «cable-sound mystery».
.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have started a thread on the What Hifi series of blind tests, including one on cables here

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/w...esting-486219/


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My point is that if you think all cables sound the same, because the measured differences are too small to be audible, you also have to think that more or less all (solid-state) amps sound the same – for the very same reason. This based on established hearing-threshold figures. (Nick Charles is an expert in this field. Maybe he will help us out with this.)_

 

Amps are not quite as straightforward as cables especially when tricky loudpspeaker loads come into play, and impedance mismatches can mean that two ostensibly near identical amps can interact differently under some circumstances.

 There are a few DBTS of speaker amps that were positive, David Clark did some way back. The Carver challenge also shows that amps can be audibly different as Bob Carver had to post-fix his amp to null differences to win the challenge.

 That said when you put aside exceptional conditions and have two competent (flat FR, low distortion) and near identically specced amps with unproblematic loads driven below clipping differences are harder to find. See "Do all amplifiers sound the same".

 As for psychophysics new reserach emerges periodically that refines our knowledge of discimination thresholds, for instance in some carefully controlled circumstances TIM of 0.003% is detectable, but not as distortion only as "different". Other thresholds are remarkably stable. Though more research id always a good idea.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I did. But that was just a working hypothesis to have a starting point. You have the opportunity to correct it anytime._

 

I'd say they're the same if there's nothing dramatically different.

  Quote:


 100% assuming, too. 
 

Then it's not worth delving into.

  Quote:


 No, I don't know this company, but I've heard of the M^3. The Mini^3 apparently is an exception among headphone amps. A budget model, as it seems? 
 

It's a portable amp, and most of them tend to have power limits which would cause issues with loads above 300ohms. Even a few desktop amps have this problem, so it's worth considering.

  Quote:


 I can't speak for amp designs in detail, but I think it's easy to build a headphone amp that measures perfect. And still I don't agree on the criticalness of impedance matching. 
 

The impedance limits, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, have no relation to impedance matching. If an amp can only support a 300ohm load, it's due to the fact that it can't sufficiently power anything above it without clipping (same for going below the minimum load).

  Quote:


 I don't know one single solid-state amp with impedance restrictions. 
 

Well now you do.

  Quote:


 Even if we accept this exceptional case, the call still stands that with solid-state amps you (usually) don't have to care for headphone impedances. And any sonic mismatches are unlikely to be caused by such problems. 
 

It's one of those "maybe" situations. Most of the time it's probably not an issue, but that still leaves those other times someone will get bit in the butt because they didn't research enough.

  Quote:


 Not at all. But these HeadRoom specs are in line with other solid-state amps, and since they offer a near-perfect picture, deviations from them towards different load impedances won't destroy it. 
 

Proof?

  Quote:


 Not in headphone amps. Even if the THD is increased by a factor of 3 at low impedances (which is a realistic scenario) it is still way below audibility*. As mentioned, I have access to many measuring results, and among solid-state amps they're definitely no evaluation criterion, since frequency responses are linear enough, distortion figures low enough to be inaudible by a large margin – at least *according to established psychoacoustics. 
 

Once again, you're assuming. If the amp clips the distortion can raise dramatically. For example, some digital (speaker) amps can climb to 10% THD based on speaker impedance and output power. So yes, we do need to ask these questions regarding amps regardless of whether they're headphone or speaker - as you simply never know.

  Quote:


 Combine your statements («I don't think it's particularly expensive accomplishing good amp design either, and gets blown out of proportion too» ... «all of the amps I've purchased meet the needs of my headphones, so I really can't tell a difference») with the manufacturer specs at hand, and it would be a logical assumption from your part that all HeadRoom desktop amps will most likely sound the same. 
 

Probably. If I had a set of HD650s and tried them with a portable Headroom amp than no, it probably wouldn't sound the same (almost guaranteed clipping just considering design limitations)

  Quote:


 Yet you're desperately trying to obfuscate this self-evident possibility. I don't have to tell you why. 
 

Actually you do. You've been running the circle jerk here, so what's wrong with you continuing?

 Just because something "probably" will work doesn't mean it "will" work. You're just assuming.

  Quote:


 You know, «I'm sure» means: «I'm not 100% sure, but I think...». 
 

And that sums up your entire argument. I'm not going to waste anymore of my patience on it.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...The impedance limits, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, have no relation to impedance matching. If an amp can only support a 300ohm load, it's due to the fact that it can't sufficiently power anything above it without clipping (same for going below the minimum load)._

 

Sorry, I don't have experience with clipping amps (none of the ones I auditioned did), so this is new to me. 

  Quote:


 _Proof? Once again, you're assuming. If the amp clips the distortion can raise dramatically. For example, some digital (speaker) amps can climb to 10% THD based on speaker impedance and output power. So yes, we do need to ask these questions regarding amps regardless of whether they're headphone or speaker - as you simply never know._ 
 

I have every reason to assume that HeadRoom's amps can drive 300-ohm headphones. And I'm astonished about your stubbornness. A majoritiy of HeadRoom's customers use their desktop amps with high-impedance headphones, preferrably HD 650 and 600 and now additionally HD 800. So what's your point? Have you seen reviews of clipping HeadRoom amps?

  Quote:


 _Probably. If I had a set of HD650s and tried them with a portable Headroom amp than no, it probably wouldn't sound the same (almost guaranteed clipping just considering design limitations)_ 
 

You're assuming something? And I disagree: I think as long as you avoid exessive volume levels, the amp with battery drive will sound about the same as with external power supply.

  Quote:


 _Actually you do. You've been running the circle jerk here, so what's wrong with you continuing?_ 
 

I really thought you'd understand what I mean. So I will elaborate. If you think there's a high likelihood of the HeadRoom line-up to sound more or less identical, where's your protest stance against such a fraud and rip-off? I can tell you why you don't dare to say what you think: Too many people would refuse to take you and your conspiracy theory seriously. Am I right?

  Quote:


 _And that sums up your entire argument._ 
 

I don't think so, and I don't think you really mean what you're saying. It's more like a final kick in the ass.

 Your own argumentation is mainly based on special cases: clipping... (actually: what else again?) As mentioned, I didn't and don't experience clipping with the auditioned amps (speakers in the past and now exclusively headphones). And I don't listen at particualrly low levels. Nevertheless, all of them had and have their individual characteristics – not clearly better or worse, just different.

  Quote:


 _I'm not going to waste anymore of my patience on it._ 
 

Well then, thanks for your previous patience! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Some people just like to argue with no motivation to find out for themselves on their own.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you seen reviews of clipping HeadRoom amps?_

 

Actually, two of the eight HeadRoom amplifiers have clipping indicators and are powered with four AAA batteries. This, of course, means 3 V rails. The clipping indicators "not only tells you when you’ve got a hot signal, it also tells you when your batteries are low." The Airhead and Bithead amps will clip when played loudly enough (performance level rock music and orchestra crescendos).

HeadRoom Total AirHead Owner's Manual


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
_ Amps are not quite as straightforward as cables especially when tricky loudspeaker loads come into play, and impedance mismatches can mean that two ostensibly near identical amps can interact differently under some circumstances._

 

  I guess you're speaking of speaker amps. Yes, they're difficult to judge, as they react differently to complex loads with phase shifts as well as to back EMF.
  
   Quote:


 _...when you put aside exceptional conditions and have two competent (flat FR, low distortion) and near identically specced amps with unproblematic loads driven below clipping differences are harder to find._
 

  That's for sure. But in sighted tests it's still pretty easy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
   Quote:


 _As for psychophysics, new reserach emerges periodically that refines our knowledge of discimination thresholds, for instance in some carefully controlled circumstances TIM of 0.003% is detectable, but not as distortion only as "different". Other thresholds are remarkably stable. Though more research id always a good idea._
 

  Good to know that psychoacoustics are not as deadlocked-monolithic and conservative as I thought. 0.003% is remarkably low. I can absolutely reproduce how it's not perceived as such but as an altered characteristic. That's what I expect from (and I think perceive with) harmonic distortion, too, also at such low figures.

 The German audio magazine «Stereoplay» has done some research to find a common denominator between their listening tests (according to the chief editor's statements they're done blinded, but I got no details) and their technical tests of amplifiers. And they believe to have found it: The most important thing is a «harmonic» spectrum of harmonic distortions with a continuous, smooth increase with power – clearly more important than low values.

 Moreover they believe to have found a further correlation between «good» sound and a low sensitivity to back EMF (in speaker amps). Therefor they have developed a special measuring system including a MLS signal, which reveals parasitic signal alterations in the form of irregular decay phenomena, and this especially with solid-state amps with high negative feedback.

 So I think there's really something going on, and maybe one day even cables will find universal rehabilitation: the same test method has revealed cable effects which wouldn't have been noticed with conventional measuring methods.
.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, I don't have experience with clipping amps (none of the ones I auditioned did), so this is new to me._

 

Really? I question whether you actually know what clipping sounds like.

  Quote:


 I have every reason to assume that HeadRoom's amps can drive 300-ohm headphones. 
 

If it's a true 300ohms then I'd have little reason to doubt HeadRoom's portable line even. The problem is some headphones are more inductive than others.

  Quote:


 And I'm astonished about your stubbornness. A majoritiy of HeadRoom's customers use their desktop amps with high-impedance headphones, preferrably HD 650 and 600 and now additionally HD 800. So what's your point? Have you seen reviews of clipping HeadRoom amps? 
 

What about their portables and a HD650 with an impedance curve that can go much higher than 300? Same for the HD800.


  Quote:


 You're assuming something? And I disagree: I think as long as you avoid exessive volume levels, the amp with battery drive will sound about the same as with external power supply. 
 

Portable amps are limited due to design contraints in terms of max voltage and battery life will be sacrificed for increases in current.

  Quote:


 I really thought you'd understand what I mean. So I will elaborate. If you think there's a high likelihood of the HeadRoom line-up to sound more or less identical, where's your protest stance against such a fraud and rip-off? 
 

I never considered them a rip-off, I just prefer to have full measurements? I do consider them a bit overpriced though - but the xfeed circuit may be worth it to some.

  Quote:


 I can tell you why you don't dare to say what you think: Too many people would refuse to take you and your conspiracy theory seriously. Am I right? 
 

HAH, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard from you yet.

 Let's examine something real quick. This is the full impedance graph of the HD650:






 If we accept the assertion that most portable amps won't have the voltage to drive 350+ohms (usually limited to 300 at stated - at least while maintaining advertised specs), then we can see that the portable amps (still solid state mind you) wouldn't be suitable.

 On the other hand their desktop amps more than likely could with little trouble. This is more based on design principle. Regardless, that's just one example of why full measurements of amps is needed to really speak on them.

  Quote:


 I don't think so, and I don't think you really mean what you're saying. It's more like a final kick in the ass. 
 

You can think all you want, but it's still wrong.

  Quote:


 Your own argumentation is mainly based on special cases: clipping... (actually: what else again?) 
 

Clipping is one of the largest factors, though I'd like to see measurements regarding multiple types of distortion beyond THD. They're also missing specs for things like SNR, which I'm honestly surprised they don't list. I haven't heard anyone complain of hiss though and haven't heard any complaint of it so it's probably safe to (yes, assume) that it's relatively high.

  Quote:


 As mentioned, I didn't and don't experience clipping with the auditioned amps (speakers in the past and now exclusively headphones). And I don't listen at particualrly low levels. Nevertheless, all of them had and have their individual characteristics – not clearly better or worse, just different. 
 

Maybe you just don't know what clipping sounds like?

  Quote:


 Well then, thanks for your previous patience! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Hopefully this final post ends the matter. It's not a conspiracy or anything of the sort, I don't believe in such things. I just won't speak on the capability of an amp without having numbers to back it up.


 Next you're going to tell me a cmoy could drive AKG K1000's with no distortion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Actually, two of the eight HeadRoom amplifiers have clipping indicators and are powered with four AAA batteries. This, of course, means 3 V rails. The clipping indicators "not only tells you when you’ve got a hot signal, it also tells you when your batteries are low." The Airhead and Bithead amps will clip when played loudly enough (performance level rock music and orchestra crescendos).

 HeadRoom Total AirHead Owner's Manual_

 

That helps a lot, thank you for informing us on this fact.

 I'm glad they have a form of indication though - something many amps just don't have.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, two of the eight HeadRoom amplifiers have clipping indicators and are powered with four AAA batteries. This, of course, means 3 V rails. The clipping indicators "not only tells you when you’ve got a hot signal, it also tells you when your batteries are low." The Airhead and Bithead amps will clip when played loudly enough (performance level rock music and orchestra crescendos).

HeadRoom Total AirHead Owner's Manual_

 

Funny! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Yeah: low batteries and high listening levels can make a battery-driven HeadRoom amp clip.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yeah: low batteries and high listening levels can make a battery-driven HeadRoom amp clip. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Or using headphones that require move voltage than available at certain frequencies.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? I question whether you actually know what clipping sounds like._

 

Yeah, sure. I see you questioning if I know what clipping sound like. Do _you_ know how it sounds like?

  Quote:


 [/i]If it's a true 300ohms then I'd have little reason to doubt HeadRoom's portable line even. The problem is some headphones are more inductive than others. What about their portables and a HD650 with an impedance curve that can go much higher than 300? Same for the HD800. Portable amps are limited due to design contraints in terms of max voltage and battery life will be sacrificed for increases in current.[/i] 
 

If you look back you may notice that I have explicitly excluded portable amps, because they'e special cases (due to limited voltage, thus limited output power at high impedances). 

  Quote:


 _I never considered them a rip-off, I just prefer to have full measurements? I do consider them a bit overpriced though - but the xfeed circuit may be worth it to some._ 
 

Why don't you consider them a rip-off? I think you should. If their chapest desktop amp measures and sounds the same as their flagship (which you consider likely yourself), where's the justification for the higher-priced amps? Even the lower models offer crossfeed.

  Quote:


 _Clipping is one of the largest factors..._ 
 

No, not at all. With well-made amps clipping has no meaning in practice. I wonder how you come to this conclusion. From own experience with your amps?

  Quote:


 _...though I'd like to see measurements regarding multiple types of distortion beyond THD. They're also missing specs for things like SNR, which I'm honestly surprised they don't list. I haven't heard anyone complain of hiss though and haven't heard any complaint of it so it's probably safe to (yes, assume) that it's relatively high._ 
 

And I guess you haven't heard complaints about clipping, but it's still not safe. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _Maybe you just don't know what clipping sounds like?_ 
 

Who knows! But be warned: I've played electric guitar and bass guitar! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _Hopefully this final post ends the matter. It's not a conspiracy or anything of the sort, I don't believe in such things. I just won't speak on the capability of an amp without having numbers to back it up._ 
 

That's accepted. But you keep on beating a dead horse with your clipping theory, which is so far from reality.

  Quote:


 _Next you're going to tell me a cmoy could drive AKG K1000's with no distortion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_ 
 

No, don't worry! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wonder what this amp excursion is worth for if we keep on debating about HeadRoom amps and their hypothetical measuring and sonic differences without realizing the clue of the matter: harmonic distortion in solid-state amps is very low, and other measuring criteria such as frequency response are also close to perfection. So perfect that according to conservative standards the differences between them are inaudible. That makes them sort of comparable to cables. As you would say yourself: well-made cables and well-made amps all sound the same. (Well, that's not exactly my own attitude.)
.


----------



## d.g

I can certainly confirm that not all amps sound the same, I have a homemade solid state amplifier originally designed to power a set of Quad ELS57's, the chap who made it sold it to me as he was building a replacement using the same components but mounted where possible on a pcb and not hard wired, we found when comparing the two that a clear difference in sound was noted - same components remember!

 We put this down to the newer amp actually being more efficient in the fact it had shorter signal paths etc, but somehow the older deisgn sounded more musical, perhaps not quite as analytical, neither was "better" but they were certainly different!


----------



## jesse1919

My 2 cents: analog cables do have VERY slight differences and digital copper cables do not - any piece of junk will work. You should never use optical digital - always sounds terrible IMO.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, sure. I see you questioning if I know what clipping sound like. Do you know how it sounds like?_

 

Yes, very much so. I used to power some very inductive speakers with a home theater receiver starting out. Won't ever make that mistake again - it sounded like some frequencies had the life sucked out of them among other things.

  Quote:


 If you look back you may notice that I have explicitly excluded portable amps, because they'e special cases (due to limited voltage, thus limited output power at high impedances). 
 

No you didn't actually::

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jazz* 
_ Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* 
Probably. If I had a set of HD650s and tried them with a portable Headroom amp than no, it probably wouldn't sound the same (almost guaranteed clipping just considering design limitations)

 

You're assuming something? And I disagree: I think as long as you avoid exessive volume levels, the amp with battery drive will sound about the same as with external power supply._

 

So you just argued a battery amp would drive just as well as one with an external supply (which is a misnomer since not all desktops have external, but nonetheless).

  Quote:


 Why don't you consider them a rip-off? I think you should. If their chapest desktop amp measures and sounds the same as their flagship (which you consider likely yourself), where's the justification for the higher-priced amps? Even the lower models offer crossfeed. 
 

Which ones are you saying I should think are a rip-off? They're generally sometimes a bit more or a bit less than others, but tend to be in-line with the market (which is unfortunate that the market has gotten in such a shape, but I digress).

  Quote:


 No, not at all. With well-made amps clipping has no meaning in practice. I wonder how you come to this conclusion. From own experience with your amps? 
 

Okay, let's question the terminology of a well made amp. Many would argue the Grado RA1 is "well made" in terms of build quality. Yet in reality it's a desktop amp with a portable core stuck in it. It would clip easily given a demanding pair of cans, yet has a cost of $400 or so and is a "desktop" amp.

  Quote:


 And I guess you haven't heard complaints about clipping, but it's still not safe. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Actually I have on certain amp - albeit portable. Still, the RA1 shows for example why it isn't safe to assume.

  Quote:


 That's accepted. But you keep on beating a dead horse with your clipping theory, which is so far from reality. 
 

See above.

  Quote:


 I wonder what this amp excursion is worth for if we keep on debating about HeadRoom amps and their hypothetical measuring and sonic differences without realizing the clue of the matter: harmonic distortion in solid-state amps is very low, and other measuring criteria such as frequency response are also close to perfection. So perfect that according to conservative standards the differences between them are inaudible. That makes them sort of comparable to cables. As you would say yourself: well-made cables and well-made amps all sound the same. (Well, that's not exactly my own attitude.) 
 

I'm just not going to assume an amp is capable because it should be, because unfortunately that sort of mentality just leads to getting burned. I'd say there's tons of headphone amps that measure practically identical, and if tested properly would sound the same. I sure as heck though wouldn't make such a claim for an RA1 and say an M^3 with a pair of HD800 cans.

 Given, if both amps are close enough there shouldn't be a difference. That means they have roughly the same measurements including ability to drive certain loads, etc. When one is severely deficient in comparison to one it's being compared against it will sound different - and by deficient I mean measurable issues obviously.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Shike, the way you argue everything you just may not have a fun time with this hobby? Let go and enjoy.


----------



## JxK

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shike, the way you argue everything you just may not have a fun time with this hobby? Let go and enjoy._

 

There's a reason debate teams exist in high schools and colleges. Arguing is fun.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You may win or lose, but the fun is in the process. Especially if you can be witty while doing it. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that just about each and every one of the repeat posters in this thread (and that includes you) secretly enjoy trying to prove your side of the debate.


----------



## BIG POPPA

I understand that but dissecting someones thread over and over come on? My posts (opinions) are from experience.


----------



## cegras

An amp's frequency response is usually measured with a constant load on it. The real frequency response is the total output measured when the signal is also passed through headphones - which will have varying responses to frequencies. 

 A clue can be found in how it responds to square waves, that is, how quickly an amp can trace discontinuous signals or signals that sharply change with time. You'll find that not all amps are the same. Check amb for oscilloscope screenshots.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shike, the way you argue everything you just may not have a fun time with this hobby? Let go and enjoy._

 

"Spending tons of money on pieces of copper is for suckers"

 I've been wanting to say that for a long time, you pathetic flamebaiter.

 Just for fun I read up on the so called Quantum tunneling process on their website. My credentials are 2nd and 3rd year education in quantum mechanics with applications to materials and chemistry. Here we go:

  Quote:


 Quantum Tunneling is a process that changes the way a cable conducts signal at the subatomic level, affecting the entire cable assembly: connectors (RCA, XLR, spade, or banana), solder joints, dielectric, and signal & ground conductors are all transformed and integrated as a single unit. 
 

This is a big ****ing lie, first of all. Integrated as a single unit? Let's not even joke around here; common sense tells us that a signal and ground conductor working as a single unit just blows the mind.

 Second of all, quantum tunneling involves the wave function bypassing a energy barrier that it normally would never be able to cross. This does not apply to signals passing through a conductor. In a metal, the electron orbitals of each individual atom link up to create energy bands, incredibly dense energy states (since energy is quantized) where an electron simply flows through from atom to atom.

 That tesla coil is NOT quantum tunneling. That is merely a voltage difference that exceeds the breakdown strength of air.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shike, the way you argue everything you just may not have a fun time with this hobby? Let go and enjoy._

 

This is the science section. The sections for "special" people who "hear" differences in cables is better found in most other places in Head-Fi.

 And if you don't find enough science here, bring it on.


 .


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests_

 

And Head-Fi conducted a decent one as well Blind Cable Test RESULTS!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shike, the way you argue everything you just may not have a fun time with this hobby? Let go and enjoy._

 

Don't make me quantum tunnel you!


----------



## cegras

Quantum tunneling essentially is what happens when an electron runs into an 








 insulator.

 You could try cutting your cables in half and placing a disk of dielectric angstroms in thickness in between, or perhaps you could try holding them that far apart (an angstrom is 100 picometers, which is 0.1 nm). Then you'll hear quantum tunneling.

 Well, it might have to be thicker. To a rough approximate amps put out anywhere from 0-15 or more volts, so electrons will have that many eV of energy, and you'll have to tune your thickness appropriately. Bottom line: quantum tunneling in context of conductors is total bull****.


----------



## BIG POPPA

If you haven't tried the Synergistic Research gear you have no idea what it is? Really? Until then please be civil? Good stuff to add to your rig. It makes everything sound better. That is what it does. Simply, just makes everything sound better.


----------



## cegras

It is certainly not what they claim. There is no quantum tunneling happening - that is an absolute lie. I can choose to be as civil as I want, and frankly I'm tired of all the baseless claims you're spouting. I am not required to take what you preach as gospel, and certainly your anecdotal evidence is far from convincing me to believe any general principle you wish to harp on me or the rest of the forum. I tire of it.

 I don't have to listen to equipment to apply common sense to what they claim. That is the whole purpose of becoming educated, to make inferences and extrapolate from what you have. You have basically ignored my whole argument and turtled back to your standard argument. It's tiresome.

 You should read the thread that Tyll started a few lines down. He has FR graphs of headphones placed on different positions in the head. There are significant variations in low and high frequency, but not so much in the mids. This is a huge clue.

 For every phenomenon you claim to hear I can give you a rational explanation, but you simply choose not to listen and instead roll around the forums spouting your standard mantra. It's about time you stop.


----------



## jax




----------



## limpidglitch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand that but dissecting someones thread over and over come on? My posts (opinions) are from biased experience._

 

Fixed!


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ My posts (opinions) are from experience._

 

yeah, like Alice, yours must be based on experience in Wonderland :

 "I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, Sir, because I'm not myself you see."

 or

 "I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it."

 or

 "Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is - oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate! However, the Multiplication Table doesn't signify: let's try Geography. London is the capital of Paris, and Paris is the capital of Rome, and Rome..."

 or 

 "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. "


 and finally


*If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?*


----------



## limpidglitch

^ lol 

 I found a few comments and references by John Dunlavy


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yeah, like Alice, yours must be based on experience in Wonderland :

 "I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, Sir, because I'm not myself you see."

 or

 "I don't believe there's an atom of meaning in it."

 or

 "Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is - oh dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate! However, the Multiplication Table doesn't signify: let's try Geography. London is the capital of Paris, and Paris is the capital of Rome, and Rome..."

 or 

 "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. "


 and finally


*If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?*_

 

Added you to my ignore list.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Added you to my ignore list._

 

Before I speak, I have something important to say :

 Thank you for the priviledge !


----------



## JohnFerrier

Lewis Carroll quotes are offensive?!? I think there was a point made.


----------



## JamesChappell

I might agree with all of them. Do not waste your time trying to convince them regarding this matter. If you tried telling it once and they did not believe, then, stop. At least, you tried.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. "_

 

I think you have just summed this thread up


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And Head-Fi conducted a decent one as well Blind Cable Test RESULTS!_

 

Great link, now saved and ready for a long read. At least this thread has linked to some evidence, so leaving those who like to argue to just get on with it.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No you didn't actually:: So you just argued a battery amp would drive just as well as one with an external supply..._

 

Look at my choice of HeadRoom amps for comparing the specs! (And somewhere I was mentioning «home amps».) Of course battery-powered amps can have power limitations. But they (or some of them) can nevertheless drive high-impedance headphones without a (sonic) problem if you renounce excessive or high volumes. I'm speaking of own experience. And I definitely expect the HeadRoom Micro Amp to power an HD 650 with ease, even with battery power. Also, the sonic result will be comparable independent of power supply (battery or mains supply), maybe even in favor of the battery. Of course power reserve wil be limited in the case of battery power, but that doesn't mean it will clip at normal volumes. If someone's listening habits lead to clipping, it's simply the wrong amp or the wrong power. But that's easy to find out and to fix. 

  Quote:


 _Which ones are you saying I should think are a rip-off?_ 
 

Everything above the $349 Micro Amp.

  Quote:


 _Okay, let's question the terminology of a well made amp. Many would argue the Grado RA1 is "well made" in terms of build quality. Yet in reality it's a desktop amp with a portable core stuck in it. It would clip easily given a demanding pair of cans, yet has a cost of $400 or so and is a "desktop" amp._ 
 

I don't see the point with your clipping hysteria. Personally I would be most interested in the sonic characteristic of an amp. As mentioned, with my listening habits I haven't met a clipping amp. 

  Quote:


 _Actually I have on certain amp - albeit portable. Still, the RA1 shows for example why it isn't safe to assume._ 
 

We were talking of HeadRoom amps, which you explicitly refused to give credit in terms of clipping, but had no problems to give credit in terms of hissing based on hearsay.

  Quote:


 _Given, if both amps are close enough there shouldn't be a difference. That means they have roughly the same measurements including ability to drive certain loads, etc. When one is severely deficient in comparison to one it's being compared against it will sound different - and by deficient I mean measurable issues obviously._ 
 

Such as HeadRoom's line-up? Yet you seem to defend it. Allegedly because of lacking specs. What I miss from you is a clear statement that to pay more than a minimum for electronics is a waste of money. You could still include the advice to pay attention to clipping resistance. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, my point is that a great majority of solid-state amps has indeed measuring specs (= measuring flaws) way below officially accepted hearing thresholds. Moreover they can't be distinguished in DBTs, at least that's what I get from the posts here. And that's what I find fascinating. The number of people who think that cables make no difference is relatively large. But the number of people who think that electronics components make no difference (roughly spoken) is drastically smaller – they're particularly concentrated in the science forum. Which is understandable: People who pay high attention to measuring specs are more likely to call for blind tests in cases where the specs say that there «shouldn't» be audible differences. Consequentially these tests reveal that «there are no real differences». So they decide to not trust their ears anymore. 
.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, my point is that a great majority of solid-state amps has indeed measuring specs (= measuring flaws) way below officially accepted hearing thresholds. Moreover they can't be distinguished in DBTs, at least that's what I get from the posts here. And that's what I find fascinating. The number of people who think that cables make no difference is relatively large. But the number of people who think that electronics components make no difference (roughly spoken) is drastically smaller – they're particularly concentrated in the science forum. Which is understandable: People who pay high attention to measuring specs are more likely to call for blind tests in cases where the specs say that there «shouldn't» be audible differences. Consequentially these tests reveal that «there are no real differences». So they decide to not trust their ears anymore. 
._

 

You've quite nicely delineated a double standard that I've long ago realized.


----------



## Arjisme

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shike, the way you argue everything you just may not have a fun time with this hobby? Let go and enjoy._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand that *but dissecting someones thread over and over* come on?_

 

No similar comment for Jazz then? Come on!

 Their discussion style is fine with me, btw. However, your biases are showing.


----------



## Bennyboy71

I'm still waiting for a cable that makes Coldplay sound like Radiohead. Maybe then there'd be hope for humanity.


----------



## cegras

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, my point is that a great majority of solid-state amps has indeed measuring specs (= measuring flaws) way below officially accepted hearing thresholds. Moreover they can't be distinguished in DBTs, at least that's what I get from the posts here. And that's what I find fascinating. The number of people who think that cables make no difference is relatively large. But the number of people who think that electronics components make no difference (roughly spoken) is drastically smaller – they're particularly concentrated in the science forum. Which is understandable: People who pay high attention to measuring specs are more likely to call for blind tests in cases where the specs say that there «shouldn't» be audible differences. Consequentially these tests reveal that «there are no real differences». So they decide to not trust their ears anymore._

 

I explained it to you previously, not sure if you ignored me or not.

 Measurements are done with static loads, while what you hear with headphones plugged in is the real output of the amplifier as it drives a variable load according to music, because the headphone does not respond the same to all frequencies.

Ti Kan's Dynahi Headphone Amplifier

The &beta;22 Stereo Amplifier

 The scope shots show clear differences.

HeadWize - Project: The Kumisa III Headphone Amplifier by Benny Jørgensen

 The CK2III has varying responses according to frequency and changes its output impedance as well. This will no doubt form complex reactions with various headphones. It has a ever so slight bass hump that can be exaggerated if paired with the 'wrong headphone.'

 So you see, amps really are different.

 The purpose of an amp has been discussed umpteenth times over, and that purpose is to provide sufficient power in the form of voltage and current at any volume - it's not about loudness. A pocket amp driving a 600 ohm is fundamentally limited in the voltage swing it can put out, which high impedance headphones need. Therefore an amp driving a grado or a sennheiser that is design limited will certainly sound different than plugging it into a beta22, even though the both of the _distortion_ specs tell you otherwise. Distortion is related to, but does not tell the whole story of how an amplifier sounds when connected to a headphone.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Look at my choice of HeadRoom amps for comparing the specs! (And somewhere I was mentioning «home amps».)_

 

Unfortunately you never used the "home amps" clause - which wouldn't necessarily be right anyway.

  Quote:


 Of course battery-powered amps can have power limitations. But they (or some of them) can nevertheless drive high-impedance headphones without a (sonic) problem if you renounce excessive or high volumes. 
 

Yes and no - depends on headphone efficiency too.

  Quote:


 I'm speaking of own experience. 
 

Which isn't saying much. The fact is they can clip - and I'm not going to make a statement that can be used against me when some designer completely screws the pooch on some poor design.

  Quote:


 And I definitely expect the HeadRoom Micro Amp to power an HD 650 with ease, even with battery power. Also, the sonic result will be comparable independent of power supply (battery or mains supply), maybe even in favor of the battery. Of course power reserve wil be limited in the case of battery power, but that doesn't mean it will clip at normal volumes. If someone's listening habits lead to clipping, it's simply the wrong amp or the wrong power. But that's easy to find out and to fix. 
 

All assumptions - again.

  Quote:


 Everything above the $349 Micro Amp. 
 

Some include DACs and amplifier sections - and are balanced in operation. Which ones should I include for comparison of what's a "rip-off"?

  Quote:


 I don't see the point with your clipping hysteria. Personally I would be most interested in the sonic characteristic of an amp. As mentioned, with my listening habits I haven't met a clipping amp. 
 

Cool, so you can speak for yourself. That doesn't really mean anything. You proposed that I say all headphone amps sound the same regardless of anything - which isn't the case, because there's always going to one that doesn't meet a minimum performance standard.

  Quote:


 We were talking of HeadRoom amps, which you explicitly refused to give credit in terms of clipping, but had no problems to give credit in terms of hissing based on hearsay. 
 

I fail to see what you're getting at exactly? I said odds are the SNR should be high enough - something would have to be drastically wrong for that to be false. On the other hand it's very hard to guess power capabilities.

  Quote:


 Such as HeadRoom's line-up? Yet you seem to defend it. 
 

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not going to praise or condemn Headroom's amp without full measurements. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

  Quote:


 Allegedly because of lacking specs. What I miss from you is a clear statement that to pay more than a minimum for electronics is a waste of money. You could still include the advice to pay attention to clipping resistance. 
 

In terms of performance it could indeed be a waste of money. Some people may pay for different aesthetics or similar though.

  Quote:


 Well, my point is that a great majority of solid-state amps has indeed measuring specs (= measuring flaws) way below officially accepted hearing thresholds. Moreover they can't be distinguished in DBTs, at least that's what I get from the posts here. And that's what I find fascinating. The number of people who think that cables make no difference is relatively large. But the number of people who think that electronics components make no difference (roughly spoken) is drastically smaller – they're particularly concentrated in the science forum. Which is understandable: People who pay high attention to measuring specs are more likely to call for blind tests in cases where the specs say that there «shouldn't» be audible differences. Consequentially these tests reveal that «there are no real differences». So they decide to not trust their ears anymore. 
 

And I dislike some of the hypocrisy too.


 Let me make this clear, this debate isn't "just" about Headroom amps. It's about all solid state amps since that's what you started this with.


----------



## jax

+ YouTube Video​ _*ERROR:* If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed._


----------



## cegras

Thank you, your immense inanity is well appreciated by at least me.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I explained it to you previously, not sure if you ignored me or not._

 

I haven't noticed any post of you addressed to me, sorry!

  Quote:


 _Measurements are done with static loads, while what you hear with headphones plugged in is the real output of the amplifier as it drives a variable load according to music, because the headphone does not respond the same to all frequencies._ 
 

I know that.

  Quote:


 _Ti Kan's Dynahi Headphone Amplifier
The &beta;22 Stereo Amplifier
 The scope shots show clear differences.
HeadWize - Project: The Kumisa III Headphone Amplifier by Benny Jørgensen
 The CK2III has varying responses according to frequency and changes its output impedance as well. This will no doubt form complex reactions with various headphones. It has a ever so slight bass hump that can be exaggerated if paired with the 'wrong headphone.'_
 So you see, amps really are different.[/i] 
 

I don't dispute that amps are (measure) and sound different. But at least 95% of the solid-state amps show metrological deficits below the official hearing threshold. Your first link with the Dynahi is a typical example. Although the measuring values vary with different load impedances, they are close and negligible in terms of audibility according to conservative standards, e.g. < triple THD at 8 ohm compared to 330 ohm – whereas 8 ohm is an exceptionally low impedance for a headphone amp. IMD/noise and frequency response are barely affected, the latter is virtually perfect on all loads.

 I haven't found measuring data on the β22 link.

 As to the Kumisa III (is that the «CK2II» you're mentioning?): What I see is a very slight bass emphasis (maybe 0.5 dB at 20 Hz) which could indeed be audible. Output impedance is rather flat within 20 Hz - 20 kHz, enough to be negligible.

 Now this is a DIY project. It's clear that you can build amps that aren't completely neutral and that such amps exist. But if we concentrate on commercial amps of some reputation, you won't find bass emphases (one known exception being the Creek OBH 11, AFAIK).

  Quote:


 _The purpose of an amp has been discussed umpteenth times over, and that purpose is to provide sufficient power in the form of voltage and current at any volume - it's not about loudness. A pocket amp driving a 600 ohm is fundamentally limited in the voltage swing it can put out, which high impedance headphones need. Therefore an amp driving a grado or a sennheiser that is design limited will certainly sound different than plugging it into a beta22, even though the both of the distortion specs tell you otherwise. Distortion is related to, but does not tell the whole story of how an amplifier sounds when connected to a headphone._ 
 

It _will_ sound different (since different amps sound different) – but not so much because of limited power/voltage if you don't drive it do its limits. The question is: Where's the limit? Of course battery-driven designs, let alone if portable, will reach it sooner than mains-driven designs. Among the latter it will take unhealthy volume levels combined with inefficient headphones to reveal differences due to clipping. I don't know every headphone amp on the planet, but the ones I've rested had no such problems: I couldn't drive them into clipping without hurting ears, some couldn't even be forced to clip (Corda Opera and Symphony) with a CDP as source. – What's more interesting for me: They do sound different nonetheless. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unfortunately you never used the "home amps" clause - which wouldn't necessarily be right anyway._

 

However, fortunately now you know what I meant. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So from now on you can exclude shaky portable designs from the discussion list.

  Quote:


 _Yes and no - depends on headphone efficiency too._ 
 

Exactly. E.g. the Porta Corda with a full battery could drive the HD 600 very well. The same applies to the SR-71. So the Micro amp should do it even better.

  Quote:


 _The fact is they can clip - and I'm not going to make a statement that can be used against me when some designer completely screws the pooch on some poor design._ 
 

They can clip?

  Quote:


 _Some include DACs and amplifier sections - and are balanced in operation. Which ones should I include for comparison of what's a "rip-off"?_ 
 

The ones you think they're not worth the price to you. Shouldn't be hard to do if we're talking of amps, not DACs, and I doubt you value balanced operation very high.

  Quote:


 _Cool, so you can speak for yourself. That doesn't really mean anything. You proposed that I say all headphone amps sound the same regardless of anything - which isn't the case, because there's always going to one that doesn't meet a minimum performance standard._ 
 

Sure, but you could add the reservation «except the ones that clip».

  Quote:


 _I fail to see what you're getting at exactly? I said odds are the SNR should be high enough - something would have to be drastically wrong for that to be false. On the other hand it's very hard to guess power capabilities._ 
 

Excuses, excuses... You don't have to rely on guessing, there are a lot of happy HeadRoom-amp owners without clipping and hissing problems, at least none are reported. You picked the hissing out of these non-reports and ignored the clipping. _(«I haven't heard anyone complain of hiss though and haven't heard any complaint of it so it's probably safe to (yes, assume) that it's relatively high.»)_

  Quote:


 _Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm not going to praise or condemn HeadRoom's amp without full measurements. Why is that so hard for you to understand?_ 
 

It's not hard for me to understand. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _In terms of performance it could indeed be a waste of money. Some people may pay for different aesthetics or similar though._ 
 

I see, you're a really tolerant man! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _Let me make this clear, this debate isn't "just" about Headroom amps. It's about all solid state amps since that's what you started this with._ 
 

The HeadRoom amps were just so convenient to deal with due to the published specs and the hierarchy which wasn't so not reflected in them. Moreover it was them which made you enter the discussion (or whatever). But of course I'm speaking of all (well-designed) solid-state amps, with a few exceptions.
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Gordon Brockhouse talks to Sunfire’s Bob Carver

 Gordon: "How audible are the differences between solid-state amplifiers? "

 Bob Carver: " What I’m going to say will fly in the face of what most people believe. I believe that you can take two solid-state amplifiers, and provided neither one is overloaded in any fashion, they’ll sound identical. That’s a big if. Amplifiers are overloaded in three basic ways. They’re overloaded in amplitude; they’ve overloaded in current; they’re overloaded in speed. It’s very easy to do this if you don’t have a big juicy amplifier. Obviously a little Radio Shack amplifier is not going to be able to touch a big Jeff Rowland or a Mark Levinson or a Sunfire amplifier. Provided the amplifier has flat frequency response and sufficiently low distortion, both of which are trivial these days, and provided there are no interface problems, the differences will always be the subtle differences associated with overload, either momentarily, like slew-rate limiting or clipping, or just running out of drive current. "


Bob Carver at CarverFest 2008 (@ 4:00)

 Bob Carver: "Anyone have a question on cables?"

 <quiet pause . . . before laughter>

 Frank: "How much difference does it make in speaker wire as far as the gauge of it goes. And also what difference does it make with the metallic composition of interconnects for example silver or copper in terms of the sound. Will the sound be the same or will it be different?"

 Bob Carver: "It depends upon how you define sound. It's like if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? It's sort of philosophically like that. The movement of the speaker back and forth will be the same whether it's a piece of copper wire of a certain gauge or a certain silver wire of a certain gauge or . . . it doesn't matter. But we will hear the sound differently. We will hear it in our heads and in our hearts. And if we hear it better with silver wire, if it sounds better with silver wire, then I'm all for buying the silver wire. My own experience is it's impossible to toss out that feeling that you have when you listen to silver wire versus copper wire, even though I know there is no difference. So, if I listen to it without peeking which one I'm listening to, then I can't tell a difference and there is isn't any. But if I know which one I'm listening to, it's so powerful that I can't shake it."


 .


----------



## waterlogic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_[/i]
 [/td] [/tr] [/table]
 

Could...ic.
 Would this world become a boring place ?_


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *waterlogic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Would this world become a boring place?_

 

Also, this sub-forum would be a boring place without us objectivists. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Imagine tech specs and DBT protocols ad nauseam.
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

I know where to find reviews of cables, if I'm ever bored. lol


----------



## cegras

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now this is a DIY project. It's clear that you can build amps that aren't completely neutral and that such amps exist. But if we concentrate on commercial amps of some reputation, you won't find bass emphases (one known exception being the Creek OBH 11, AFAIK)._

 

How do you know that? Ideally you would have dB vs frequency curves for all the amplifiers you are making assertions for. I assume that since you don't it's much safer to err on the side that two differently designed circuits can have subtle differents exposed when you play music through headphones. However, such phenomenon, which you can clearly explain with electronic principles, has no rational explanation for the purposes of cable discussion.

 Furthermore, I have no idea how the frequency response curve for the Kumisa III was obtained. For what load was it measured? Certainly not a headphone.

 Face it: the differences between headphone and amp swapping far outweigh any _empirical_ differences obtained by swapping the cables. As long as you agree with my statement (and it's 100% true), then you can go back to debating psychoacoustics (read: subjective impressions) as much as you like.

 I don't see why you're turtling back to your qualifying statement of 'if we go higher and higher up and find two perfect SS amps ...' 

 That's a logical fallacy. It's the same as saying if you take two cables and listen to 50 km of one, you'll hear a difference. Of course you will, just as if you take two 10,000 SS amps or just two extremely well designed amps with neutrality intended by design you should not hear a difference. However, the point is there are so many designs for sale on the current market that there will be audible differences between any two arbitrary products, while for cables the plateau of differences is reached extremely, extremely quickly (e.g. cable gauge and length).


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you know that?_

 

The frequency-response curves have been posted on Head-Fi long ago. 

  Quote:


 _Face it: the differences between headphone and amp swapping far outweigh any empirical differences obtained by swapping the cables._ 
 

That's not disputed at all in the case of headphones. But with cables I perceive differences approaching the magnitude of amps.

  Quote:


 _I don't see why you're turtling back to your qualifying statement of 'if we go higher and higher up and find two perfect SS amps ...'_ 
 

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

  Quote:


 _That's a logical fallacy. It's the same as saying if you take two cables and listen to 50 km of one, you'll hear a difference. Of course you will, just as if you take two 10,000 SS amps or just two extremely well designed amps with neutrality intended by design you should not hear a difference. However, the point is there are so many designs for sale on the current market that there will be audible differences between any two arbitrary products, while for cables the plateau of differences is reached extremely, extremely quickly (e.g. cable gauge and length)._ 
 

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bennyboy71* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm still waiting for a cable that makes Coldplay sound like Radiohead. Maybe then there'd be hope for humanity._

 

Sadly, only Photoshop can do that.






 Excuse the quality, it was done on a laptop trackpad


----------



## cegras

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The frequency-response curves have been posted on Head-Fi long ago. 

 That's not disputed at all in the case of headphones. But with cables I perceive differences approaching the magnitude of amps.

 I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



._

 

Re: You have no idea what I'm trying to say. What you're doing is basically pigeonholing SS amps more and more and more until you say 'if we find two high reputation SS amps, they will sound the same.'

 SS amps can be designed to give different frequency responses. You cannot issue a blanket statement that all SS amps sound the same: distortion is hardly part of the story. If you want to back up your assertion that most SS amps sound the same, the burden of proof is on you. Ideally what I want to see is frequency response played through headphones, and that hardly seems possible. However, from our electrical education it is possible to (correctly?) infer that they will end up sounding different.

 No, that's not an opinion. The difference between two cables that meet certain minimum electrical standards is minimal, and there are both subjective (blind tests) and electrical tests which are widely stated in this thread and are on the internet. (ref: Speaker Wire)

 You perceive differences with different cables, that's fine and dandy. However, your anecdotal evidence hardly allows you to make generalized statements, where as electrical characteristics of an amplifier circuit do allow that. As long as we've established that scientifically cables don't matter past a certain minimum electrical standard in terms of the electrical characteristics, then you should feel free to debate about what you think you hear as long as you want.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Re: You have no idea what I'm trying to say. What you're doing is basically pigeonholing SS amps more and more and more until you say 'if we find two high reputation SS amps, they will sound the same.'

 SS amps can be designed to give different frequency responses. You cannot issue a blanket statement that all SS amps sound the same or rather near-perfect: distortion is hardly part of the story. If you want to back up your assertion that most SS amps sound the same, the burden of proof is on you._

 

You mix up something here. I'm not stating all amps sound the same, quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that they measure «the same», actually perfect with respect to conservative psychoacoustic standards. Of course this doesn't apply to amps with a built-in coloration, just the ones without extra signal manipulations, and of course such with a resonable design making for «standard» measuring values: flat frequency response, low harmonic and intermodulation distortion, low noise floor, decently low output impedance.

  Quote:


 _No, that's not an opinion. The difference between two cables that meet certain minimum electrical standards is minimal, and there are both subjective (blind tests) and electrical tests which are widely stated in this thread and are on the internet. (ref: Speaker Wire)

 You perceive differences with different cables, that's fine and dandy. However, your anecdotal evidence hardly allows you to make generalized statements, where as electrical characteristics of an amplifier circuit do allow that. As long as we've established that scientifically cables don't matter past a certain minimum electrical standard in terms of the electrical characteristics, then you should feel free to debate about what you think you hear as long as you want._ 
 

You're talking of established electrical standards, and that's exactly the point: Well-designed and -built contemporary solid-state amps perfectly fulfill this requirement as well. 
.


----------



## Happy Camper

Carver's statements about amps should be stickied in the amp forum. 

 I'd like to hear a pro cable designer discuss the parameters to achieve when building a cable. Not QC, frequency response, yada...., but goals and proofs for determining what criteria is considered success.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 ad nauseam_

 


 .


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Carver's statements about amps should be stickied in the amp forum. 

 I'd like to hear a pro cable designer discuss the parameters to achieve when building a cable. Not QC, frequency response, yada...., but goals and proofs for determining what criteria is considered success._

 

In part two of the same video series, Bob mentions simple null testing he did for the Stereophile shootout. He strikes me as a level headed guy without a bunch of marketing hooks. Perhaps, it's his having a physics background.


----------



## cegras

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mix up something here. I'm not stating all amps sound the same, quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that they measure «the same», actually perfect with respect to conservative psychoacoustic standards. Of course this doesn't apply to amps with a built-in coloration, just the ones without extra signal manipulations, and of course such with a resonable design making for «standard» measuring values: flat frequency response, low harmonic and intermodulation distortion, low noise floor, decently low output impedance.

 You're talking of established electrical standards, and that's exactly the point: Well-designed and -built contemporary solid-state amps perfectly fulfill this requirement as well. 
._

 

No, they don't measure the same. They measure the same with static loads. They will not measure the same with headphones! Differences. And see, you're doing it again, pigeonholing: "this only applies to amps with certain design goals." You can't make blanket statements while pigeonholing.

 Again, no: there are no electrical standards for amplifiers. Cable runs for speakers have certain acceptable resistance per unit length: there are gauges of wires to be used for xx feet. There are NO STANDARDS for amplifiers. You are free to design them as badly or as well as you want. Case and point: Singlepower, Gilmore, AMB, and plenty of other designs. The only 'standard' is perhaps 'safe' operating parameters and 'Gilmore's rules of audio design.'


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, this sub-forum would be a boring place without us objectivists. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Imagine tech specs and DBT protocols ad nauseam.
._

 

I hold the opposite opinion to yourself. 

 I actually would enjoy more of that (tech specs and DBT protocols ), apart from a few outstanding individuals there is not too much science on this forum IMO. 

 No disrespect to the philosphers of this world, but I find endless circular subjective debating without a point kinda well ......... pointless! (Talking generally, not this thread of course)

 I'm an engineer, nothing gets my blood racing more than a good graph!


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I'm an engineer, nothing gets my blood racing more than a good graph!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

So you say now. Music teaches you otherwise, if you let it..... before it's too late.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, they don't measure the same. They measure the same with static loads. They will not measure the same with headphones! Differences. And see, you're doing it again, pigeonholing: "this only applies to amps with certain design goals." You can't make blanket statements while pigeonholing._

 

There are certain measuring criteria to be fulfilled for a significant difference with dynamic loads. Power limitations aside, the only criterion that comes to mind is a differing and nonlinear output impedance. But most solid-state amps offer negligible output impedances below say 2 ohm. 

  Quote:


 _Again, no: there are no electrical standards for amplifiers. Cable runs for speakers have certain acceptable resistance per unit length: there are gauges of wires to be used for xx feet. There are NO STANDARDS for amplifiers. You are free to design them as badly or as well as you want. Case and point: Singlepower, Gilmore, AMB, and plenty of other designs. The only 'standard' is perhaps 'safe' operating parameters and 'Gilmore's rules of audio design.'_ 
 

Singlepower almost exclusively made tube amps, Gilmore is no amp manufacturer, AMB I don't know, and plenty of others are just a few dark horses. Show me the data to prove your point about deviating measuring data! So far the only attempts to disprove my statement have produced one DIY project and some dubious anecdotal evidence about clipping amps. Of course there are no fixed standards for amps. What I'm saying is that their measuring data – the deviations from an ideal transfer function – fulfill the requirement to be below the official hearing threshold just as well as cables. This applies to well-made amps. You must know that the term «well-made amp» is often used by representants of the objectivist camp when they pretend that all amps sound the same. And according their experiences that seems to be the case for a large number of them. 
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests_

 

AB test here: Eek... I was a cable believer, until...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As this is a science forum...

 Could those people refering to ABX test's, double blind test's, rigorous test's...etc

 Please provide links to these tests_

 

Here are some more

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/t...-myths-486598/

 So from my research the answer to the question "*How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference*" is to show them a series of blind tests which find people cannot tell the difference and then make them try a proper blind test themselves.


----------



## Eagle Eye

I am so glad that I am older and have probably not the best hearing in the world. This way I don't have to worry about the small .0005% difference that may be able to present itselt. I am so happy with my sound now that I would rather spend the money on CD's to enjoy the music. Oh well just my opinion.


----------



## cegras

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are certain measuring criteria to be fulfilled for a significant difference with dynamic loads. Power limitations aside, the only criterion that comes to mind is a differing and nonlinear output impedance. But most solid-state amps offer negligible output impedances below say 2 ohm. 

 Singlepower almost exclusively made tube amps, Gilmore is no amp manufacturer, AMB I don't know, and plenty of others are just a few dark horses. Show me the data to prove your point about deviating measuring data! So far the only attempts to disprove my statement have produced one DIY project and some dubious anecdotal evidence about clipping amps. Of course there are no fixed standards for amps. What I'm saying is that their measuring data – the deviations from an ideal transfer function – fulfill the requirement to be below the official hearing threshold just as well as cables. This applies to well-made amps. You must know that the term «well-made amp» is often used by representants of the objectivist camp when they pretend that all amps sound the same. And according their experiences that seems to be the case for a large number of them. 
._

 

Um, go to headroom. There is a wealth of frequency response data (for some amp) with headphones. Furthermore, tube amps fall within the general category of amps. It may be possible to say ss amps can all be made to sound the same, but since tube amps offer much more distortion and fall under the category of 'amps,' then the conclusion is that there is significantly more flavour to be had by switching amps (the differences being electrically justified) than by switching cables. Although the magnitude of the difference depends on how much you want to believe.


----------



## Shark_Jump

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aimlink* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you say now. Music teaches you otherwise, if you let it..... before it's too late. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I love music that has science as the subject matter especially if it has a graph in it. 

 It started with Landscapes 80's hit 'Einstein A Go-Go'.

 My doctor has told me to avoid seeing Joy Division's 'Unknown Pleasures' Album cover if I have taken a Viagra.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shark_Jump* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love music that has science as the subject matter especially if it has a graph in it. 

 It started with Landscapes 80's hit 'Einstein A Go-Go'.

 My doctor has told me to avoid seeing Joy Division's 'Unknown Pleasures' Album cover if I have taken a Viagra.



_

 

Oh man. I am so turned on right now.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, go to headroom. There is a wealth of frequency response data (for some amp) with headphones._

 

If you're talking of the «Build A Headphone Graph» section: The (seeming) deviations from amp to amp (or rather from single-ended to balanced drive) are the result of measuring variances.

  Quote:


 _Furthermore, tube amps fall within the general category of amps._ 
 

Yes, of course, and I'm not pretending that they sound any worse than solid-state amps, not even clearly less neutral. They have been left out because they don't guarantee measuring data low enough to be considered below the hearing threshold.

  Quote:


 _It may be possible to say ss amps can all be made to sound the same, but since tube amps offer much more distortion and fall under the category of 'amps,' then the conclusion is that there is significantly more flavour to be had by switching amps (the differences being electrically justified) than by switching cables. Although the magnitude of the difference depends on how much you want to believe._ 
 

I don't entirely agree on the magnitudes, because in my experience cables can make a similar degree of difference to my ears. As to tube amps' higher distortion versus solid-state amps' lower distortion: Interestingly the sonic differences among tube amps aren't any larger than the sonic differences among solid-state amps. Even in terms of neutrality they aren't clearly inferior, not in every case. 

 But you know what: I actually agree with you! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My reference for testing the neutrality of amps is the «direct connection» of a high-impedance headphone (HD 650 or now HD 800) to the Bel Canto DAC2's line out. Its 20-Ω output and high current-supply ability are ideal preconditions. For attenuating the signal I use a 500-ohm potentiometer. It does have some minor impact on the sonic balance, but additionally, for verifying the effective cause of possible differences, I can also entirely renounce it and use a low-level music passage as test signal. It has turned out that the tiny sonic-balance shift is mostly negligible or then compensated by a pair of parallel resistors of 1 kΩ for halfways restoring the damping factor, thus the sonic balance. 

 With this reference characteristic at hand I try to detect the sonic difference between the direct connection and the detour via headphone amp. I could also use a second headphone amp serving as «source» to make sure that the headphone isn't underpowered or otherwise compromized by the «misuse» of the line outs, but the results are effectively the same, and the cleaner and more detailed line-out signal has turned out to serve my needs better. I also tested the impact of the low load impedance represented by a 300-ohm headphone by means of a sound check via monitor headphone. The sound was stable, just slightly reduced in volume due to the voltage-dividing function.

 With this test configuration I can passably test the sonic flaws of the amps. Of the about two dozen amps that have passed this test the Corda Symphony is clearly the most neutral and accurate, followed by the Opera. That doesn't mean the Symphony is 100% neutral, but it is the first amp that offers equal detail, resolution and transparency as the direct connection. However, earlier tests with less «modern» amps than these two have placed the Earmax Pro quite high on the neutrality list, despite its reputation of a very tubey sounding tube amp. It may have helped that I preferred modern, less musical and euphonic current-production tubes with it (such as Sovtek and Electro-Harmonix).

 These experiences tell me that it's not so simple to fix sonic traits on harmonic distortion. On the other hand I don't believe in magic in the context of audio phenomena, so the differences are certainly measurable. The question is if the measuring data are really adequately interpreted by the conservative approach. Sure, it's no news that 2nd order harmonics or even-order harmonic in general are less obvious or do less harm to the sound. But what about the extremely low measurable distortion of the latest amp designs with nevertheless existing sonic differences? I don't mention other criteria such as frequency response or noise, because they are no real issue and can be neglected (at least in most cases).

 As you have mentioned yourself, amps can react differently to complex loads such as headphones. I don't really deny it, but for the sake of my argumentation stategy also coudn't really agree. Because with classic measuring methods you won't detect the differences. I'm not speaking of damping factors, which could easily be measured by means of output impedance (curves), together with the possible sonic-balance shifts produced by them, defined by the load impedance curve. I'm rather speaking of their reactions to complex, dynamic signals. The reported impacts of better (more stable, quicker...) power supplies must have their equivalent in the measurings. So it's clear that static or regular signals such as sine waves or pulses aren't the be-all end-all when it comes to grasp the entirety of audio phenomena.

 In an earlier post I have tried to present a new approach from _«Stereoplay»_'s test engineers with the goal to bring perception and measuring data in accordance. I like this approach, and if it turns out to be universally valid, it would be a great tool for detecting previously unnoted flaws in audio electronics. Moreover it would open new horizons for the cable-sound proponents.

 Again some notes to the different magnitudes of measuring and perceived sonic differences among amps and cables: In «controlled tests» they don't seem to play a role; both device categories seemingly don't alter the sound at all.
.


----------



## cegras

If I've changed your opinion, good!

 If you've agreed with me all along, damnit, we have a communication problem : p


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I've changed your opinion, good!

 If you've agreed with me all along, damnit, we have a communication problem : p_

 

I stick 100% with what I was stating: The great majority of «well-built» modern solid-state amps have measured deviations from an ideal transfer function that are clearly below the established hearing-threshold paradigms. It's just that the conservative measuring approach isn't sufficient for grasping all variables and the reality of audio phenomena. (IMO)
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

OMG!!! The current king of France believes that cables make a _real _audible difference!
   
   
  .


----------



## kickassdude

Best cable is no cable! Why not solder the output of your amp directly to the input of your speaker? I wonder why no hifi company has think about this yet. Also, make an amp where the input is on the other side, so you can also solder your dac directly to your amp. The only cable you have left is the digital cable and even among cable believers, most don't think it makes a difference. This is pretty much cable nirvana.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kickassdude said:


> *Best cable is no cable! Why not solder the output of your amp directly to the input of your speaker?* *I wonder why no hifi company has think about this yet*. Also, make an amp where the input is on the other side, so you can also solder your dac directly to your amp. The only cable you have left is the digital cable and even among cable believers, most don't think it makes a difference. This is pretty much cable nirvana.


 

 Active speakers work that way and there are plenty of them.


----------



## stang

Well then I guess Patrick82 has the idea. Just use RCA to RCA M plugs to go straight from the DAC to the amp (etc) without the use of cables.


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Active speakers work that way and there are plenty of them.


 

 Are the amplifiers actually physically mounted on the drive units in active loudspeakers then? I thought the term "active" just denoted that any crossover duties are done pre-amplification instead of post amplification.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I'm not sure. I was thinking out loud that with active speakers there is no cabling and in the case of the AVI ADM9 the speaker, amp and DAC are all one unit.


----------



## JohnFerrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_speaker


----------



## d.g

I think there will still be some internal cabling from amp to drive units..
   
  What kickassdude is talking about is slightly different but quite impratical me thinks!
   
  Said before though about cables, if you approach them with electrical principles in mind you wont get hung up on sonic differences.


----------



## kickassdude

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Active speakers work that way and there are plenty of them.


 

 Oh lol totally forgot. But there still the problem that some people won't like the build in class D amp and want to use more premium stuff.


----------



## kickassdude

Quote: 





d.g said:


> I think there will still be some internal cabling from amp to drive units..
> 
> What kickassdude is talking about is slightly different but quite impratical me thinks!
> 
> Said before though about cables, if you approach them with electrical principles in mind you wont get hung up on sonic differences.


 

 I wasn't really serious, but if you want spent +$1000 total for cables that aren't perfect, you might as well take the impractical route to get the best external cabling you can get.


----------



## BIG POPPA

You haven't proved that they don't. I side with the King. Mr Ferrier.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> I side with the King.


 

 The King _and _Big Poppa. Noted.


----------



## JxK

From page 1 of this thread, I give you proof...tried and tested since 1983.
   
  That said, there's no accounting for human perception and the power of suggestion. I posted this story in another thread, but I believe it's worth posting again. I've spoken with a self proclaimed audiophile who used expensive silver cables for his speakers. When asked, I found that he understood and (get this!) agreed that the science proves his cables make no difference. Upon further questioning, he admitted being unable to hear a difference in DBT. But such was the power of suggestion and all those years of believing he heard a difference that when he saw those silver cables, despite all knowledge to the contrary, he perceived an improvement.
   
  So was it worth the money? Tough call.
   
  I do think that people need to understand that science and testing prove, beyond any and all reasonable doubt that aftermarket cables are a scam. But if after understanding this they still "hear" improvements, well, who am I to tell them differently. After all, it has been shown that placebo can still be effective even when patients know they are taking a placebo.


----------



## DonCarr

I used to work at Comet ( an electrical store ). We were pushed to sell Monster cables and I was immediatly dubious, wish I had stayed long enough to get the training from Monster .
  This thread and its contents have convinced me  its all marketing buff.
  Still the weight of them its nice to have a physically heavy, durable cable in your equipment if only for longevity.


----------



## kboe

I cant tell you how may times I'm listening to a pink noise cd with radio shack cables and think, "Man is science great or what"!
   
  My point, to each his own, live and let live.
   
  I dont "think" cables make a difference, I HEAR them make differences, so unless you can show me where my brain is faulty, or how your knowledge overrides my experience, live, and let live.


----------



## eucariote

^ so it would be very easy for you to show this in a blind test to a statistically significant criterion.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  I would put the faulty brain region in feedback connections to layer 1 of caudal superior temporal region of your cortex.  That's where feedback connections shape emerging activity in primary auditory cortex, placing it in the context of memories, expectations and inputs from other sensory regions.  You hear these effects, they're as vivid and consistent as any conscious experience of the world but they're not real because your brain is not wired for passive, veridical experience.  Ergo the necessity for blind tests.
   
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8578069


----------



## DonCarr




----------



## JxK

Quote: 





kboe said:


> I dont "think" cables make a difference, I HEAR them make differences, so unless you can show me where my brain is faulty, or how your knowledge overrides my experience, live, and let live.


 
  You may as well have said,_ "*I don't "think" the world is flat, I SEE the world to be flat*, so unless you can show me where my eyes are faulty, or how your knowledge overrides my experience, live, and let live."_
  
  Your proof can be found in this thread. It can be found online. It can be found in literature. The link I posted in my last post should be mandatory reading for you. It explains why and how your brain is "faulty" without condescension or malice. It is an explanation targeted to laymen which clearly and effectively spells all this out.
   
  Of course, suggestion being what it is, it is truly possible that you hear/perceive a difference when none is there.


----------



## kboe

So heres where I follow my own advice.  If test, method, and graphed results give you your audio goosebumps, go for it.  I'll support you freedom to do so and cherish your ability to make up your own mind.  Just let me do the same, I don't want to be saved, I'm just fine, but thanks for asking.  If reaching audio nirvana were the same for everybody, there would be only one cable produced, only one amp, and only one source for everybody.


----------



## kboe

Quote: 





jxk said:


> You may as well have said,_ "*I don't "think" the world is flat, I SEE the world to be flat*, so unless you can show me where my eyes are faulty, or how your knowledge overrides my experience, live, and let live."_
> 
> Your proof can be found in this thread. It can be found online. It can be found in literature. *The link I posted in my last post should be mandatory reading for you.* It explains why and how your brain is "faulty" without condescension or malice. It is an explanation targeted to laymen which clearly and effectively spells all this out.
> 
> Of course, suggestion being what it is, it is truly possible that you hear/perceive a difference when none is there.


 
  I'll read it and see what I think.  And for you I would suggest the "Fragile Souls" series from 6Moons.  But really we should just be glad for each other and not playing the schoolyard game of "No my dad is the strongest... ...No MY dady is the strongest".


----------



## BIG POPPA

Jxk, good points to organize a meet and try your theory with others. I'm lucky to have gear good enough that power cables and IC's do sound different. During the next Seattle meet I will have extra cables to demo differences like an All copper Grado IC and a 16AWG SPC with Rhodium Connectors. Apples and oranges on my rig.


----------



## JxK

I won't argue that people don't hear a difference, because clearly they do. If patients can knowingly take placebo (read: fake) medication and get clinically significant improvements, then it doesn't surprise me that people can listen to different cables and hear improvements.
   
  I will say there is no _actual_ difference. I will also say that people can (and clearly do) hear improvements with different cables. And so long as they are clear on the understanding that science proves there's no difference, I'm fine with that. If you or someone else is happier, and perceives improvements with cables, that's fine.
   
  The point I'm trying to make is that _*the two conflicting views are not necessarily mutually exclusive. *_And again, so long as you understand the science, if cables make you happier with your system then go for it. I'll even say it's probably worth the investment.
   
  Now I'll just have to hide from people on both sides of the fence...


----------



## BIG POPPA

It's all good. No worries. Different views make this hobby fun.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





jxk said:


> I won't argue that people don't hear a difference, because clearly they do. If patients can knowingly take placebo (read: fake) medication and get clinically significant improvements, then it doesn't surprise me that people can listen to different cables and hear improvements.
> 
> I will say there is no _actual_ difference. I will also say that people can (and clearly do) hear improvements with different cables. And so long as they are clear on the understanding that science proves there's no difference, I'm fine with that. If you or someone else is happier, and perceives improvements with cables, that's fine.
> 
> ...


 
  Well put.


----------



## Kees

Science does not prove that there's no difference.
  Quote: 





jxk said:


> I won't argue that people don't hear a difference, because clearly they do. If patients can knowingly take placebo (read: fake) medication and get clinically significant improvements, then it doesn't surprise me that people can listen to different cables and hear improvements.
> 
> I will say there is no _actual_ difference. I will also say that people can (and clearly do) hear improvements with different cables. And so long as they are clear on the understanding that science proves there's no difference, I'm fine with that. If you or someone else is happier, and perceives improvements with cables, that's fine.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





kees said:


> Science does not prove that there's no difference.


 


 Does science prove lepricons don't exist?


----------



## Kees

Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> Does science prove lepricons don't exist?


 
  Does Science prove you exist?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kboe said:


> If reaching audio nirvana were the same for everybody, there would be only one cable produced, only one amp, and only one source for everybody.


 

 Maybe if capitalism didn't exist.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





kees said:


> Does Science prove you exist?


 

 Did you just reply to something I wrote?
   
   
  .


----------



## Kees

Did science ever prove that?
  
  Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> Did you just reply to something I wrote?
> 
> 
> .


----------



## Head Injury

Sure it did.
   
  Hypothesis: Kees replied to JohnFerrier.
   
  Test: Does the reply exist as a series of bits saved on the Head-Fi server?
   
  Result: Yes!
   
  Conclusion: Kees did indeed reply to JohnFerrier.


----------



## Kees

Since when is you answering "yes" scientific proof?
  
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> Sure it did.
> 
> Hypothesis: Kees replied to JohnFerrier.
> 
> ...


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kees said:


> Since when is you answering "yes" scientific proof?


 

 It's not. The existence of your reply as bits on the Head-Fi server is. Those bits are verifiable by tests. Someone who has no idea who you, or JohnFerrier, or Head-Fi, or your (pardon the french) juvenile existential argument, are can still download those bits, convert them into text, read it, and know that it was you replying to him. Can't do that with cables. The minute you take away knowledge of which cable is which, the difference is gone.
   
  Not the best example, since bits don't mesh well as an analogy for cables (you need a USB for that).


----------



## bastogne

I have not read through this entire thread, but to the OP, do you believe that ALO is basically a giant sham, making money off products that do absolutely nothing to improve sq?


----------



## Kees

You are demonstrating my point exactly: you confuse your idea of common sense with scientific proof. There is no similarity I can asure you.
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> It's not. The existence of your reply as bits on the Head-Fi server is. Those bits are verifiable by tests. Someone who has no idea who you, or JohnFerrier, or Head-Fi, or your (pardon the french) juvenile existential argument, are can still download those bits, convert them into text, read it, and know that it was you replying to him. Can't do that with cables. The minute you take away knowledge of which cable is which, the difference is gone.
> 
> Not the best example, since bits don't mesh well as an analogy for cables (you need a USB for that).


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





kees said:


> You are demonstrating my point exactly: you confuse your idea of common sense with scientific proof. There is no similarity I can asure you.


 

 So believing in cables is common sense now?
   
  You are demonstrating no point whatsoever. Though I'd love to hear one.
   
  I'm going to sleep. If you respond with something meaningful, you can probably expect a rebuttal tomorrow.


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





> I do think that people need to understand that science and testing prove, beyond any and all reasonable doubt that aftermarket cables are a scam.


 


 Disagree with this, you cannot label all aftermarket cables as a scam.
   
  Fitting a high quality cable will quite often give an improvement in durability, fit, electrical connection due to better quality materials, connectors etc.
   
  Knowing when to stop spending vast sums of money is the key, whilst spending a sensible amount on a well made cable can be considered worthwhile, spending hundreds or thousands of £/$ on "high end" cables does seem to be a waste when all things are considered.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote: 





d.g said:


> Fitting a high quality cable will quite often give an improvement in durability, fit, electrical connection due to better quality materials, connectors etc.


 

 If you are worried about good electrical connection, try Eichmann plastic connectors. They will outlive your equipment. "Lamp" wire with right section etc properties is as good as it gets.
  Just tried ICs worth euro 490 (there is an eager dealer who brings stuff every week ...). Guess what - b . . . . . . t.
   
  As to durability - what are you doing to your cables ?? Mine are sitting at the back of the rack, lifeless/motionless, wondering of their existence ...


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





waterlogic said:


> As to durability - what are you doing to your cables ?? Mine are sitting at the back of the rack, lifeless/motionless, wondering of their existence ...


 


 I'm not doing anything to them, but like anything else in life a quality product will last longer - there are times a hifi cable does actually need to be disconnected and moved believe it or not!
   
  I am not disagreeing with the logic in using lamp cord by the way (I connected quad els 57s with very cheap copper cable), my point was to compare the sort of cables available at places like Maplin against the really cheap bundled cables you sometimes see.


----------



## JaZZ

This thread is still alive?
   
  I tend to think that either side will stick to believe what they want and can't be convinced of the opposite. And BTW there's nothing wrong with perceiving the earth as flat: It's how it is displayed on many occasions. You can still know that it is round at the same time. But the analogy is flawed in another aspect: There's no certainty that cables are round (metaphorically speaking).
.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote: 





jazz said:


> This thread is still alive?
> 
> I tend to think that either side will stick to believe what they want and can't be convinced of the opposite. And BTW there's nothing wrong with perceiving the earth as flat: It's how it is displayed on many occasions. You can still know that it is round at the same time. But the analogy is flawed in another aspect: There's no certainty that cables are round (metaphorically speaking).
> .


 
  Yes, whole life is a mirage, there is actually no planet Earth, i.e. flat or round is superflous to the objective observer. Hence there is no music, no misery, nothing to worry about...
  The words of a guru are like winds blowing all over the place - what place ?
  But there are cables worth $$$ which make a difference to the objective observer = god.
  How can analogy be flawed if there is no reference ?


----------



## JaZZ

waterlogic said:


> Yes, whole life is a mirage, there is actually no planet Earth, i.e. flat or round is superflous to the objective observer. Hence there is no music, no misery, nothing to worry about...
> The words of a guru are like winds blowing all over the place - what place ?
> But there are cables worth $$$ which make a difference to the objective observer = god.
> How can analogy be flawed if there is no reference ?


 
   
  If you want certainty, you have to join one of the established religions. Maybe the words of a Guru would suffice, too.
.


----------



## waterlogic

Quote: 





jazz said:


> If you want certainty, you have to join one of the established religions. Maybe the words of a Guru would suffice, too.
> .


 
  Which one do you recommend ?
   
  "There is no guide, no guru, no leader, no god - just you alone to find the way. "
  Krishnamurti


----------



## JaZZ

I like your Krishnamurti quote. And I can cope with uncertainty.
.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jxk said:


> I won't argue that people don't hear a difference, because clearly they do. If patients can knowingly take placebo (read: fake) medication and get clinically significant improvements, then it doesn't surprise me that people can listen to different cables and hear improvements.
> 
> I will say there is no _actual_ difference. I will also say that people can (and clearly do) hear improvements with different cables. And so long as they are clear on the understanding that science proves there's no difference, I'm fine with that. If you or someone else is happier, and perceives improvements with cables, that's fine.
> 
> ...


 

 I agree with you JxK. I was a believer, until I made my own interconnect and some other cables and then read every blind/ABX test I could find on the internet.  Those who say I can hear a difference come unstuck when presented with a blind test, or refuse to take part as they are 'flawed'. But, I am quite happy that they still say they can hear a difference for the placebo effect you mention.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





jxk said:


> From page 1 of this thread, I give you proof...tried and tested since 1983.
> 
> That said, there's no accounting for human perception and the power of suggestion. I posted this story in another thread, but I believe it's worth posting again. I've spoken with a self proclaimed audiophile who used expensive silver cables for his speakers. When asked, I found that he understood and (get this!) agreed that the science proves his cables make no difference. Upon further questioning, he admitted being unable to hear a difference in DBT. But such was the power of suggestion and all those years of believing he heard a difference that when he saw those silver cables, despite all knowledge to the contrary, he perceived an improvement.
> 
> ...


 

 Your post is a lovely demonstration of how anti-cable people abuse science as proof of their arguments.  You talk about speaker cables and link to a page about why aftermarket speaker cables are BS, yet use this to generalise all cables.  OOPS!  This kind of attitude makes it no more worth discussing than discussing spirituality in a forum full of religious fanatics.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I agree with you JxK. I was a believer, until I made my own interconnect and some other cables and then read every blind/ABX test I could find on the internet.  Those who say I can hear a difference come unstuck when presented with a blind test, or refuse to take part as they are 'flawed'. But, I am quite happy that they still say they can hear a difference for the placebo effect you mention.


 

 It's good that you've found your own comfort zone on the issue.  Now you can move on and concentrate on other things.  It makes for a better focus on the music and the rest of your gear.  I'm with Jazz in that I don't mind the uncertainty and my comfort zone is currently that I trust my own ears.    I recable my cans and do appreciate the improvements when they occur.  It's not all the time that this happens, but when it does, I do appreciate it and move on.
   
  Just how much else do you need to convince yourself about anyway.  Don't for a minute think that the mental tom-foolery stops with cables.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Your post is a lovely demonstration of how anti-cable people abuse science as proof of their arguments.  You talk about speaker cables and link to a page about why aftermarket speaker cables are BS, yet use this to generalise all cables.  OOPS!  This kind of attitude makes it no more worth discussing than discussing spirituality in a forum full of religious fanatics.


 

 Can I ask what the difference between speaker cable and interconnects would be? Or why one would change the sound and one wouldn't?
   
  Headphone cables as well, of course. And the internal wirings of amps, because some people prefer silver or something for those too.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Slightly off topic. Anyone heard of Sennheiser, AKG, or Sony purchasing a cable company? One instance? Food for thought.
   
   
  .


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> Slightly off topic. Anyone heard of Sennheiser, AKG, or Sony purchasing a cable company? One instance? Food for thought.
> 
> 
> .


 

 It is not a whole company purchase, but Goldring use QED to make their cables. 
   
  http://goldring.co.uk/headphones/ns1000.htm
   
  "Detachable, single sided 1m cable, designed by Britain's leading hi fi cable manufacturer, QED"


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> It is not a whole company purchase, but Goldring use QED to make their cables. http://www.goldring.co.uk/headphones/ns1000.htm.
> 
> "Detachable, single sided 1m cable, designed by Britain's leading hi fi cable manufacturer, QED"


 


 The period at the end messes up the link. Otherwise, got it. Thanks.
   
  -
   
  Goldring?!?
http://www.goldring.co.uk/headphones/ns1000.htm
   
   
  .


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have sorted the link and why the lol?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I have sorted the link and why the lol?


 


 Sorry, I have never heard of Goldring.
   
  -
   
  "lol" sorted
   
   
  .


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Neither had I until the NS1000s started to get very good reviews and then went from £160 to £50, so I got some! But the QED cable is only 1 m long and I needed longer. So I got a Sony headphone extension cable off Amazon for £5 and straight away, to me it sounded thin and tinny compared to just with the QED cable. So I bought another from ThatCable on ebay for £5 and the fullness of the sound returned.
   
  I am sure the ThatCable has a higher placebo rating 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> Sorry, I have never heard of Goldring.


 

  
  Peasant 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Turntables, cartridges, very popular british audio manufacturer back in the 60s/70s !


----------



## JohnFerrier

Okay, okay. I stand sorted. Wasn't I on a side? Where did JxK go?!?
   
   
  lol


----------



## rsw1959

Interesting topic.  Does this mean Ken ALO is ripping off people?  That is, he mod's headphones generally only by adding new cables?  Is this just a compete waste of money?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





rsw1959 said:


> Interesting topic.  Does this mean Ken ALO is ripping off people?  That is, he mod's headphones generally only by adding new cables?  Is this just a compete waste of money?


 


 What do you think?
   
  -
   
  He sells to ppl's imaginations? Is that a rip off?
   
  -
   


  
  Quote: 





bastogne said:


> I have not read through this entire thread, but to the OP, do you believe that ALO is basically a giant sham, making money off products that do absolutely nothing to improve sq?


 
   
  hmmm . . . two ppl questioning ALO . . .

  
   
  .


----------



## dallan

Glad my ears don't get over questioned when listening to dacs, amps and sources and be told that it is just my imagination or I may still be using an ipod hp jack out to the white earbuds.......other than that it is just placebo because you can see the earphones are different and there is this cool toy between it ect. ect......and besides you can't trust yourself from fooling you, so just chuck that ridiculous hobby why don't you.  Can you believe people are actually tricking you into headphone amplifiers and dacs!  They come build in.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Your post is a lovely demonstration of how anti-cable people abuse science as proof of their arguments.  You talk about speaker cables and link to a page about why aftermarket speaker cables are BS, yet use this to generalise all cables.  OOPS!  This kind of attitude makes it no more worth discussing than discussing spirituality in a forum full of religious fanatics.


 
   
  Seriously? Seriously?


----------



## J.Pocalypse

A thread like this, in a forum like this, is kinda like telling the guys at Shelby Super Cars that horsepower doesn't matter. A bit silly, IMO.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





j.pocalypse said:


> A thread like this, in a forum like this, is kinda like telling the guys at Shelby Super Cars that horsepower doesn't matter. A bit silly, IMO.


 

 No. It's more akin to telling a snorkel enthusiast that it doesn't matter if the air pipe is 99.999% oxygen free silver or plain plastic.
   
  The analogy you used is more like telling us that amping doesn't matter. It does, though to an arguable degree.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Can I ask what the difference between speaker cable and interconnects would be? Or why one would change the sound and one wouldn't?
> 
> Headphone cables as well, of course. And the internal wirings of amps, because some people prefer silver or something for those too.


 

 Very loosely, speakers are low impedance, require high current and low voltage.  Headphones are high(er) impedance, require low(er) current and higher voltage.  Consequently, the types of wire used for each is different, though using 18AWG wire, which is just about speaker cable or power cable (!), for headphones, is pretty funny.  The more current, the thicker the wire required, which is why power lines are relatively thick.  It's more likely that large voltage swings would be affected by the quality of audio components, and less so, say, speaker cable that carries a large current.
   
  The problem with this kind of discussion on here is that it's pretty far removed from science, involved in proposing theories, methodologies of testing, possible errors, performing experiments and writing them up correctly, but just people arguing about things they read online and taking sides because it suites their desire to be right, not to find out or know the truth.  Unfortunately and presumably as a result, the people who are heavily involved in actual DBT testing and whatnot don't seem to be posting any more because of this.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


dallan said:


> Glad my ears don't get over questioned when listening to dacs, amps and sources and be told that it is just my imagination or I may still be using an ipod hp jack out to the white earbuds.......other than that it is just placebo because you can see the earphones are different and there is this cool toy between it ect. ect......and besides you can't trust yourself from fooling you, so just chuck that ridiculous hobby why don't you.  Can you believe people are actually tricking you into headphone amplifiers and dacs!  They come build in.


 
 Your premise is faulty. We can measure substantial difference between transducers and DBT them. We can't, on the other hand, for cables of any reasonable quality.
   
  As for amps and dacs, they've been discussed various times too.


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> dallan said:
> ...


 

 Uh huh.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Very loosely, speakers are low impedance, require high current and low voltage.  Headphones are high(er) impedance, require low(er) current and higher voltage.  Consequently, the types of wire used for each is different, though using 18AWG wire, which is just about speaker cable or power cable (!), for headphones, is pretty funny.  The more current, the thicker the wire required, which is why power lines are relatively thick.  It's more likely that large voltage swings would be affected by the quality of audio components, and less so, say, speaker cable that carries a large current.
> 
> The problem with this kind of discussion on here is that it's pretty far removed from science, involved in proposing theories, methodologies of testing, possible errors, performing experiments and writing them up correctly, but just people arguing about things they read online and taking sides because it suites their desire to be right, not to find out or know the truth.  Unfortunately and presumably as a result, the people who are heavily involved in actual DBT testing and whatnot don't seem to be posting any more because of this.


 

 Okay, that's headphone cable. Do interconnects follow the same rules? It's the amp doing all the voltage swinging and the like, so interconnects shouldn't matter if voltage is what changes. Yet people hear differences in those. And I also think your logic is flawed in assuming that since headphone cables are different and perhaps more likely to have an effect, then any chance of the differences being placebo is out the window. Or so you made it sound with your last post.

 I find this debate to be very scientific. Most of the people simply taking sides are the ones who believe, because they don't have the science to back it up. I'd like to see some DBTs of interconnects and headphone cables, since we already have plenty speaker cables to, in my opinion, omit their audible differences. Unfortunately interconnects and especially headphone cables are harder to test for various reasons. We can discuss methods for testing those, if anyone's interested.
  Quote: 





dallan said:


> Uh huh.


 

 This has to be the most constructive post I've ever read on Head-Fi.


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





head injury said:


> .
> 
> This has to be the most constructive post I've ever read on Head-Fi.


 

 Thank you.  I just don't have much to say to him about it and i don't want to get into an argument about what I hear or how i spend my money on my system.  I hear a difference or I would never have gone for the things I have.  I can tell you that there is one type of cable that I have not heard a difference in and I wasted my money, that is my usb interconnect to my dac.  If i had placebo effect, I would insist there was a difference in that too.  If there is a slight one I can't hear it.  On my headphones recables the difference is extreme though between copper and silver on both the ones that i can remove and go back and forth(for the HD800 and HD650).  If you or anyone else doesn't like or doesn't believe it then i could care less so just "uh huh",,,,,there wasn't much more for me to say about it. 
   
  I have worked like crazy to get a sound I like out of my system and I encourage you and the other with his comments to do the same, if you don't think cable changes anything, then put your cash toward a different component that you can hear a difference, but beware someone else may not.


----------



## Blasto_Brandino

I don't buy the cables I buy for audio quality, I buy them for cosmetic reasons, I had a Kimber PBJ cable made for my HD650's Why? because it looks good, and they WON'T break like the stock one's do.


----------



## upstateguy

Quote: 





dallan said:


> Glad my ears don't get over questioned when listening to dacs, amps and sources and be told that it is just my imagination or I may still be using an ipod hp jack out to the white earbuds.......other than that it is just placebo because you can see the earphones are different and there is this cool toy between it ect. ect......and besides you can't trust yourself from fooling you, so just chuck that ridiculous hobby why don't you.  *Can you believe people are actually tricking you into headphone amplifiers and dacs! * They come build in.


 

 People have been working this scam for hundreds of years......


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





dallan said:


> Thank you.  I just don't have much to say to him about it and i don't want to get into an argument about what I hear or how i spend my money on my system.  I hear a difference or I would never have gone for the things I have.  I can tell you that there is one type of cable that I have not heard a difference in and I wasted my money, that is my usb interconnect to my dac.  If i had placebo effect, I would insist there was a difference in that too.  If there is a slight one I can't hear it.  On my headphones recables the difference is extreme though between copper and silver on both the ones that i can remove and go back and forth(for the HD800 and HD650).  If you or anyone else doesn't like or doesn't believe it then i could care less so just "uh huh",,,,,there wasn't much more for me to say about it.
> 
> I have worked like crazy to get a sound I like out of my system and I encourage you and the other with his comments to do the same, if you don't think cable changes anything, then put your cash toward a different component that you can hear a difference, but beware someone else may not.


 

 See, you should have posted this before, instead of "Uh huh". This is, no sarcasm intended, a very good post. It's also one echoed by severals others in both camps already, so please don't think that all the scientists are trying to take away your right to enjoy cables. I can't remember if I posted this thought before or not, but I've certainly agreed with it.
   
  For me, my money is better spent elsewhere until it can be proved that cables can at least change the signal by an audible degree and significantly enough that it could be subjectively considered an "improvement". My purchase of the LC-1 cable from BJC did nothing to my ears, which may not be the sharpest but could certainly make out a worthy difference between the uDAC and a sound card. And if a $38 does absolutely nothing, then I do not trust handing over $500 for something that "will, we promise".

 You are free to spend on what you want. Whether or not the change is real, if you can hear it then it may be worth it to you. I didn't hear it, and I'd like to understand why.
  Quote: 





blasto_brandino said:


> I don't buy the cables I buy for audio quality, I buy them for cosmetic reasons, I had a Kimber PBJ cable made for my HD650's Why? because it looks good, and they WON'T break like the stock one's do.


 

 Same reason I bought my LC-1. If it doesn't make my music sound better, then at least it makes me feel more confident. I also love the look of the tech-flex, the ridiculously thick cables, and the massive, toothed RCA connectors that are almost as big as the uDAC they're plugged in to. Maybe I need a bigger DAC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Man, I sure wish I had rheumatism. That bottle looks snazzy.


----------



## dallan

"Improvement" for any change is subjective and the change for me on headphone cables is tough to tell if it is improvement at times or just different.  For me, the HD800 stock cables that I believe are silver coated or whatever are more transparent than my aftermarket but sound thin and sort of shrill where as my aftermarket are why fuller but it took me a bit of time to accept the lack of transparency that is actually very important to me.  There is sort of a head burn in for headphones and components and I have had to go thru that with cables and then go back to the originals to see the difference and try to tell which I like better.  To say they make no difference is hard for me to accept because I actually have to get used to the sound change to even see if I appreciate the sound more.  
   
  Some cables or areas to change cables make a different level of change to my ears, like i said the usb cable did little or nothing that I could hear.  Headphone recables do the most, and maybe speaker cable.  Interconnects don't seem a huge difference, maybe some but I would have to revisit that one in all fairness because I went thru that testing a long time ago.  Oh ya, for some reason, I heard a huge difference in the digital coaxes going to my dac from my usb converter or from my source, and I don't know why that was such a difference but it was very apparent.  
   
  So it is a mixed bag for me, some areas the cable changes seem dramatic and some not at all.....and some changes when they happen may not be to my taste either.  If it was placebo I think i would hear it everywhere and i would hear "improvement".  
   
  So maybe there is a post that explains it again with more (possibly unneeded) information.


----------



## DonCarr

once again -


----------



## momomo6789

Quote: 





blasto_brandino said:


> I don't buy the cables I buy for audio quality, I buy them for cosmetic reasons, I had a Kimber PBJ cable made for my HD650's Why? because it looks good, and they WON'T break like the stock one's do.


 

 you never know hd6x0 plugs hate me for some reason.
   
   
   
  on the point of $200 alo lods.
   
  wire cost cant be over 3$/ft so
   
  $3 for wire
  $3 for lod
  $4.90 for the 3.5mm plug . at this price why not a viablue 3.5mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  $5 for shipping <--- Nvm he charges extra for shipping O_o
  $1 box
   
  tools to build a lod cost around $40
   
  time spent idk 25 mins max on a lod.
   
  $178 of win, more then how much i pay my lawyer a hour =/
   
  not to mention regular lods are just about the easiest things ever to build.


----------



## DayoftheGreek

http://www.treelobsters.com/2009/08/75-but-wait-theres-more.html
   
  I actually thought this was really funny an immediately thought of this forum.  The disclaimer is too good.


----------



## DonCarr

LOL  TREE LOBSTERS


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Swing and a miss.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Until a series of properly executed blind/ABX test of cables show that it is clear which cable is which and that it is clear one cable sounds better than another, I will remain convinced they do not make a difference.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Very loosely, speakers are low impedance, require high current and low voltage.  Headphones are high(er) impedance, require low(er) current and higher voltage.  Consequently, the types of wire used for each is different, though using 18AWG wire, which is just about speaker cable or power cable (!), for headphones, is pretty funny.  The more current, the thicker the wire required, which is why power lines are relatively thick.  It's more likely that large voltage swings would be affected by the quality of audio components, and less so, say, speaker cable that carries a large current.
> 
> The problem with this kind of discussion on here is that it's pretty far removed from science, involved in proposing theories, methodologies of testing, possible errors, performing experiments and writing them up correctly, but just people arguing about things they read online and taking sides because it suites their desire to be right, not to find out or know the truth.  Unfortunately and presumably as a result, the people who are heavily involved in actual DBT testing and whatnot don't seem to be posting any more because of this.


 

 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
   
  Electrical power transmission lines run at EXTREMELY high voltages to MINIMIZE power loss. Current causes power loss due to RESISTIVE heating.
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
   
  And yeah, stop trying to invalidate this discussion by decrying it as non scientific. This is more about taking what we've learned in physics, chemistry, and other fields and rationally applying it here.
   
  Besides, there is no maximum rated voltage for a cable, nor is there a maximum rated current. The cable is rated for ohmic loss as well as a certain joule threshold; voltage and current are LINKED.
   
  "*^* _NFPA 70 National Electrical Code 2008 Edition_. Table 310.16 page 70-148, _Allowable ampacities of insulated conductors rated 0 throrugh 2000 volts, 60°C through 90°C, not more than three current-carrying conductors in raceway, cable, or earth (directly buried) based on ambient temperature of 30°C_. Extracts from NFPA 70 do not represent the full position of NFPA and the original complete Code must be consulted."
   
   
  lol broken code.


----------



## Currawong

cegras: thanks for the correction on power transmission lines, I was indeed wrong.  You indeed appear to have a proper background in these matters.  My "unscientific" comment is directed at people who (usually) have little or no background in science who parrot bits of science purely because it validates their belief system and are not interested the truth, nor any science that might disagree. Indeed, the thread was started in the manner of a religious quest, not a search for truth.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





currawong said:


> cegras: thanks for the correction on power transmission lines, I was indeed wrong.  You indeed appear to have a proper background in these matters.  My "unscientific" comment is directed at people who (usually) have little or no background in science who parrot bits of science purely because it validates their belief system and are not interested the truth, nor any science that might disagree. Indeed, the thread was started in the manner of a religious quest, not a search for truth.


 

 I didn't mean to appear harsh, but to summarize, asking me to believe there is a difference outside of psychoacoustics is as annoying to me as (I presume) me asking you to believe there isn't one. It's like telling me my education is useless, and I guess me telling you your hearing sucks isn't very nice either. Ho hum.


----------



## aristos_achaion

There's one thing I'm certain of: there's never going to be a test that convinces everybody. You'd have to have a statistically significant sampling of self-identified audiophiles (since we're seeing if there's a difference *to audiophile ears*, not in the general public) that runs a statistically-significant number of tests on each with each of a statistically significant number of cables (in case some cables are snake oil and others aren't) on a setup that is both standardized and that the audiophiles are previously familiar with. The question of "do audiophiles really hear a difference with expensive cables" is actually quite massive.
   
  I'm content to conclude that, while cables may make a difference, they don't make enough of one to warrant my spending on them (unless a headphone I want off the FS forum happens to have been recabled, in which case I simply appreciate the well-built cable). I'm a very happy agnostic.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


aristos_achaion said:


> There's one thing I'm certain of: there's never going to be a test that convinces everybody. You'd have to have a statistically significant sampling of self-identified audiophiles (since we're seeing if there's a difference *to audiophile ears*, not in the general public) that runs a statistically-significant number of tests on each with each of a statistically significant number of cables (in case some cables are snake oil and others aren't) on a setup that is both standardized and that the audiophiles are previously familiar with. The question of "do audiophiles really hear a difference with expensive cables" is actually quite massive.
> 
> I'm content to conclude that, while cables may make a difference, they don't make enough of one to warrant my spending on them (unless a headphone I want off the FS forum happens to have been recabled, in which case I simply appreciate the well-built cable). I'm a very happy agnostic.


 

 What maintains my neutrality on this issue and opting to trust my ears, is that, on many occasions, I've not been able to detect subtle, though meaningful differences straight away.   I'd have to use one can or amp for a long period and then switch to the other for the difference to become apparent. The pesky thing about it is that once I start switching back and forth between them, the difference fades and again becomes difficult to discern.  Note that I'm not referring to cables with that experience.  It's just that my experience has been interestingly the same with two cables, and now when using the Pure Music Server with iTunes as opposed to iTune's own player.  I know that I'd fail an A/B testing exercise with Pure Music since at first, I couldn't detect a difference.  The advice I got, and quite sensibly so since I've lived the reality of that advice, was to use Pure Music for a while and then switch back to iTunes and *then* see if I heard a difference.
   
  The mystery in all this that nags the hell out of me revolves around the question of why does it tend to happen only one way around? Why is it that at times, it's easier to tell the difference when I switch back from a new to an old component, as opposed to switching from an old to a new component??  It's never a nice moment when you get the new component and you're not getting the returns you expected.  You use it anyway and one day, for one reason or another, decide to use the older component and BAM, the difference is apparent.  It could well be psychoacoustic and I definitely accept that possibility but.....  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ....  I chose to just trust my ears until there's proof that is satisfactory for me.  After-all, I have a problem A/B'ing differences, whose objective reality are not up for discussion.  
   
  When I got my ALO K702's I used them re-cabled from the start and then, out of curiosity switched back to the stock cable.  The difference was as distinct for me as moving from the Fubar III to the HeadRoom Micro Amp and SpitFire DAC.  It was more marked to me than the difference between the HD600 and HD650's!!  That was the extent of my surprise after not hearing any real difference between the stock and Cardas cables for the HD650's and then purchasing the ALO K702's to further see for myself if this cable thing was really a farce.  This was on the background of smelling many a farce in high end audio.
   
  Finally, right now, I'm not convinced I'm hearing a meaningful change, if any, when using my P51 Mustang to amp my ESW9A's or W3's.  OTOH, this isn't the case when using a Silver Dragon Cable with my HD650's.  However, when you read the forums, the wonders of the P51 Mustang abound. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I'm personally so unimpressed, but who am I to make a general statement about it.
   
  All in all, my neutrality is based on my experience indicating to me that this pesky issue of whether or not a particular component makes a difference, and by how much, doesn't at all stop at cables.  I've had as much experiences with other components not making a meaningful difference to my ears as cables doing quite the opposite.  With this uncertainty, I do *believe, *and that's all I can do until satisfactory proof for me exists, that the truth is somewhere in the middle, i.e., that cables make a difference though not all the time.  The point of diminishing returns do apply as with all things audio, and there's a huge hit and miss involved.  Mixed up with it all, are the psychoacoustics which we so often, conveniently make the scape goat whenever it suites our egos and pockets.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





aristos_achaion said:


> There's one thing I'm certain of: there's never going to be a test that convinces everybody. You'd have to have a statistically significant sampling of self-identified audiophiles (since we're seeing if there's a difference *to audiophile ears*, not in the general public) that runs a statistically-significant number of tests on each with each of a statistically significant number of cables (in case some cables are snake oil and others aren't) on a setup that is both standardized and that the audiophiles are previously familiar with. The question of "do audiophiles really hear a difference with expensive cables" is actually quite massive.


 
  It's much simpler than that.  Using two ears, two cables and a binomial distribution, the following number of correct blind discriminations will be adequate for a statistically significant result (p < 0.05):
   
  5 out of 5 : p = 0.0313
  7 out of 8:  p = 0.0313
  8 out of 10: p = 0.0439
   
  Anyone who says that they can clearly hear a difference should be able to clear this absurdly low bar to achieving a universally accepted demonstration of scientifically real effects.  Hypothesis testing is fun, fair and easy!


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





cegras said:


> I didn't mean to appear harsh, but to summarize, asking me to believe there is a difference outside of psychoacoustics is as annoying to me as (I presume) me asking you to believe there isn't one. It's like telling me my education is useless, and I guess me telling you your hearing sucks isn't very nice either. Ho hum.


 

 Fair enough. I can't help wondering if people aren't reading things into my posts that aren't there, but anyway.... The problem I have is, I keep seeing all this so-called evidence that the cables I have shouldn't make any difference, yet, when I switch them around, expecting there to be no change, there is.  I don't want to preach to anyone, I want to know what is going that causes it, and not just have people say "you're imagining things".  The video someone posted in another thread where people from a forum demonstrate the numerous ways you can fool your mind is helpful, as it helps me increase awareness of my own limitations when attempting to objectively assess gear. I have a number of theories I'm thinking about writing up that I'd like to test, along with a basic idea of how to test them, which would involve a combination of measurements as well as DBT tests, with the purpose of seeing what we can learn about people and hearing.


----------



## aristos_achaion

eucariote said:


> It's much simpler than that.  Using two ears, two cables and a binomial distribution, the following number of correct blind discriminations will be adequate for a statistically significant result (p < 0.05):
> 
> 5 out of 5 : p = 0.0313
> 7 out of 8:  p = 0.0313
> ...


 

 That works for proving whether or not audiophile X can hear the difference he claims to hear between cable A and a control with the particular source, amp, and headphones the test is run on. The problem is in convincing people that that applies to all audiophiles with all cables in all setups..


----------



## eucariote

^ I think at this point the debate is at a much more fundamental level.  As nick_charles noted, there has not been *any* demonstration of a statistically real effect, aside from between a very short and very long cable with an unamplified signal.  A single demonstration of a real effect would be a better place to start (using whatever ears and setup that could resolve that difference).  The rest is gravy.
   
  For example, in my line of work, one person 53 years ago showed one statistically significant effect from one brain structure.  Now there are hundreds of articles every year, and a scientific journal named and dedicated to that structure.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> ^ I think at this point the debate is at a much more fundamental level.  As nick_charles noted, there has not been *any* demonstration of a statistically real effect, aside from between a very short and very long cable with an unamplified signal.  A single demonstration of a real effect would be a better place to start (using whatever ears and setup that could resolve that difference).  The rest is gravy.
> 
> For example, in my line of work, one person 53 years ago showed one statistically significant effect from one brain structure.  Now there are hundreds of articles every year, and a scientific journal named and dedicated to that structure.


 

 Right. It's much harder to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that something does. That's why the burden of proof rests on those making the claim.
   
  I think someone mentioned leprechauns. It's very, very hard to prove that leprechauns _don't _exist, because they could just perhaps be evading capture, and there will always be naysayers who believe this no matter the evidence. It's much easier for all involved if it is assumed that they do not exist until someone proves that they _do_.


----------



## Currawong

One thing I'm interested in is, whether or not it might be possible that a person who can't distinguish, say, the difference in volume between the same tone at slightly different volume, might feel after listening to some minutes of familiar music on their own gear with the same relative amount of difference might be able to distinguish it more readily, as music is bombarding the brain with information repeatedly, and test tones are not.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





eucariote said:


> As nick_charles noted, there has not been *any* demonstration of a statistically real effect, aside from between a very short and very long cable with an unamplified signal.


 
   
  I wonder how long the cable was and think the results of a DBT with/without a 100 foot $16 headphone extension cable could be interesting . . .
   
http://www.amazon.com/Stereo-Headphone-Extension-Cable-Shipping/dp/B001421ZKM
   
  -

 Leprechauns . . . don't believe in 'em . . . but they are out there.
   
   
  .


----------



## JxK

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever measured the waveforms between two different cables? I know we have equipment capable of measuring different waveforms...and when you get down to it, that's all sound really is. Just a traveling wave of propagating/oscillating pressures through a medium (in this case air).
   
  Taking two cables, stock and boutique, volume matching the headphones/speakers they are attached to, and measuring the waveform. Has anyone done that? Since we would be measuring the sound directly, it would provide an absolute, unarguable answer - one way or another.
   
  The whole idea seems so simple that I can't believe I haven't thought of it before.


----------



## Currawong

Did nick_charles get around to measuring any expensive cables? Last I saw in his thread, he'd only tested cables below $100 or so.


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





jxk said:


> Out of curiosity, has anyone ever measured the waveforms between two different cables? I know we have equipment capable of measuring different waveforms...and when you get down to it, that's all sound really is. Just a traveling wave of propagating/oscillating pressures through a medium (in this case air).
> 
> Taking two cables, stock and boutique, volume matching the headphones/speakers they are attached to, and measuring the waveform. Has anyone done that? Since we would be measuring the sound directly, it would provide an absolute, unarguable answer - one way or another.
> 
> The whole idea seems so simple that I can't believe I haven't thought of it before.


 


 I was going to suggest something similar - based on the theory that if there is a measureable difference then technically there is the potential we will be able to hear this, but each person is different and I cant see how you can ever reach a satisfactory agreement/conclusion on the matter.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Did nick_charles get around to measuring any expensive cables? Last I saw in his thread, he'd only tested cables below $100 or so.


 


 $139 was the most expensive cable I tested - a Zu Mobius 0.5M. I tested solid copper, stranded copper, silver-plated copper and stranded silver, directional and undirectional, once I ironed out some protocol issues the differences in FR terms were negligible. The really really cheap cable and (oddly) the silver cable were marginally noisier, but noise was at a pragmatically undetectable level. However from what I have learnt subsequently I could do a slightly better job with the FFT analyses.
   
  I am not however inclined to pusue this any further, the World Cup is coming soon, I spent a lot of money and time on this and I will happily pass the torch to someone else, all you need is a decent USB soundcard a source and a PC with Cool Edit Pro or similar...plus a spreadsheet program with charting capability.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jxk said:


> Out of curiosity, has anyone ever measured the waveforms between two different cables? I know we have equipment capable of measuring different waveforms...and when you get down to it, that's all sound really is. Just a traveling wave of propagating/oscillating pressures through a medium (in this case air).
> 
> Taking two cables, stock and boutique, volume matching the headphones/speakers they are attached to, and measuring the waveform. Has anyone done that? Since we would be measuring the sound directly, it would provide an absolute, unarguable answer - one way or another.
> 
> The whole idea seems so simple that I can't believe I haven't thought of it before.


 

 I don't have the knowledge to properly follow the science, but here are two articles which look at frequency range with cables
   
http://www.apiguide.net/04actu/04musik/AES-cableInteractions.pdf
   
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/speaker-cable-face-off-1


----------



## JohnFerrier

Off topic.
   
  The bench of someone that seeks and finds awesome electrical circuits . . .
   

   
  Jim Williams staff scientist at Linear Technology Corporation


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> Off topic.
> 
> The bench of someone that seeks and finds awesome electrical circuits . . .
> 
> ...


 

 That's what I imagine the Grado RA-1 workroom looks like


----------



## Shike

Quote:


dallan said:


> Thank you.  I just don't have much to say to him about it and i don't want to get into an argument about what I hear or how i spend my money on my system.  I hear a difference or I would never have gone for the things I have.  I can tell you that there is one type of cable that I have not heard a difference in and I wasted my money, that is my usb interconnect to my dac.  If i had placebo effect, I would insist there was a difference in that too.  If there is a slight one I can't hear it.  On my headphones recables the difference is extreme though between copper and silver on both the ones that i can remove and go back and forth(for the HD800 and HD650).  If you or anyone else doesn't like or doesn't believe it then i could care less so just "uh huh",,,,,there wasn't much more for me to say about it.
> 
> I have worked like crazy to get a sound I like out of my system and I encourage you and the other with his comments to do the same, if you don't think cable changes anything, then put your cash toward a different component that you can hear a difference, but beware someone else may not.


 
 Then go elsewhere?  This isn't a cable impression thread, you have those in your own "DBT FREE" cable sub-forum.  You're completely free to leave your spam there if you choose, I couldn't give a crap since I don't go there to troll like you apparently come here to.
   
  You keep saying there's a difference, then prove it since it's so obvious to you.  All I hear are a bunch of children plugging their ears and go "nuh-uh, I don't wanna!" and claim the burden of proof is upon us that make no claims (though remain skeptical).


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





head injury said:


> That's what I imagine the Grado RA-1 workroom looks like


 

 One more off topic. Probably posted before . . .

   
  Looks relatively clean . . . Grado Labs, Amplifier quality control station.
  
http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/271


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> dallan said:
> ...


 
  Troll? First time I have been accused of that.  I was elaborating on the comment I made that was short due to the fact I didn't want to get into an argument about it.  Reason being, I don't want to convince anyone, that is the point. The poster thanked me for elaborating my position too(see below).  
   
  As far as posting goes, the science forum is not your own private area and I will post where ever I want,  just you stating that kinda shows who the troll is.


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





head injury said:


> See, you should have posted this before, instead of "Uh huh". This is, no sarcasm intended, a very good post. It's also one echoed by severals others in both camps already, so please don't think that all the scientists are trying to take away your right to enjoy cables. I can't remember if I posted this thought before or not, but I've certainly agreed with it.
> 
> For me, my money is better spent elsewhere until it can be proved that cables can at least change the signal by an audible degree and significantly enough that it could be subjectively considered an "improvement". My purchase of the LC-1 cable from BJC did nothing to my ears, which may not be the sharpest but could certainly make out a worthy difference between the uDAC and a sound card. And if a $38 does absolutely nothing, then I do not trust handing over $500 for something that "will, we promise".
> 
> You are free to spend on what you want. Whether or not the change is real, if you can hear it then it may be worth it to you. I didn't hear it, and I'd like to understand why.


 

 This is the comment after my post of clarification.  We are allowed to discuss things here you know Shike not just one sided back slapping and whining.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





dallan said:


> Troll? First time I have been accused of that.  I was elaborating on the comment I made that was short due to the fact I didn't want to get into an argument about it.  Reason being, I don't want to convince anyone, that is the point. The poster thanked me for elaborating my position too.  As far as posting goes, the science forum is not your own private area and I will post where ever I want,  just you stating that kinda shows who the troll is.


 
    If you don't want to convince anyone, why are you posting in a thread whose title asks that very question?  Is there any answer to that question that does not involve you living under a bridge?


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> If you don't want to convince anyone, why are you posting in a thread whose title asks that very question?  Is there any answer to that question that does not involve you living under a bridge?


 
  Because i think it is a funny premise for a thread.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


dallan said:


> Troll? First time I have been accused of that.  I was elaborating on the comment I made that was short due to the fact I didn't want to get into an argument about it.  Reason being, I don't want to convince anyone, that is the point. The poster thanked me for elaborating my position too(see below).
> 
> As far as posting goes, the science forum is not your own private area and I will post where ever I want,  just you stating that kinda shows who the troll is.


 
 I could care less if Head Injury thanked you.  The president of the US could thank you and I wouldn't care.  Your post was spam, and you admittedly have zero interest in this thread.
   
  You don't want to convince anyone, but you come in here spouting your impressions.  This thread isn't about you or your impressions sparky.
   
  You're right, it's not my own private area and never claimed it was.  On the other hand there's this thing called a topic, and your posts haven't really added to it.
   
  Besides this:
   
   
  Quote:


> Because i think it is a funny premise for a thread.


   
  Shows you have no interest in the topic at hand.


----------



## dallan

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> dallan said:
> ...


 

 "Sparky"  Okay son, I think the premise of trying to convince someone that what they are hearing isn't so is funny, that doesn't mean the topic doesn't interest me kid.  
   
  Head Injury thanked me and he was who I was responding to so it did mean something to me, the person who I was communicating with at that point, who cares if you don't like the comments.
   
   As far as impressions go and the premise of this thread,  if you are trying to convince someone that cables don't make a difference then you are going to have to address those impressions so it is a totally valid topic of discussion as well.


----------



## Shike

dallan,
   
  Maybe you're not aware of this, but these forums DO have rules.  Spam is against them.  I'm leaving it at that.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





dallan said:


> Because i think it is a funny premise for a thread.


 

 Then have your laugh, shut your cakehole, and move on.  Trust me, I appreciate good snark as much as the next guy, but you ain't bringing it.


----------



## Meliphcient

So I read the first 8 or so pages of this thread and I am intrigued.
  On the one hand I don't think cables would change the sound...but I can see how there may be some room for subtle influence, so you can probably colour me as neutral.
  To those in the "cables change sound" camp I have a few questions (not trolling):
  How long does the cable need to be to make a noticeable difference?
  Does the difference increase with cable length?
  Does it matter how the cable is laying? (ie coiled up ontop of itself vs laid out vs layed upon ceramic cable holders etc)
  Does the connection to male plug matter? ie soldered to RCA or screwed to RCA?
  Does it matter what metal the plug is made of/coated with?
  Where do the cables need to go to make a difference? (ie just between amp and listening device, between DAC and AMP, or both?)
  Can you mix-and-match cables to taste by putting different ones in series?


----------



## JxK

Quote: 





meliphcient said:


> So I read the first 8 or so pages of this thread and I am intrigued.
> On the one hand I don't think cables would change the sound...but I can see how there may be some room for subtle influence, so you can probably colour me as neutral.
> To those in the "cables change sound" camp I have a few questions (not trolling):
> *How long does the cable need to be to make a noticeable difference?*
> ...


 

 If there is a _real _difference, then you have just proven Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell and others like them to have been idiots. And everyone else to have studied them to be idiots. And all the inventions that came about as a result of their efforts (like headphones) to be based on phony principles. Congratulations! Win your Nobel Prize and continue shaking the pillars of established physics from your new position as the Director of CERN. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  But honestly, if you hear a difference, well, like I said: Be happy, don't give it much thought, and thank the power of suggestion that your brain allows your system to sound better than it should.


----------



## JaZZ

meliphcient said:


> How long does the cable need to be to make a noticeable difference?


 
   
  10 cm or even shorter if the connection allows.

  


> Does the difference increase with cable length?


   
  In most cases, yes, more or less.
   
   


> Does it matter how the cable is laying? (ie coiled up ontop of itself vs laid out vs layed upon ceramic cable holders etc)  Does the connection to male plug matter? ie soldered to RCA or screwed to RCA?
> Does it matter what metal the plug is made of/coated with?


   
  Possible, but I haven't really cared for those things so far.
   
   


> Where do the cables need to go to make a difference? (ie just between amp and listening device, between DAC and AMP, or both?)


   
  All analog cables have shown a difference to my ears, particularly headphone cables (I guess because of their length).
   
   


> Can you mix-and-match cables to taste by putting different ones in series?


   
  Yes, no problem. The sound will vary accordingly.
.


----------



## brendon

Hmm, I really dont want to believe in cables but my dad just made a DIY IC cable and I can make out a difference between the stock IC cable and the DIY one. I did maybe 10 AB tests and for sure there is some difference between the two cables.
   
  Of course I have no conclusive proof. But I am wavering into the cables believers camp.
   
  That said the difference I perceived was not nearly significant enough to make me spend a penny on cables till the time my source, headphones and amps are of better quality.


----------



## JxK

^Don't forget to volume match before doing the test. And make sure it's a _blind_ test. You simply cannot have an accurate test without meeting those two requirements first.


----------



## Galatian

Volume match, when he is only changing the cable of the same system?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





galatian said:


> Volume match, when he is only changing the cable of the same system?


 

 Definitely. I have made two ICs and the one irrefutable difference is that I have more volume control with the DIY cables than the other one I have. I am sure it is simply to do with resistance and ohms law and the effect on voltage. If the voltage drops you have a form of attenuation and that increases volume. Hence the market for various attenuators. I may have that wrong with the science, but my ears tell me there is a definite difference with the volume between cables.


----------



## brendon

Well from my unscientific tests I am pretty sure that there is no volume difference. However since the source and earphones remain the same I will try a simple blind test to see if I can really make out a difference or its just something I think I heard.


----------



## Galatian

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Definitely. I have made two ICs and the one irrefutable difference is that I have more volume control with the DIY cables than the other one I have. I am sure it is simply to do with resistance and ohms law and the effect on voltage. If the voltage drops you have a form of attenuation and that increases volume. Hence the market for various attenuators. I may have that wrong with the science, but my ears tell me there is a definite difference with the volume between cables.


 

 But doesn't that imply that there actually is a difference in cables? Don't get me wrong: I'm not a believer, just curious, but it only seems reasonable to think that if there is a difference in volume because of different resistance that it actually "alters" the sounds - meaning in layman terms more of what get's out of the amp arrives at your headphones.


----------



## JxK

^Try a volume matched DBT. See if you can hear a difference. I just think that when a cable company isn't willing to stand by its products, there's likely a reason why.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





galatian said:


> But doesn't that imply that there actually is a difference in cables? Don't get me wrong: I'm not a believer, just curious, but it only seems reasonable to think that if there is a difference in volume because of different resistance that it actually "alters" the sounds - meaning in layman terms more of what get's out of the amp arrives at your headphones.


 

 If I match the volume between my three cables I cannot tell them apart. If I leave the volume control alone, the result is a different volume with each one.
   
  I am thinking out loud now. That the difference in volume can be mistaken as a difference in sound quality. All amps have a sweet spot where the music sounds just right, no distortion and all details present and correct. IME some amps have a very small sweet spot and so a change in cable can have a noticeable affect on the size of the sweet spot.


----------



## JaZZ

A well-made cable may alter the sound, but it doesn't alter the volume.
.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jazz said:


> A well-made cable may alter the sound, but it doesn't alter the volume.
> .


 

 So why do I need to adjust the amps volume between my DIY cables and the Silver High Breed IC I had before?


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





jazz said:


> A well-made cable may alter the sound, but it doesn't alter the volume.
> .


 

 Can a cable alter volume levels due to it's own impedance being different from another?
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> It's not only circuit components that have impedance — cables also have an impedance value, called characteristic impedance. If you thought that a cable was just a couple of pieces of wire with a screening braid wrapped around them, then think again! In fact, every cable exhibits capacitance between the wires and the braid, and inductance along the length of the cable too (although the capacitance typically dominates the impedance value). Consequently, a look through any cable catalogue (Canford Audio's catalogue is particularly useful in this regard) will reveal the characteristic impedances of cables, along with values for their inter-core capacitance per metre of length


 
   
  Above taken from the article by Sound on sound here:
   
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jan03/articles/impedanceworkshop.asp


----------



## JaZZ

d.g said:


> Can a cable alter volume levels due to it's own impedance being different from another?


 

  Yes, it can, but it won't – if it's properly made.
   
  The «characteristic impedance» predominantly consists of inductance and capacitance and almost zero resistance. It would take hundreds or thousands of ohms to do so, considering the common input impedances such as 10 or 100 kΩ.
.


----------



## Slaughter

So is it safe to assume that all the non-believers are using the $2 red/white packaged interconnects that come with basic a/v equipement. Because if you're not, then you must think that the cable does matter in some respect. And I should be able to safely assume you are using lamp cord for your speakers since it's cheaper and has no impact on sound quality.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> So is it safe to assume that all the non-believers are using the $2 red/white packaged interconnects that come with basic a/v equipement. Because if you're not, then you must think that the cable does matter in some respect. And I should be able to safely assume you are using lamp cord for your speakers since it's cheaper and has no impact on sound quality.


 

 Terrible argument. Why buy an expensive couch if the ratty one your aunt gave you is just as comfortable?
   
  I've got BJC interconnects because they're attractive and well-built. Not because they sound better.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I've got BJC interconnects because they're attractive and well-built. Not because they sound better.


 

 Looks like you have fallen victim to their anti-audiophile propaganda. They have definitely discovered a marketing niche: cables for the advanced cable skeptic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Looks like you have fallen victim to their anti-audiophile propaganda. They have definitely discovered a marketing niche: cables for the advanced cable skeptic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yep. I'm such a fool. I somehow found their arguments more convincing than audiophile cable pseudoscience!
   
  Regardless, I was less of a skeptic before I got them. Decided to buy them on the build, but thought that maybe I could be swayed by improved sound quality. After all, I've read people comparing them positively to $150 audiophile cables in "sound quality". Now I know why.


----------



## Slaughter

Nice one JaZZ.
   
  I knew you would bring up appearance. Nice justification for spending more money. They look better to you, they sound better to me. Difference? None. Both personal opinions.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> Nice one JaZZ.
> 
> I knew you would bring up appearance. Nice justification for spending more money. They look better to you, they sound better to me. Difference? None. Both personal opinions.


 

 Sure, but at least appearances can be scientifically proved noticeable.
   
  Several people seem stuck on the fact that every anti-cabler is trying to remove a believer's right to like cables. Yet again and again it has been said that we're not. You're free to like cables. You're free to think they sound different. The differences being refuted here are actual audible physical changes of the signal by more and more expensive cables. You can think they sound different, but we want to prove that they don't. Try all you want to prove that my BJC look just like $5 cheapos, or are built just like them.


----------



## Slaughter

I can't prove they look like cheapos, but I can prove that I don't like how they look. There is no science needed for opinions.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> There is no science needed for opinions.


 

 I didn't say there was. In fact, I said the exact opposite, that science here isn't trying to destroy personal preference. Please reread my post.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


slaughter said:


> So is it safe to assume that all the non-believers are using the $2 red/white packaged interconnects that come with basic a/v equipement. Because if you're not, then you must think that the cable does matter in some respect. And I should be able to safely assume you are using lamp cord for your speakers since it's cheaper and has no impact on sound quality.


 


 I use a 77c unshielded stock cable in active use among my many very very cheap cables (Tartan, Monoprice), I sold all my expensive cables apart from the silver one which nobody wanted to buy after I tested it and found it to be no better than stocky  odd that !.
  In the spirit of full disclosure I still have some low end Monster and AR cables which I bought used  (some cost a whole $10) but which it just isnt worth the effort to sell just to replace with stock cables


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> So is it safe to assume that all the non-believers are using the $2 red/white packaged interconnects that come with basic a/v equipement. Because if you're not, then you must think that the cable does matter in some respect. And I should be able to safely assume you are using lamp cord for your speakers since it's cheaper and has no impact on sound quality.


 

 The ones packages in basic a/v equipment are hardly $2.  More like ten cents.
   
  On the other hand, for around $2 I can get very solid cables from Monoprice that are well shielded and meet the 75 ohm spec.
   
  So if you're arguments is we're using $2 cables in our system, then sure.  I also have a set of old Monsters I got on clearance because I needed a set of cables that day and they were like $5.  Same for a set of Rocket Fish cables.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> So is it safe to assume that all the non-believers are using the $2 red/white packaged interconnects that come with basic a/v equipement. Because if you're not, then you must think that the cable does matter in some respect. And I should be able to safely assume you are using lamp cord for your speakers since it's cheaper and has no impact on sound quality.


 

 Super argument Slaughter. It is funny how the cable sceptics also ditch the stock penny cables for other more expensive ones and justify that by saying they are well made. Well made? They either work or don't work. What are you doing with these cables that they need to built to a 'higher standard' than the most basic ones? So you sceptics have one reason which is a bit dubious to spend a little bit more on cables. Meanwhile you ridicule the cable believers who often spend not that much more for the dubious reason they sound better. Hypocracy!!!!


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Super argument Slaughter. It is funny how the cable sceptics also ditch the stock penny cables for other more expensive ones and justify that by saying they are well made. Well made? They either work or don't work. What are you doing with these cables that they need to built to a 'higher standard' than the most basic ones? So you sceptics have one reason which is a bit dubious to spend a little bit more on cables. Meanwhile you ridicule the cable believers who often spend not that much more for the dubious reason they sound better. Hypocracy!!!!


 
   
   
  It's hardly hypocracy - there is nothing wrong with seeking out things in life which are better quality, that might be furniture, cars, or hifi cables, these days everything is built down to a price and I guarantee that if you seek out only the cheapest things then you will end up paying for it.
   
  Buy cheap, buy twice.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Super argument Slaughter. It is funny how the cable sceptics also ditch the stock penny cables for other more expensive ones and justify that by saying they are well made. Well made? They either work or don't work. What are you doing with these cables that they need to built to a 'higher standard' than the most basic ones? So you sceptics have one reason which is a bit dubious to spend a little bit more on cables. Meanwhile you ridicule the cable believers who often spend not that much more for the dubious reason they sound better. Hypocracy!!!!


 

 I say it again: Why buy a nice couch? All you do is sit on it. If a ratty one is as good as a designer brand, why pay more?
   
  I just spent $600 on a headphone setup. I can justify $38 for a nice looking cable that instills a little confidence. I don't expect sound quality improvements now. So I'm not buying some $500 audiophile cables with pure stranded silver and quantum tunneling. Even $50 is stretching it, regardless of rig cost.
   
  Though were I to do it again, I'd probably stick with $2 cables from Monoprice. And that's what I'll be doing if I ever need ICs longer than 2 feet, now that I know they do nothing for my sound. Keep in mind, I was skeptical at the time but not a skeptic convert yet. I bought them with the hopes that maybe I would hear something, but if I didn't then I'd be happy anyway because I didn't break the bank and supported a good company who doesn't try to sell you a super-sized dose of pseudoscience with every order.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Super argument Slaughter. It is funny how the cable sceptics also ditch the stock penny cables for other more expensive ones and justify that by saying they are well made. Well made? They either work or don't work. What are you doing with these cables that they need to built to a 'higher standard' than the most basic ones? So you sceptics have one reason which is a bit dubious to spend a little bit more on cables. Meanwhile you ridicule the cable believers who often spend not that much more for the dubious reason they sound better. Hypocracy!!!!


 

 My excuse is that I cut up mine. The contacts were used to make various adapters while the thin enameled wire is ideal for when I need someting super thin and super flexible while still being insulated somewhat.
  I probably would make my own If I didn't cut up the cheapies too, they don't really look too impressive and I do have some vanity.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





d.g said:


> It's hardly hypocracy - there is nothing wrong with seeking out things in life which are better quality, that might be furniture, cars, or hifi cables, these days everything is built down to a price and I guarantee that if you seek out only the cheapest things then you will end up paying for it.
> 
> Buy cheap, buy twice.


 

 (makes buzzer sound) Wrong.  Buy *stupid*, buy twice.  Buy cheap, have more money to buy other stuff.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> (makes buzzer sound) Wrong.  Buy *stupid*, buy twice.  Buy cheap, have more money to buy other stuff.


 

 Another brilliant argument hitting hard at those who profess scepticism, but then buy cheaper end audiophile cables anyway.
   
  My DIY cable cost £6.18 for the phonos (very similar ones I see regularly on bespoke audiophile ICs), the cable cost £6.50 and add in something for the cost of the soldering stuff I have bought and they were about £16. Actually that is an outrageous cost and I have managed to rip myself off!!!!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


prog rock man said:


> Super argument Slaughter. It is funny how the cable sceptics also ditch the stock penny cables for other more expensive ones and justify that by saying they are well made. Well made? They either work or don't work. What are you doing with these cables that they need to built to a 'higher standard' than the most basic ones? So you sceptics have one reason which is a bit dubious to spend a little bit more on cables. Meanwhile you ridicule the cable believers who often spend not that much more for the dubious reason they sound better. Hypocracy!!!!


 
 A lot of the penny cable throw-ins can have issues.  Improper barrel size from manufacturing, not following 75ohm standard, lack of shielding so they pick up noise, etc.
   
  $2 to fix these issues sound fine to me.  $500+ do duplicate them (seriously, exotica designs with no shielding, really) seems silly.


----------



## Slaughter

You didnt go cheap on your DAC or phones? Could have bought more stuff...
  
  Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> (makes buzzer sound) Wrong.  Buy *stupid*, buy twice.  Buy cheap, have more money to buy other stuff.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> prog rock man said:
> ...


 

 That suggests the manufacturers who include such cables are ripping us off as much as the snake oil IC sellers are. It also sounds like the manufacturers are selling potentially dangerous cables. Is that really the case?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


prog rock man said:


> That suggests the manufacturers who include such cables are ripping us off as much as the snake oil IC sellers are. It also sounds like the manufacturers are selling potentially dangerous cables. Is that really the case?


 
 I wouldn't say they're ripping us off by throwing in cables, it's not like they cost enough to justify lower the price anyway.  However, in terms of potentially dangerous I've had a set of RCA cables rip a jack off an old CRT TV . . . the same cables that came with the TV.
   
  Then again, I've also had a set of Monsters (the same ones I mentioned before) rip a RCA jack off an Emotiva amp too before I had Rat Shack replace them.  Emotiva kindly replaced the amp, but yeah . . . can't say I was happy about that either.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





3602 said:


> On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
> I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do.


 

 I  know  this is way late in the thread but I just have to wonder why you feel the need to convince anyone of anything? Are you on a religious crusade and are working off the quota system? Seriously why this fascination with how other spend there money and this over whelming desire for everyone to think like you?


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> You didnt go cheap on your DAC or phones? Could have bought more stuff...


 

 Exactly - I spent money where it really matters.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> I  know  this is way late in the thread but I just have to wonder why you feel the need to convince anyone of anything? Are you on a religious crusade and are working off the quota system? Seriously why this fascination with how other spend there money and this over whelming desire for everyone to think like you?


 
   
  Speaking for myself, this is a community, and it is a bit off-putting that some people are making money off fellow head-fiers from unsubstantiated and demonstrably false claims.  It's the same feeling I'd get if I saw a fellow human spending their money on a bottle of pills the makes untrue claims and gives them false hopes, while there are legitimate products on the shelf that have been tested and have real effects. 
   
  So part of the reason is a sense of injustice and sympathy for the person who is getting lied to and screwed.  The other half is a sense of outrage towards of people making false claims and taking people's money because of their trust and hope, particularly because that hope is rooted in an obsession we all share for musical beauty and perfection.
   
  Humans have an inborn sense of justice so we can't help but having sympathy for the victims and outrage towards the scammer.  
   
  This is not comparable to religious beliefs because this is an evidence-based endeavor.  Standards exist that are used to evaluate claims and prevent people from selling products under false pretenses in other areas of commerce (e.g. fda-approved medicine) so we dbt loving types don't see it as a stretch to apply it to audio equipment.


----------



## Slaughter

Any scientific proof that a $300 DAC sounds different from a $50 one? They all just convert digital to analog and sound the same to me. You wasted your money. <sarcasm> Are you seeing how ridiculous it is to argue over cables when the same cane be said about amps, transports and DACs?


----------



## lonereaction

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Looks like you have fallen victim to their anti-audiophile propaganda. They have definitely discovered a marketing niche: cables for the advanced cable skeptic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I guess it's the same when people buy $30 t-shirts rather than $5 dollar ones, but not $300 ones. Because it looks nicer, and the price is reasonable.
   
  On another note, I have been following this thread for a while (very interesting from both sides). I am willing to jump the fence anytime good solid evidence is provided, and I'm sure most people here are too. What I don't get are people that come into the science forum and refuse to think scientifically.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> Any scientific proof that a $300 DAC sounds different from a $50 one? They all just convert digital to analog and sound the same to me. You wasted your money. <sarcasm> Are you seeing how ridiculous it is to argue over cables when the same cane be said about amps, transports and DACs?


 

 That is a valid point and in fact the Matrix HiFi bunch did some DBTs between a Behringer ($230) DAC/EQ and a Benchmark DAC1 ($1100) and none of their blind listeners could tell them apart. For my part I have a $50 used Entech 203.2 and a $110 Zero with built-in headphone amp, my sources are a pair of WDTVs, a $210 5 CD changer transport and two < $30 used CD players. 
   
  Previously I owned more expensive kit such as a Graham Slee Solo and a $750 CD player, then I started listening with my ears not with my wallet. The damascene moment was buying a switch box which allowed me to run rapid change (though still flawed) ABX tests, this allowed me to partially decouple my beliefs from my actual experience. Then I graduated to the better blind tests.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


slaughter said:


> Any scientific proof that a $300 DAC sounds different from a $50 one? They all just convert digital to analog and sound the same to me. You wasted your money. <sarcasm> Are you seeing how ridiculous it is to argue over cables when the same cane be said about amps, transports and DACs?


 
 You'll find people on here that question that too.  I'm sure I'd probably fail a DBT between say my Xciter and the Behringer that Nick mentioned.  On the other hand I never have to worry about my source being insufficient regardless and accept the fact.
   
  Same on amps to an extent.  Assuming they measure well and don't clip odds are they'll sound the same in a level matched DBT.
   
   
  Nick, you mentioned owning an Entech.  I owned one a while back . . . do you have issues with it having to lock the PLL at the beginning of every track like I did?  That was probably what made me sell it >_< '


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The rise of pseudoscience, urban myths and the like has spawned a raft of studies on why so many are prepared to dismiss science and believe the strangest of things. Read a few and you should worry about how much nonsense there is out there. That is why you will find people who are carrying the banner for proper scientific testing and I would like to think now I am one of them. 
   
  I have to admit when I first came to this forum, Nick_Charles and others annoyed me. Why were they posting on a forum where clearly they thought a lot of what was said was rubbish? Leave us alone! Now I accept that I was wrong, based on the actual science that shows cables cannot be differentiated when exposed to proper ABX tests.
   
  If people raved about cables because they looked nice, or were made to exactly the length they needed, no problem. Raving because they improve the sound, problem.


----------



## marsipan

The point is, people believe they hear an improved sound when they swap to more expensive cables. Maybe they have just reached
  a level of sound quality where their ears can no longer tell a difference, so they need to spend $1000 on a cable to induce a
  delusional reality where their rigs indeed sound better 
  In order to facilitate that delusional state, cable manufacturers provide a lot of scientific jargon and technical details about how said
  cable is able to improve the sound quality...  If both parties are happy, who cares ?.... Actually, very few people if any come here
  complaining "I spent $1000 on a interconnect and it doesn't sound good!...", which means that the delusion really works.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





marsipan said:


> The point is, people believe they hear an improved sound when they swap to more expensive cables. Maybe they have just reached
> a level of sound quality where their ears can no longer tell a difference, so they need to spend $1000 on a cable to induce a
> delusional reality where their rigs indeed sound better
> In order to facilitate that delusional state, cable manufacturers provide a lot of scientific jargon and technical details about how said
> ...


 

 Real science suffers and myth peddlers get away with their rubbish. I care about that.


----------



## wmf

so tell me why do manufacturers such as Tara Labs produce cables upwards of $10k  ?, for the sake of it,  ...   aesthetics, good looks  ?


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> Any scientific proof that a $300 DAC sounds different from a $50 one? They all just convert digital to analog and sound the same to me. You wasted your money. <sarcasm> Are you seeing how ridiculous it is to argue over cables when the same cane be said about amps, transports and DACs?


 

 I've been saying this over and over and over and over again.  It understandably falls on deaf ears too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  The smugness of the hypocrisy is stunning to witness.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





wmf said:


> so tell me why do manufacturers such as Tara Labs produce cables upwards of $10k  ?, for the sake of it,  ...   aesthetics, good looks  ?


 

 Why do manufacturers produce $10K dacs and amps?  The same question needs to be asked.


----------



## wmf

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> Why do manufacturers produce $10K dacs and amps?  The same question needs to be asked.


 

 well you could argue to a certain extent internals   ....


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





wmf said:


> so tell me why do manufacturers such as Tara Labs produce cables upwards of $10k  ?, for the sake of it,  ...   aesthetics, good looks  ?


 

  
  Two words - "Profit margin"...


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





wmf said:


> so tell me why do manufacturers such as Tara Labs produce cables upwards of $10k  ?, for the sake of it,  ...   aesthetics, good looks  ?


 
   


   Because people buy them.  Also, I'd LOVE to see the manufacturing costs of their cables.  A $10K cable is $10K only because someone is willing to spend that.  If we talk about real costs we'd see a much different picture.
  
  Quote: 





aimlink said:


> I've been saying this over and over and over and over again.  It understandably falls on deaf ears too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I believe I've debated the value of high cost electronics numerous times on here - me being the owner of some.
   
  So now, don't go thinking it falls on deaf ears.  Some of the time you're just singing to the choir.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> Nick, you mentioned owning an Entech.  I owned one a while back . . . do you have issues with it having to lock the PLL at the beginning of every track like I did?  That was probably what made me sell it >_< '


 

 Nope, though my work laptop PC optical output tends to shut itself down after only a few seconds inactivity and with FooBar (vista 64 bit) on my laptop it does often blip sligthly on track start, but that is with the zero not the Entech. My Entech works pretty reliably with all sources.
   
  With several different PCs , sound devices and media players I have experienced the digital signal cutting out (I assume a timeout) but it tends to be at the PC end, the USB  TBAAM was especially flaky with WinAmp and Windows XP on ,my old Dell it used to fart at track start. Wireless cards also wreak havoc with audio, web browsing on my 4GB Lenovo often causes the audio to crap-out


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> I've been saying this over and over and over and over again.  It understandably falls on deaf ears too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 I've posted literally dozens of posts that link to DBTs of source and amp components. Anyone who blindly assumes that because A is 2x or 10x or even in some cases 60x more expensive than B that it must be superior is just being intellectually lazy...


----------



## marsipan

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Real science suffers and myth peddlers get away with their rubbish. I care about that.


 

 I see your point, butI I disagree little. Real science is made by real scientists, in proper labs - and I don't think it is affected by these myth peddlers. All the relevant information is readily available if you care for that. A lot of people simply  look the other way, because high-end audio is a more a religion than a science  A $10k cable is more of an amulet for good sound than a piece of electronics equipment


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





3602 said:


> How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference


----------



## x3dnd3x

So meaning to say if i were to use a cable wif mp3 + amp , it doesn't make a diff becos the cable jus transfers the signal over ? In tat case jus get a cheap cable will do ? Sry if i ask a noob q .


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





x3dnd3x said:


> So meaning to say if i were to use a cable wif mp3 + amp , it doesn't make a diff becos the cable jus transfers the signal over ? In tat case jus get a cheap cable will do ? Sry if i ask a noob q .


 


 On one side: 1) theoretically there is no reason that cables make an audible difference; 2) measurably there is no reason that cables make an audible difference; 3) DBTs to date indicate that there are no audible differences; 4) manufactures of cable don't support that there are audible differences; and 5) there is an explanation for "audible" differences in placebo (not to mention consumerism).
  
 The other side: 1) there is anecdotal evidence of audible differences in cables; and 2) anecdotal evidence that there is audible difference in amplifiers.


----------



## x3dnd3x

Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> On one side: 1) theoretically there is no reason that cables make an audible difference; 2) measurably there is no reason that cables make an audible difference; 3) DBTs to date indicate that there are no audible differences; 4) manufactures of cable don't support that there are audible differences; and 5) there is an explanation for "audible" differences in placebo (not to mention consumerism).
> 
> The other side: 1) there is anecdotal evidence of audible differences in cables; and 2) anecdotal evidence that there is audible difference in amplifiers.


 

 I guess i'll shall listen to " On one side " .


----------



## Prog Rock Man

If there was evidence that a measurement such as resistance varied with reports of varied sound quality, so lower resistance means higher sound quality, then science would back up audiophile claims. But it does not.
   
  The one part of science that backs up audiophile claims is psychology. If audiophiles accepted that expensive ICs made them feel better about their kit and provided a placebo and that was why they sounded better, then audiophiles would be more convincing in their claims.


----------



## minimus

That some cables have outrageously high prices that manufacturers justify with BS pseudo-scientific snake oil does not prove that all cables sound the same.  Funny that on Audiogon, the most commonly held beef about cables (aside the fact that some are outrageously overpriced) is that they are too often used as "tone controls", when other issues in a system -- like harsh highs or inadequate bass -- in theory should be dealt with by better matching components like the amplifier and speakers with each other. 
   
  My wife, who has no interest in audio at all except to occasionally listen to some classical CDs on my stereo system, has sometimes mentioned that the stereo sounds better or worse than it used to.  These comments are made after I have made a cable changes that she was not aware of...including changes in speaker cables and interconnects.  All cables were at roughly the same price point but had different conductors...some silver, some copper, some a mix of different metals.  In some cases, an inexpensive cable has sounded better than a more expensive cable. 
   
  I, for one, got rid of a SAA Equinox replacement cables for my HD650s because they made the headphones insufferably bright.  I much preferred the stock headphone cable that came with the HD650s. 
   
  But by all means, keep buying from Blue Jeans cables.  That keeps the demand low for other cables and allows others to buy cables more cheaply.  God forbid, if every donut on Head-fi willing to spend $2K+ on headphones and a headphone amp changed his mind and decided that not all cables sound the same, the prices of used cables on Audiogon would skyrocket.


----------



## JaZZ

Actually I was more than happy with the sound of my setup which was dominated by the extraordinary capabilities of my HD 800. But I was curious if I could have even more of the good. So I ordered an aftermarket cable, the well-respected DHC Clone. And indeed it showed some sonic advantage over the stock cable: better imaging and soundstage. But there were also some disadvantages: a slight dullness and lack of (treble) sparkle. So some recordings sounded better with it, some sounded better with the stock cable (actually the majority); the characteristic remained consistent among the different recordings, and so did the preference with the same recordings. Next try was with a Silver Dragon. A bit very analytical and brittle in the beginning, it developed to an extraordinarily good sounding and highly resolving cable with maybe a slight emphasis on the upper treble. It was better than the other two in every criterion except for forgivingness. So my ranking now is:
   
  1. Silver Dragon
  2. Stock cable
  3. DHC Clone
   
  Note that the comparisons were done with a modified HD 800; with a regular pair my preference could have been different – so don't deduce a general inferiority of the Clone.
   
  The goal of this anecdote is to show that it's not always the more expensive cable or the one with the higher reputation that sounds better. (Just in case you think it might be due to placebo effect.) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





minimus said:


> *That some cables have outrageously high prices that manufacturers justify with BS pseudo-scientific snake oil does not prove that all cables sound the same.*  Funny that on Audiogon, the most commonly held beef about cables (aside the fact that some are outrageously overpriced) is that they are too often used as "tone controls", when other issues in a system -- like harsh highs or inadequate bass -- in theory should be dealt with by better matching components like the amplifier and speakers with each other.
> 
> My wife, who has no interest in audio at all except to occasionally listen to some classical CDs on my stereo system, has sometimes mentioned that the stereo sounds better or worse than it used to.  *These comments are made after I have made a cable changes that she was not aware of..*.including changes in speaker cables and interconnects.  All cables were at roughly the same price point but had different conductors...some silver, some copper, some a mix of different metals.  In some cases, an inexpensive cable has sounded better than a more expensive cable.
> 
> ...


 

 Correct, ABX/blind tests prove that.
   
  Your wife's experience mirrors mine and changes I have made in the past. That is the one part of cables do make a difference that still leaves me with the feeling there is something else going on. Overall synergy maybe?
   
  The economics don't back up your argument. The few who spend $2k would not have that big an effect on the market for cheap cables.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Actually I was more than happy with the sound of my setup which was dominated by the extraordinary capabilities of my HD 800. But I wanted to have even more of the good if possible. So I ordered an aftermarket cable, the well-respected DHC Clone. And indeed it showed some sonic advantage over the stock cable: better imaging and soundstage. But there were also some disadvantages: a slight dullness and lack of (treble) sparkle. So some recordings sounded better with it, some sounded better with the stock cable (actually the majority); the characteristic remained consistent among the different recordings, and so did the preference with the same recordings. Next try was with a Silver Dragon. A bit very analytical and brittle in the beginning, it developed to an extraordinarily good sounding and highly resolving cable with maybe a slight emphasis on the upper treble. It was better than the other two in every criterion except for forgivingness. So my ranking now is:
> 
> 1. Silver Dragon
> 2. Stock cable
> ...


 

 Please get someone to blind fold you and swap the cables with an ABX test and then tell us what happened. It would interesting if your 1 - 3 remained the same, or if it became a 1st equal, because you could not reliably tell them apart.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Please get someone to blind fold you and swap the cables with an ABX test and then tell us what happened. It would interesting if your 1 - 3 remained the same, or if it became a 1st equal, because you could not reliably tell them apart.


 
   
  You don't get the point of the anecdote. It's not about blind tests, it's about sighted tests. (BTW, I've already passably passed a blindfolded headphone-cable test and am not planning to do another).
.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I understood that your anecdote was with sighted tests. What was the actual result of your blind test?


----------



## JaZZ

prog rock man said:


> I understood that your anecdote was with sighted tests. What was the actual result of your blind test?


 

 I could identify the Zu Mobius against the Oehlbach on the HD 650 in 9 of 12 trials.
.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> I could indentify the Zu Mobius against the Oehlbach on the HD 650 in 9 of 12 trials.
> .


   
  Care to delve into the testing methodology?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> jazz said:
> ...


 

 It was a spontaneous idea (not from me) among three Zurich Head-Fiers, and we had to improvise with a towel around the head for blindfolding which additionally covered part of the ears (at least it felt like that) and certainly affected the fit of the headphone, too, so it was an uncomfortable and unfamiliar feeling. We prepared the originally sleek and flexible Oehlbach with a layer of self-adhesive velours wrapped around it to mimick the physical properties of the rougher and stiffer Zu. And we arranged that cable changes were made in every case, thus also when the same cable was attached again, to make identification by means of acoustic signals impossible. The headphone was placed on my head by one of my friends, but now and then I readjusted it myself, without touching the cable, though.
   
  I could play the same passage as long as I needed and then had to tell my decision.
.


----------



## Currawong

Jazz, you should write up the entire test, it's interesting.


----------



## udauda

Except with low-impedance & multi-driver IEMs with damping issues, conventional IEC-compliant headphones have way too high impedance to be affected by cables, unless the cables are way too looooong or thiiiiiin(or made out of lead).
   
  BTW I wonder if anyone has read this study:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf


----------



## JaZZ

currawong said:


> Jazz, you should write up the entire test, it's interesting.


 

 Thanks – but I have nothing more to say/write, that's all.
.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jazz said:


> I could identify the Zu Mobius against the Oehlbach on the HD 650 in 9 of 12 trials.
> .


 

 I am sorry to say that is a probability of guessing of 7.3% ie not quite up to the conventionally required P < 0.05 , though in fairness it does hint that there might be a difference, but it is not statistically significant from those tests, now if it was a matter of gettting better with practice, an effect I have noted with myself where I went from 4/7 to 17/20 in the HM801 tests you might be able to get your results better with a longer run of tests...
   
  I do not discount the possibility of headphone cables having sufficient differences in resistance to make a level difference, after all we are dealing with low levels here perhaps a few 10s of mW in most cases


----------



## xnor

Quote:


jazz said:


> Thanks – but I have nothing more to say/write, that's all.


 
   
  So the results weren't so positive after all, were they?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





udauda said:


> Except with low-impedance & multi-driver IEMs with damping issues, conventional IEC-compliant headphones have way too high impedance to be affected by cables, unless the cables are way too looooong or thiiiiiin(or made out of lead).
> 
> BTW I wonder if anyone has read this study:
> http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/46225/41567257.pdf


 

 I have now and saved it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . So there is no correlation between cable price, construction and sound. That is the same as this study
   
http://www.apiguide.net/04actu/04musik/AES-cableInteractions.pdf


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> I am sorry to say that is a probability of guessing of 7.3% ie not quite up to the conventionally required P < 0.05 , though in fairness it does hint that there might be a difference, but it is not statistically significant from those tests, now if it was a matter of gettting better with practice, an effect I have noted with myself where I went from 4/7 to 17/20 in the HM801 tests you might be able to get your results better with a longer run of tests...


 

 I already know your position. I'm not entirely satisfied with the result myself, on the other hand I don't care too much for proof – my attitude is a pragmatic one.
   
   


> I do not discount the possibility of headphone cables having sufficient differences in resistance to make a level difference, after all we are dealing with low levels here perhaps a few 10s of mW in most cases


   
  According to my measurements the differences are too small to enable audible differences. <1 ohm is not enough to cause a noticeable current drop at a 300-450 Ω load.
.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Manufactures of aftermarket cables seem to be silent on this matter.
   
  Can anyone think of anything less they could do?
   
   
  .


----------



## MuuMuu

What about the cumulative effects of cables when considered a part of the whole setup?
   
  Lots of aftermarket parts for different hobbies have effects that, while real, have so little effect as to be pointless by itself.  The quantiative difference between two Shimano shifters may be that one weighs 10 grams less -- but unless you make cuts on many other parts (and even then!), the differences won't be noticeable.  The sword of asskicking+1 -- or hell, to make a more equivalent comparison, something insignificant like the portable handkerchiefs of asskicking+1 -- may command incredible premiums over the standard version in a given MMO, even if the difference is a negligible increase in stats that's literally indistinguishable.
   
  To me it seems that, be it cables or something measurable like examples above, the only real difference is that the marketing team either fiddles with Excel to exaggerate differences, or comes up with new and exciting adjectives to woo its customers.  Both will go to lengths to tell you how awesome the synthetic ubermetals are that makes up the device's shell.
   
  That said, my recently-purchased bike is significantly peppier than what I used to have thanks to a host of better components; after piling on aggro-reducing gear onto my black mage I was dishing out double damage compared to others whilst being less of a burden to tanks in my pt in boss fights in FF11 back in the day.  Add one inferior component/gear to the mix and it'll make no difference, but strip everything down to the basics and you're back to the equivalent of a Kmart bike / newbie lv75 mage.
   
  I can't say much about the audio part as my new, overpriced, Copper Cables of The Dragon+1 have yet to arrive, but I'm sure there'll be some negligible, regularly unnoticeable difference there that's not even close to worth the price of admission as a standalone upgrade.  I don't have any expectations for these to make any immediate differences, but at least that takes out one potential bottleneck.  I don't have any immediate plans to buy Silver Cables of the Dragon +1 to complement my set.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





muumuu said:


> What about the cumulative effects of cables when considered a part of the whole setup?
> 
> Lots of aftermarket parts for different hobbies have effects that, while real, have so little effect as to be pointless by itself.  The quantiative difference between two Shimano shifters may be that one weighs 10 grams less -- but unless you make cuts on many other parts (and even then!), the differences won't be noticeable.


 

 Take the number 1,000. Add a one to it. Now add ten ones to it. No matter how many ones you add, the last one you added is only a fraction of the total.
   
  The way you argue that the last little bit can matter is much like saying 1001 is not significantly bigger than 1000, but 1011 _is_ significantly bigger than 1010. It's the sum of those 11 items from 1000 to 1011 that make a significant difference, any one is much more negligible and will only make as much difference as it ever would.
   
  To imply that, say, an amp would be twice as awesome if it just had an inch more copper somewhere does not put much confidence in the amp manufacturer.


----------



## d.g

Still it goes on...
   
  Still people are treating their systems as truly magical things..
   
  Still people cannot bring this down to basic electrical principles, look at their amplifier and headphones as two pieces of electrical equipment that need the most efficient means of connecting them.
   
  It really is as complex as that, anything else is just added by humans for reasons X,Y,Z.


----------



## JaZZ

d.g said:


> Still it goes on...
> 
> Still people are treating their systems as truly magical things..
> 
> ...


 

 Are you sure? There have been significant signal differences measured between different cables – with MLS signals instead of conventional measurements. Science is constantly progressing. Believing that we know all is nothing new, and history has always proven those beliefs wrong.
   
  The fact that an elementary particle can be at two different places at the same time is a mystery and hard to understand to date. Is it magic?
   
  I don't think any of the cable-sound perceivers treats his cables as magic objects. Of course their sonic properties are somehow the consequence of physical processes. Note that different conductors do show different measuring properties even with conventional methods – their effects are just considered below the hearing threshold. Now let's hope that in the future the scientists with an interest in electroacoustics will get braver and more imaginative and further pursue the above approach with new methods and complex signals.
.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Are you sure? There have been significant signal differences measured between different cables – with MLS signals instead of conventional measurements. Science is constantly progressing. Believing that we know all is nothing new, and history has always proven those beliefs wrong.
> 
> The fact that an elementary particle can be at two different places at the same time is a mystery and hard to understand to date. Is it magic?
> 
> ...


 
  I thought the double slit experiment is better defined as demonstrating that an elementary particle does not have a fixed position until a precise moment in time (when the photon hits the screen).  But the larger point is that raising issues like quantum mechanics in the context of audio cables is itself magical thinking.  I am trying to think of a good analogy - it's like invoking chaos theory in financial markets to explain why the cashier gave you $.78 in change.  Interesting, but not really informative or insightful.  
   
  Also, I am not holding my breath for "the scientists" to expand this field.  Unless I am wrong, the science involving the transmission of audio signals is well settled.  The psychoacoustic (or other neuro-scientific) aspects of music listening are (again to my knowledge) ripe fields for exploration, but that has nothing to do with the physical properties of cables or any other gear.


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Are you sure? There have been significant signal differences measured between different cables – with MLS signals instead of conventional measurements. Science is constantly progressing. Believing that we know all is nothing new, and history has always proven those beliefs wrong.
> 
> The fact that an elementary particle can be at two different places at the same time is a mystery and hard to understand to date. Is it magic?
> 
> ...


 

 Jazz, I certainly don't think I know all, and am quite open to the possibilities that we will find things out in the future that reveal there is more to this, but for now I stand by the logic that differences must be so small (based on the blind testing going on) vs the costs being so high for many aftermarket cables, that it simply isn't worth doing.
   
  I dont re-wire my kettle, I dont re-wire my toaster and for the same reasons there is no need to re-wire headphones.(for example)
   
  This thread has turned into an ego contest now to see who can come up with the most clever sounding posts, yet no one seems to be able to apply much common sense.


----------



## cer

Sonic properties of cables are considered to be below the hearing treshold for a good reason. New methods or complex signals can't disprove numerous DBTs. "Science hasn't figured it out yet, but I have" is a real classic.
  If I was an owner of an expensive audio cable company, I, for certain, would like scientific proof, that my cables do the trick. A peer-reviewed study would bring an awsome amount of customers my way. So how come there are none? It's not that expensive or difficult to conduct a scientifically valid listening test.
  Why do we need stuff like MLS signals when we can't tell the difference between a 300$ and 10 000$ solid state amps?
   
  Quote:


jazz said:


> Are you sure? There have been significant signal differences measured between different cables – with MLS signals instead of conventional measurements. Science is constantly progressing. Believing that we know all is nothing new, and history has always proven those beliefs wrong.
> 
> The fact that an elementary particle can be at two different places at the same time is a mystery and hard to understand to date. Is it magic?
> 
> ...


----------



## JaZZ

terriblepaulz said:


> I thought the double slit experiment is better defined as demonstrating that an elementary particle does not have a fixed position until a precise moment in time (when the photon hits the screen).


 
   
  No, it's indeed a kind of double existence – or rather: the two emanations of the elementary particle at different locations seem to be connected and share or exchange information.
   
   


> But the larger point is that raising issues like quantum mechanics in the context of audio cables is itself magical thinking.


 
 Don't mix this up! I wasn't implicating cable sound in quantum-mechanic phenomena, that was just you.
   
   


> Also, I am not holding my breath for "the scientists" to expand this field.  Unless I am wrong, the science involving the transmission of audio signals is well settled.  The psychoacoustic (or other neuro-scientific) aspects of music listening are (again to my knowledge) ripe fields for exploration, but that has nothing to do with the physical properties of cables or any other gear.


   
  We know a lot about electroacoustics, but a lot is not everything for all times. See my linked examples where significant differences were measured. All it took to reveal them was a different measuring approach. (Unfortunately the paper isn't available on the net, just on paper and in German.)
  
   
  


d.g said:


> Jazz, I certainly don't think I know all, and am quite open to the possibilities that we will find things out in the future that reveal there is more to this, but for now I stand by the logic that differences must be so small (based on the blind testing going on) vs the costs being so high for many aftermarket cables, that it simply isn't worth doing.


   
  I do understand your attitude, but personally I do benefit from good (sounding) cables, independent of «minimal» measuring differences  – e.g. the Silver Dragon for my HD 800.

  


> I dont re-wire my kettle, I dont re-wire my toaster and for the same reasons there is no need to re-wire headphones.(for example)


   
  Neither would I rewire my toaster (if I had one) in the hope for better toasts. All the toast needs is heat, not a special signal shape. That's the point.
   
   


> This thread has turned into an ego contest now to see who can come up with the most clever sounding posts, yet no one seems to be able to apply much common sense.


   
  I hope you're not addressing mine; it wasn't my intention to create clever sounding posts. Common sense is a mixed bag. It may just as well stand for reason as for limited imagination.
.


----------



## JaZZ

cer said:


> Why do we need stuff like MLS signals when we can't tell the difference between a 300$ and 10 000$ solid state amps?


 

 «We» don't need them, and even I don't need them to hear differences between amps (and cables) – although I don't fix them on prices. But I'm interested to know the causes for the differences.
.


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





d.g said:


> Still it goes on...
> 
> Still people are treating their systems as truly magical things..
> 
> ...


 

 Imagine having this conversation to someone a few hundred years ago.  Okay I admit it - I think these "headphones" are magical because science may well be magic to my mind.


----------



## d.g

Jazz - The point is not that the toaster requires heat, the point is that it requires a cable capable of supply the required current demand, a simple electrical connection.
   
  Do you think your headphones are that different? You mention a special signal shape, but it is just an electrical connection between two components.
   
   
   
  Sp wild - what on earth are you drinking over there in oz?


----------



## stocklaz

Did not spend time to read all those post.  However I just want to put what my ear report to me.
   
  The change of cable DO change the sound, either to worse or better.
   
  That`s all.


----------



## SP Wild

Beer....one too many.


----------



## tds101

Why do some people bring threads back from the dead???
   
  If you feel a cable does something/nothing to make a difference in the SQ of WHATEVER that's great. But trying to convince people of the pros/cons is a waste of time. Really, why bring up something that will only incite riots - again???
   
  Really, go start a flame war someplace else - we've had more than enough of them here lately,......................


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





cer said:


> Sonic properties of cables are considered to be below the hearing treshold for a good reason. New methods or complex signals can't disprove numerous DBTs.


 

 You know that negative DBT results prove nothing, so there's nothing to be disproved. What would you say if the measured deviations are clearly above the established hearing thresholds? Would you still reject the new methods and their results? No interest at all?
  


> "Science hasn't figured it out yet, but I have" is a real classic.


 

 And this objection is a classic. It serves for belittling new approaches in the sense of «we already know enough to be sure» and is as old as science itself. (The «...but I have» is an unnecessary and unscientific addendum serving for personal discreditation. It shows how subjective and biased [wanna-be] scientists often are.)

  
  Quote: 





d.g said:


> Jazz - The point is not that the toaster requires heat, the point is that it requires a cable capable of supply the required current demand, a simple electrical connection.
> 
> Do you think your headphones are that different? You mention a special signal shape, but it is just an electrical connection between two components.


   
  An electrical connection – a cable – is an electroacoustic component with its specific properties. A toaster doesn't pose specific requirements in terms of signal accuracy, as it doesn't receive a signal at all, just electrical power for producing heat. Even a slight voltage variation doesn't hurt the quality of the product, not to speak of the AC frequency. There's no direct analogy between an interconnect or headphone cable and a toaster. High sonic fidelity is dependent on high signal accuracy. And although a cable is the component with the least corruption potential behind sound transducer and source and amp, its quality is not completely negligible.
.


----------



## cer

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You know that negative DBT results prove nothing, so there's nothing to be disproved.


 

 Are you serious? That's enough for me. No use banging my head against the wall.


----------



## JaZZ

cer said:


> Are you serious? That's enough for me. No use banging my head against the wall.


 

 You mean it's a case for the famous common sense?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## sgrossklass

As far as I'm concerned, the most outlandish claims regarding the influence of cables seem to come from people who have NO background in electrical engineering or psychoacoustics, or even scientific methodology in general. Or those who want to sell ¢abl€$, obviously.
   
  Explaining the properties of cables has never been any rocket science, certainly not at audio frequencies and typical lengths for home audio. A bit of resistance here, some capacitance and inductance there, a pinch of topology, nothing too dramatic. Even when they easily do make a difference worth noting (read: phono MM), basic electrical engineering is quite sufficient.
   
  If I had just blown $1000 on a stupid cable, I'd feel cheated if it didn't make a perceptible difference. Heck, I'd probably feel cheated anyway as that amount of money could have gotten me a nice new monitor, world-class mechanical keyboard (or two) and potentially a pair of spare cans, too - and you can bet that a lot more man-hours of honest hard-working people went into those.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You know that negative DBT results prove nothing, so there's nothing to be disproved. What would you say if the measured deviations are clearly above the established hearing thresholds? Would you still reject the new methods and their results? No interest at all?


 

 A series of negative DBTs prove that there is no difference between products. If a new medicine is found to have no clear benefits over a placebo after DBTs, it will not be passed for use as a medicine. The same should be true for cables. Unless the cable passes DBTs, the manufacturer should only be able to sell it based on quality of construction and style, not claimed 'sound benefits'.


----------



## xnor

About the *MLS *stuff:
   
  These measurements are a research project and forum members posted a couple of concerns / problems with the measurements they published.
   
  loosely translated from the stereoplay forum,
  a post by Dalibor Beric, editorial staff:
   
  The measured Van Den Hul-cable has very low resistance (which results in a very high damping factor). This exceeded the measuring accuracy and we got the wrong numbers. *Therefore the measurement result clearly is invalid.* All we can do is apologize - which we hereby do and also will in the magazine.
  ...
  I also want to emphasize that that these measurements are a research project and therefore: a) are not part of the rating, b) are not comparable to our standard measurements. bla bla, our standard measurements however are valid, bla bla, don't jump to conclusions, bla bla, it can take quite a few month for measurement methods to become "water-proof" ...
  ---
   
  So what can we learn from this? Don't jump to conclusions. Don't post vague stuff like "somebody did some new measurement that showed something". et cetera.
   
   
  Oh and a forum member which seems to know what he's talking about explains that their method is severely flawed and is quite upset:
   
  We've clearly pointed out that *using this method to detect nonlinear distortions*, as a matter of principle, *is inapplicable*. MLS requires linearity of the system under consideration. How you can hit on an idea like using this method for detecting nonlinear behavior is still an unexplained secret of stereoplay.
  ---
   
  hehe, this guy posted a couple of epic replies making them look pretty stupid


----------



## JaZZ

xnor said:


> About the *MLS *stuff:
> 
> These measurements are a research project and forum members posted a couple of concerns / problems with the measurements they published.
> 
> ...


 
   
  After all they have backed it up with some reasoning. Note that I haven't displayed their measurements as prove for anything. In science nothing is certain until the tests are repeated several times and the results are confirmed.
   
   


> Oh and a forum member which seems to know what he's talking about explains that their method is severely flawed and is quite upset:
> 
> We've clearly pointed out that *using this method to detect nonlinear distortions*, as a matter of principle, *is inapplicable*. MLS requires linearity of the system under consideration. How you can hit on an idea like using this method for detecting nonlinear behavior is still an unexplained secret of stereoplay.


 
 Now it's _you_ who's jumping to shaky conclusions: «...a forum member which seems to know what he's talking about...»!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## JaZZ

prog rock man said:


> A series of negative DBTs prove that there is no difference between products. If a new medicine is found to have no clear benefits over a placebo after DBTs, it will not be passed for use as a medicine. The same should be true for cables. Unless the cable passes DBTs, the manufacturer should only be able to sell it based on quality of construction and style, not claimed 'sound benefits'.


 

 There's a decisive difference between medical blind tests and cable blind tests. Medical tests take care to create no extraordinary circumstances which could influence the behavior of the participants. Even the fact that drugs are administered to them can have an effect: therefore the need for placebos. Apart from that they live their usual everyday life.
   
  In audio blind tests we have the opposite: the participants are at the mercy of a clinical situation, very different from their usual music-listening environment. Being blinded is one of the components that may have some imortance, another one is an unfamiliar system and unfamiliar acoustics. A third critical component is the competitive test situation itself, and depending on the methodology the latter may pose severe problems, especially in the case of random samples.
   
  So the two fields are not comparable.
.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Now it's _you_ who's jumping to shaky conclusions: «...a forum member which seems to know what he's talking about...»!


 
   
  Why? What he wrote is true and I wrote he seems to know, not that he knows everything.
  Are you trying to confuse me or to distract attention? 
   
  Causing confusion would make sense, looking at your post with a very vague description of these (invalid) measurements, and countering with back references to that post, or hints you dropped on quantum mechanics, or things we don't know about ..


----------



## JohnFerrier

Seems like this strange phenomena with cable audiblity would generate research interest at a university.
   
  Anyone aware of _any _research going on with regards to this?
   
  -
   
  Perhaps, a compilation of physic papers with mention of work to be done regarding an unexplained synergy between cables and "audiophile"?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There was a major incident in the UK a while back when a drug test went horribly wrong and some died or were very unwell. That test, as many are, was carried out in the full knowledge of the participants, in a hospital, whilst they were being observed. So some drug blind tests are under the same conditions as hifi/cable ones.


----------



## Coupe

The same way you convince people the chiropractors are a rip off.


----------



## JaZZ

xnor said:


> Why? What he wrote is true and I wrote he seems to know, not that he knows everything.
> Are you trying to confuse me or to distract attention?


 

 Of course a bit of everything. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 However, «...a forum member which seems to know what he's talking about...» is anything but a convincing argument. – In turn I could tell of two respected persons who have passed cable blind-tests. It's just that one of them I asked to get involved in the discussion doesn't want to. That's really true (promised!), but of course not an argument with much weight around here.
.


----------



## JaZZ

prog rock man said:


> There was a major incident in the UK a while back when a drug test went horribly wrong and some died or were very unwell. That test, as many are, was carried out in the full knowledge of the participants, in a hospital, whilst they were being observed. So some drug blind tests are under the same conditions as hifi/cable ones.


 
   
  I remember this case – the test persons looked a bit like the elephant man, but luckily have recovered. – However, I have no idea how you can know that the test wasn't blind, without a placebo group. Even if so, the test persons didn't live in a clinical situation which could have provoked such a side effect. So I'm not sure what your argumentation actually aims at.
.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I don't understand why you dismiss audio blind tests but accept medical ones. They will have differences, but the audio ones I have been reading on the internet for a while now all seem valid to me.
   
   
  Plus I made my own cables and sent some to others who were very happy with the sound, as I am. That is sufficient evidence for me to be sure cables do not make a difference. I mean, if I can make one with a weeks soldering practice and items I selected randomly off ebay based on their cheap cost, then anyone can made a decent cable.


----------



## High_Q

Cable has no significance unless you are using it for power


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jazz said:


> In audio blind tests we have the opposite: the participants are at the mercy of a clinical situation, very different from their usual music-listening environment. Being blinded is one of the components that may have some imortance, another one is an unfamiliar system and unfamiliar acoustics. A third critical component is the competitive test situation itself, and depending on the methodology the latter may pose severe problems, especially in the case of random samples.


 

 I can only answer for myself as for the stress of DBTs. I love em, I really enjoy DBTs I want to know my own limits of perception, I've done DBTs on A/D'd cable samples, filters, codecs, CD players. Null and positive results can be equally interesting. As for your other points there is no real evidence that unfamiliarity or perceived competiton make any difference in either direction. In fact the psychology literature suggests that *mild* stress can improve performance on some tasks...


----------



## JohnFerrier

If only the differences were a little bigger : ).
   
   
  .


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Of course a bit of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Why would I need to use this as an argument if the stereoplay editor I posted above already said that the measurements are *invalid*?
  That lower part was the FUN part of my post, hence the smiley ... jeez. Logic?
   
  And can't you just take things as they are? 
   
   
  I go to bed now, also promised. (Are those two guys the next thing you're going to back reference to now, over and over again?)


----------



## JaZZ

nick_charles said:


> I can only answer for myself as for the stress of DBTs. I love em, I really enjoy DBTs I want to know my own limits of perception, I've done DBTs on A/D'd cable samples, filters, codecs, CD players. Null and positive results can be equally interesting. As for your other points there is no real evidence that unfamiliarity or perceived competiton make any difference in either direction. In fact the psychology literature suggests that *mild* stress can improve performance on some tasks...


 

 I can reproduce your personal situation very well. You can only win, not lose, because you belong to the objectivist and cable-skeptic camp. A negative result in a cable test confirms your conviction, a positive result would underline your hearing ability, even make you a hero.
   
  Of course an unfamiliar system is a severe handicap. If you don't know the characteristic of a sound transducer inside out plus aren't familiar with the attached components and how they color the sound, it's virtually impossible to detect differences of lower magnitudes. At least that's my experience. I consider this the main reason why so many self-confident cable-sound proponents fail in DBTs: They underestimate the unfamiliarity with the test system.

  
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> Why would I need to use this as an argument if the stereoplay editor I posted above already said that the measurements are *invalid*?
> That lower part was the FUN part of my post, hence the smiley ... jeez. Logic?
> 
> And can't you just take things as they are?


 

 As they are? How are they? – As to the *invalidity* of the measurements: As I understand it, it just applies to the mentioned cable test, not the methodology itself.
.


----------



## eucariote

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> In turn I could tell of two respected persons who have passed cable blind-tests. It's just that one of them I asked to get involved in the discussion doesn't want to. That's really true (promised!), but of course not an argument with much weight around here.
> .


 

 I think that this is just the kind of hard data that we evidence-based science types are asking for.  We only believe that cables have no effect because all tests so far have been nonsignificant (just like I don't believe that Vardenafil cures tinnitus, and doctors would rightly lose their licence if they said otherwise and prescribed it).  What was his/her score?  I'd accept any result and crown you the winner if it differs significantly different from chance.


----------



## xnor

@JaZZ: Yes, the measurement you back-referenced to a couple of times is invalid. No, the test method is not fine, there seem to be other flaws, like (with MLS inherently) lower SNR etc. (it's all in the stereoplay forum, I'm not a translator)... and is not applicable to measure non-linearities.


----------



## JaZZ

xnor said:


> @JaZZ: Yes, the measurement you back-referenced to a couple of times is invalid. No, the test method is not fine, there seem to be other flaws, like (with MLS inherently) lower SNR etc. (it's all in the stereoplay forum, I'm not a translator)... and is not applicable to measure non-linearities.


 

 What a place drenched in hate! Nevertheless I have managed to struggle through the thread. The Head-Fi science forum feels like heaven in comparison. I certainly know why I have retired from all German audio forums since quite a while.
   
  Apparently there are some very knowledgeable people among the critics, though, but although the editors have conceded the error with the cable, they insist in the validity of the test methodology with amps, which in turn is still under criticism from the opposite side.
   
  Maybe it's not too late. I still favor complex signals as a basis for the revelation of perceived but not yet measured sonic differences (especially in cables). On the other hand, with amps the distortion spectra already represent a good approach – even though they're mostly below the established hearing thresholds.
.


----------



## d.g

Quote:


d.g said:


> Jazz - The point is not that the toaster requires heat, the point is that it requires a cable capable of supply the required current demand, a simple electrical connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think your headphones are that different? You mention a special signal shape, but it is just an electrical connection between two components.



   

   

   
  Quote: 





> An electrical connection – a cable – is an electroacoustic component with its specific properties. A toaster doesn't pose specific requirements in terms of signal accuracy, as it doesn't receive a signal at all, just electrical power for producing heat. Even a slight voltage variation doesn't hurt the quality of the product, not to speak of the AC frequency. There's no direct analogy between an interconnect or headphone cable and a toaster. High sonic fidelity is dependent on high signal accuracy. And although a cable is the component with the least corruption potential behind sound transducer and source and amp, its quality is not completely negligible.


 
   
   

  Ok so the toaster receives a fixed waveform via its (generally) copper cable and a loudspeaker receives a variable waveform via its (generally) copper cables - there is a similarity in what I was trying to describe.

   

  The signal accuracy comes from the source and the amplification device, the ideal cable is none at all, or a solid link buss connection, but stranded copper does just fine, you can gloss it up all you want but if this signal accuracy was so involved then something other than normal stranded or solid core copper would be required. But it's not.


----------



## JaZZ

d.g said:


> Ok so the toaster receives a fixed waveform via its (generally) copper cable and a loudspeaker receives a variable waveform via its (generally) copper cables - there is a similarity in what I was trying to describe.
> 
> 
> 
> The signal accuracy comes from the source and the amplification device, the ideal cable is none at all, or a solid link buss connection, but stranded copper does just fine, you can gloss it up all you want but if this signal accuracy was so involved then something other than normal stranded or solid core copper would be required. But it's not.


 

 You seem to insist that signal accuracy cannot be corrupted by a signal cable, but your toaster analogy doesn't clarify why it is so.
.


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You seem to insist that signal accuracy cannot be corrupted by a signal cable, but your toaster analogy doesn't clarify why it is so.
> .


 

 I don't insist anything Jazz...


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I don't understand why you dismiss audio blind tests but accept medical ones. They will have differences, but the audio ones I have been reading on the internet for a while now all seem valid to me.


 
   
  I do find some similarity with skepticism about cable related DBX tests and some DBX tests in medicine.  This will vary depending on specialty and what it is that you're trying to compare.  Trials comparing medication are a lot more straightforward than comparing two operative procedures, for example.  You may get a result and accept the validity of it.  However, is it really providing the correct answer??  A valid result obtained through reasonable methodology will not always be what obtains in a real world setting, nor will it always detect or adequately explain an observed phenomenon.
   
  We are way too quick to blame imagination etc. on some observed phenomenon.


----------



## High_Q

Has anybody posted any graphs of waveforms using different cables?  I just want to see to verify either for myself.  As to take someone's word that cables makes a different based on, their hearing, no thanks.  Anybody made some measurements, please post the graphs.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





high_q said:


> Has anybody posted any graphs of waveforms using different cables?  I just want to see to verify either for myself.  As to take someone's word that cables makes a different based on, their hearing, no thanks.  Anybody made some measurements, please post the graphs.


 


 Yes, in a rather crude way I did last year, it was by proxy using an AD stage from the analog output from a CD player and a variety of different cables. I also posted samples recorded from different cables.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





high_q said:


> Has anybody posted any graphs of waveforms using different cables?  I just want to see to verify either for myself.  As to take someone's word that cables makes a different based on, their hearing, no thanks.  Anybody made some measurements, please post the graphs.


 

 How about your own hearing?


----------



## xnor

@JaZZ:
  That hate is justified. They wrote that they have finally developed a measurement that is evidence for the "sound of cables" in their magazine... and already made mistakes at describing the (as they turned out *invalid*) results/method, leaving out important details, and so on.
   
   
  web translated:
   
  Quote: 





> It would be responsible journalism if you reassured yourselves BEFORE such a publication with people who know a lot about such things.
> 
> Balance and fairness would order it that you consult, also, such experts who can judge independently.
> Or turn to the manufacturerer of your measuring instrument, there someone knows with certainty about MLS and about its borders better than in your measuring lab.
> ...


 
   
  Stereoplay's credability also seems to suffer a lot..


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> How about your own hearing?


 

 What have you been reading this whole thread?


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





head injury said:


> What have you been reading this whole thread?


 
   
  Dear Master Head Injury,
   
  Did you mean reading or understanding?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> Dear Master Head Injury,
> 
> Did you mean reading or understanding?


 

 I just find it ridiculous that anyone can, after 47 pages of the same science vs. cables argument over and over, post something as simple as "Trust your ears!" with any slight intention of being taken seriously.


----------



## JaZZ

xnor said:


> @JaZZ:
> That hate is justified.


 

 Hate is never justified. It's always the product of personal inner processes – blocked anger, projected onto an arbitrary scapegoat. Anger is always justified, but sometimes directed at the wrong addressee.  
.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Hate is never justified. It's always the product of personal inner processes – blocked anger, projected to an arbitrary scapegoat. Anger is always justified, but sometimes directed at the wrong addressee.


 

 My Creative Writing teacher told us that hate is just a different kind of love. I think he was high on something though.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I just find it ridiculous that anyone can, after 47 pages of the same science vs. cables argument over and over, post something as simple as "Trust your ears!" with any slight intention of being taken seriously.


 

 When you're ready for me to explain what I meant by giving up that misplaced certainty you have about what I meant then I may just try to explain to you.  But I suspect not considering your display here.


----------



## High_Q

Nick, your efforts are very much appreciated.  Keep it up!  People like you in this forum(some reviewers included) that put much thought and time into their write ups makes Head-Fi very much the place to get useful information.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> When you're ready for me to explain what I meant by giving up that misplaced certainty you have about what I meant then I may just try to explain to you.  But I suspect not considering your display here.


 

 What display is that?
   
  I'd be happy for you to explain. That's something you should have done in the post itself, but late is better than never.


----------



## JaZZ

head injury said:


> My Creative Writing teacher told us that hate is just a different kind of love. I think he was high on something though.


 
   
  That would also be my suspicion.
  
   


> I just find it ridiculous that anyone can, after 47 pages of the same science vs. cables argument over and over, post something as simple as "Trust your ears!" with any slight intention of being taken seriously.


 
   
  You seem to be easy to convince. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Or at least you make it look like it was this thread which gave you the final push. I for one stick happily with my previous conviction that I trust my own ears when it comes to evaluate and judge audio components, and I don't change this practice specifically for cables.
.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You seem to be easy to convince.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I wouldn't call it the final push. I would call it the kick while I was down. Not hearing anything different in my BJC interconnects than I did in my floss-thin no-name ones was what pushed me.
   
  And my post was not in argument of your or any believer's position. It was in argument of a one-liner post like the one aimlink made. Your arguments are very constructive, because they're thought out and complex, though I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable and/or handy with Google to judge their validity. Nor did I want to offend aimlink specifically, because he has made several thought-out posts here too. It's just a one-liner like that, "Trust!", that I think defines what is wrong with the general cable public. "We hear it, so it's gotta be real." Nothing is more of an assumption, true or not.


----------



## aimlink

Quote:


head injury said:


> What display is that?
> 
> I'd be happy for you to explain. That's something you should have done in the post itself, but late is better than never.


 
   
  On such a contentious issue, I'd personally entertain the analysis of only someone who has experienced both sides.  I wonder how many here do hear a damning difference between cables and based on scientific evidence, happily concede that the difference is in his/her mind.  Not many, I'd wager.  It would seem that in the main, we're comprised of two distinct groups:
  - Those who haven't heard a difference between HP cables and believe the scientific evidence that supports there not being an audible difference.
  - Those who hear a difference between HP cables and choose to doubt the validity and hence, the ultimate truth in the scientific evidence that doesn't support what they're hearing.
   
  The first group can be subdivided into those who haven't heard a difference because they haven't seriously tried different cables and those who have seriously tried different cables and failed to hear a difference.
   
  On such a contentious issue as this, it's fascinating, for me at least, that one would be willing to make a solid decision without having first tried for him or herself.  The poster to whom my initial comment was directed to, seemed, from what he wrote, not to have tried different cables for himself, hence my querying this.
   
  What has been motivating this ENTIRE discussion stems from the disagreement between the two groups.  I'm not at all saying that one should uncompromisingly trust his or her ears.  One should at a minimum understand his or her ears and mind.   Additionally, there's usually a level of trust put in the truth of what one observes.  It's this level of trust that will make one question or choose not to question the validity of experimentation that that claims what they observed to be purely illusory.
   
  I'd surely love to be a part of a DBX test but I've already stated in this or maybe another similar thread, my own issues with using my own headphones and cables. 
   
  As to your display:
  It's pretty flagrant; bullish; authoritarian, blunt. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I hope that's not how you wish to come across but I advise care. You never know who you're replying to here.  There are all sorts on these boards who may choose to fully or not so fully identify themselves.  An anonymous handle as 'Head Injury', doesn't absolve you of responsibility.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You seem to be easy to convince.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yep.  What I have personally observed, makes me very resistant to assuming it's purely illusory and I particularly pay attention to arguments that question the validity of the current evidence.   What I've observed on a couple occasions is just too much for me to throw aside.  Hopefully, those with the knowledge and means to find an explanation haven't given up or stop running the same experiments over and over again as if there's a high chance the results will one day be different.


----------



## JaZZ

nick_charles said:


> Yes, in a rather crude way I did last year, it was by proxy using an AD stage from the analog output from a CD player and a variety of different cables. I also posted samples recorded from different cables.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/405217/my-cable-test-enterprise


 

 I haven't followed your thread to the end, but I think it has produced some remarkable measuring results, particularly the difference signals – which are actually the only significant ones considering the limited graphic resolution.
.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jazz said:


> I haven't followed your thread to the end, but I think it has produced some remarkable measuring results, particularly the difference signals – which are actually the only significant ones considering the limited graphic resolution.
> .


 

 By a bizarre twist of fate the post you point to is the only comparison I can (sort of) actually rerun as I was unable to offload the silver cable and I have loads of copper cables. Since I did that test I have acquired more knowledge about FFT analysis and have created better samples and had more practice at the whole alignment bash. The overall patterns will stilll be the same (varying with frequency and amplitude) but the detailed result will be more accurate as it matches the FFT size to the number of samples.


----------



## cegras

Do any of you cable believers also subscribe to Patrick's investigations? Given that you both believe that cables, ERS paper, and passive conditioners can make a difference, I would be surprised and skeptical if you do not follow in the same pattern of thinking as he does.


----------



## SP Wild

According to science audio cables will affect the signal being passed through - no matter how short or long, what material it is constructed of, shielding and thickness.  This cannot be doubted.  So the argument is whether these differences can be heard by individuals and whether the DBT is proficient enough to consolidate the differences in opinions.
   
  I am more than happy for a scientist to come to my home and carry a scientific DBT on my system with my cables and my music.  I also put a prerequisite that changes made at the interval of my choosing and listening sessions are made after I have had a nice dinner and shower and my girlfriend must be resting her head on my lap as she lays on the couch whilst I am listening.  The only variable that is fixed is that I am blinded - all other variables that do not invalidate the process are varied accordingly as I wish.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





cegras said:


> Do any of you cable believers also subscribe to Patrick's investigations? Given that you both believe that cables, ERS paper, and passive conditioners can make a difference, I would be surprised and skeptical if you do not follow in the same pattern of thinking as he does.


 
   
  i think Patrick experiences a different reality from most.  do i hear differences in cables - yes.  that being said, my DIY 1m Cardas enameled copper with stupid nickel plated Switchcraft RCAs ICs at $20 compares very well to my DIY Jupiter silver/cotton with rhodium Furutech RCAs at $150.  different, yes, but not earth shattering.  for me, cables are subtle tweaks that require strained critical listening to hear differences.  am i like Patrick, nooooooooo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> If only the differences were a little bigger : ).
> 
> 
> .


 


 Genius! 
  
  Quote: 





aimlink said:


> I do find some similarity with skepticism about cable related DBX tests and some DBX tests in medicine.  This will vary depending on specialty and what it is that you're trying to compare.  Trials comparing medication are a lot more straightforward than comparing two operative procedures, for example.  You may get a result and accept the validity of it.  However, is it really providing the correct answer??  A valid result obtained through reasonable methodology will not always be what obtains in a real world setting, nor will it always detect or adequately explain an observed phenomenon.
> 
> We are way too quick to blame imagination etc. on some observed phenomenon.


 

 Of course some tests will be more rigorous than others. However, the sum total of ABX/blind tests I have found published on the internet finds that the majority show there is no difference. The two that do were run by hifi magazines, who have an interest in finding differences.
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  There is overwhelming evidence that cables do not make a difference. The 'electrical causing audible' evidence for such differences is not supported by testing.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





fishski13 said:


> i think Patrick experiences a different reality from most.  do i hear differences in cables - yes.  that being said, my DIY 1m Cardas enameled copper with stupid nickel plated Switchcraft RCAs ICs at $20 compares very well to my DIY Jupiter silver/cotton with rhodium Furutech RCAs at $150.  different, yes, but not earth shattering.  for me, cables are subtle tweaks that require strained critical listening to hear differences.  am i like Patrick, nooooooooo
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well see, there's the rub. Patrick has the same attitude as you, but taken to the extreme. He has ditched electrically sound equipment (e.g. power line conditioners) for 20,000+ passive conditioners and cables, much as some of you would like to claim a 1000 cable can make as much difference as 1000 other pieces of equipment. It's weird for you guys to say 'I believe in cables but not as much as Patrick.' How can you only believe half way?


----------



## BIG POPPA

You have to try the cables and not just read about them. They will make a difference to you on your gear or they don't. It is a little difficult for me to grasp the idea "How can you believe half way?". Cables will make a difference or they won't simple as that IMO.


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





cegras said:


> Well see, there's the rub. Patrick has the same attitude as you, but taken to the extreme. He has ditched electrically sound equipment (e.g. power line conditioners) for 20,000+ passive conditioners and cables, much as some of you would like to claim a 1000 cable can make as much difference as 1000 other pieces of equipment. It's weird for you guys to say 'I believe in cables but not as much as Patrick.' How can you only believe half way?


 
   
  I'm with him all the way in regards to the prime importance of the beginning of the chain....the power (smell that testosterone - mmmm POWER).  He lost me with his new claims that improved power cables inhibit sound quality.
   
  1 million dollars huh.  You offer a million bucks when there is a risk to simple subjectivists - the risk of failing the DBT in unfamiliar territory with the resultant loss of time and resources that will not be compensated for.  Why not remove the risk - the DBT is to be done at the simple subjectivists own territory, turf and terms - in a manner that is legitimate with DBT.  I guarantee you there will be more numerous volunteers - I for one - but who is so foolish to take up such a challenge and inevitably part with a millions dollars?  Can the real slim shady please stand up.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Cables make a difference or they do not. That claim backs up the psychoacoustic reasons why a cable will sound different, it is all in the mind of the listener. If there was an inherent, electrical reason why a cable made a difference, we would all hear the difference and agree on what that difference is. But we do not.


----------



## SP Wild

I'll make the offer more attractive to the objectivists.  You do not have to offer a million dollars - just do in my territory under my terms - I have even removed the risk of losing a million bucks.  This is my last offer.  Any takers?


----------



## BIG POPPA

Some people do not have gear good enough for cables to make a difference. Sad fact but it is true. Some people do not listen to gear enough to know the difference, AKA casual listener. And some do not know how to tell the difference. People can huff and puff all they want, it is what it is.


----------



## High_Q

I'm quite curious what kind of gear you need to make cable make a difference because the kind of reasoning people typically state, but never heard any explainations or seen any tests results based on that claim.  What kind of gears are you suggesting?  Can you name some? Because you sound very convinced.  I really want to see some measurements based on this idea.


----------



## BIG POPPA

I can demonstrate on my gear that cables make a difference easy, go to a Seattle mini meet. Will be organizing another one shortly. Some people get too dependent on other peoples opinions and work to make their point. To those people, organize your own mini meets, DBX demonstrations to find out if your point is right or wrong what every side you are on. And share your results.


----------



## aimlink

Quote: 





high_q said:


> I'm quite curious what kind of gear you need to make cable make a difference because the kind of reasoning people typically state, but never heard any explainations or seen any tests results based on that claim.  What kind of gears are you suggesting?  Can you name some? Because you sound very convinced.  I really want to see some measurements based on this idea.


 

 I don't know if it need be that sophisticated.  With my HeadRoom UltraDesktop, I could hear a damningly clear difference between the stock and ALO SXC Cryo cable on my K702's.  I can hear a damningly clear difference between the Silver Dragon and stock cables on my HD650's.
   
  Anyone here hearing clear differences and with amused fascination, concluding without doubt that based on the 'overwhelming' evidence out there, that they're experiencing an expensive illusion?


----------



## Slaughter

Kind of short sighted don't you think? 128kbps MP3 vs FLAC. Some hear a difference and some don't. Sibilance on some headphones, it affects some and not others. Some people have higher pain tolerences than others, even though say 100 degrees is 100 degress. What you are suggesting is that if something is different, either it affects all of us or is doesn't. It just doesn't work that way, even with cables, amps, dacs, ect.

  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Cables make a difference or they do not. That claim backs up the psychoacoustic reasons why a cable will sound different, it is all in the mind of the listener. If there was an inherent, electrical reason why a cable made a difference, we would all hear the difference and agree on what that difference is. But we do not.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> Some people do not have gear good enough for cables to make a difference. Sad fact but it is true. Some people do not listen to gear enough to know the difference, AKA casual listener. And some do not know how to tell the difference. People can huff and puff all they want, it is what it is.


 

 So the kit and/or the person make the difference, not the cable.


----------



## Slaughter

The cable is part of the chain. And people _are_ different, so you don't know what I hear or feel and vice versa.

  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> So the kit and/or the person make the difference, not the cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





slaughter said:


> Kind of short sighted don't you think? 128kbps MP3 vs FLAC. Some hear a difference and some don't. Sibilance on some headphones, it affects some and not others. Some people have higher pain tolerences than others, even though say 100 degrees is 100 degress. What you are suggesting is that if something is different, either it affects all of us or is doesn't. It just doesn't work that way, even with cables, amps, dacs, ect.


 

 I accept that people hear a difference, but it is not the actual cable that causes the difference, it is the person listening who makes the difference. Blind testing proves that as then you make the experience of the cable the same for all. Suddenly the alleged difference cannot be heard anymore.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


slaughter said:


> Kind of short sighted don't you think? 128kbps MP3 vs FLAC. Some hear a difference and some don't. Sibilance on some headphones, it affects some and not others. Some people have higher pain tolerences than others, even though say 100 degrees is 100 degress. What you are suggesting is that if something is different, either it affects all of us or is doesn't. It just doesn't work that way, even with cables, amps, dacs, ect.


 

 You are correct on some points. Clearly some folks do have better powers of discrimination than others, that is beyond question, and trained and younger listeners are normally better. However, for some of these things there have been no credible DBTs to suggest that anyone of any powers of discrimination can tell them apart. Interconnect Cables are a good example, apart from the one test using a MM cartridge nobody has been able to show a positive significant DBT on two normal cables. Funny thing is that it would be trivial to make cables sound different just ram on a zobel network and bob's your uncle...


----------



## Anomaly2

“How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?”
  Well, as this thread has already shown, it may not be possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization.
   
  Perhaps most of the “improvements” in sound quality is due to the placebo effect:
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_plac.htm.
   
  What happens when the placebo effect is removed?
http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf.
   
  The cable lie and other myths: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf.


----------



## Anomaly2

Sorry for the double post.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





aimlink said:


> I don't know if it need be that sophisticated.  With my HeadRoom UltraDesktop, I could hear a damningly clear difference between the stock and ALO SXC Cryo cable on my K702's.  I can hear a damningly clear difference between the Silver Dragon and stock cables on my HD650's.
> 
> Anyone here hearing clear differences and with amused fascination, concluding without doubt that based on the 'overwhelming' evidence out there, that they're experiencing an expensive illusion?


 

 i think speaker cables and and HP cables have a more pronounced effect than ICs.  i too had a Silver Dragon that really changed the sound of my PL2500.
   
  i'm going to build a switch box with a simple toggle and enlist a friend to test my own DBTing abilities as soon as i get a chance.  i'll report my findings.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> So the kit and/or the person make the difference, not the cable.


 

 The cable makes the difference. You just have to know the benefits or weakness' it can bring to your rig. And know what they sound like.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> I can demonstrate on my gear that cables make a difference easy, go to a Seattle mini meet.


 

 I made an attempt to attend the meet at the Bellevue Regional because someone was to bring HD 800s. Unfortunately, the "rigs" were loaded up about 30 minutes before it was scheduled to be over.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> . . . or they don't.


 
   
  I agree with that much of what you wrote.


----------



## lonereaction

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> The cable makes the difference. You just have to know the benefits or weakness' it can bring to your rig. And know what they sound like.


 

 Doesn't that bring the power of suggestion into the picture? Having to know it's traits before listening that is. If the difference is that big, wouldn't that be unnecessary?


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





sp wild said:


> I'll make the offer more attractive to the objectivists.  You do not have to offer a million dollars - just do in my territory under my terms - I have even removed the risk of losing a million bucks.  This is my last offer.  Any takers?


 

 If you won't come here to prove me wrong, why then would I go there to prove you wrong?  If you tell me you do not hear differences in cabling I do not wish to prove you otherwise - yet you are unable to afford me the same benefit of the doubt as I have given to you.  If you are unable to take me up on my offer than this thread may well be closed as the answer is loud and clear.  There are members in the audio community that believe cables make a difference as derived from personal experience with those members "how do you convince that audio cables do not make a difference?" - you will not.
   
   
  There are documented cases where scientific research believed for many years that are later proved false - many due to false assumptions and simple oversights.  The reason there is very little documented evidence of positive DBT cable results may well be due to some flawed assumptions and simple oversights.
   
  I will re-instated my opinion.  If this whatsis fellar offers up a million dollars in confirming DBT in the manner in which I prescribe - I will jump off a cliff if this million eventually doesn't get claimed - perhaps not by myself - but someone out there.
   
  Some arguments claim that cable companies should prove that cables make a difference - in doing so more profits can be realised.  The opposite is true.  Hypothetically, if I was a cable manufacturer - firstly I would have to assume the the cost of such R&D which will run over a million dollars easily.  Secondly if I were to re-write the pages of science a prove via positive DBTs that cables in fact make a difference - what then?  I lose money.
   
  I lose money because more manufacturers will jump into the market segment dramatically increasing the competition of the newly enlarged marketplace - margins get squeezed and I will eventually make less profit per unit to remain competitive.  Unable to compete with the marketing and distribution logistics of these large conglemerates (which will jump into the cable bandwagon) I will eventually go under.  After which the price goes back to the same levels (this is audiophilia, lets not forget).
   
  Still why won't people commit to such a study to prove cables make a difference?  Because it makes jack diddly squat to nobody if cables do or do not make a difference - i.e. 99.9999 percent (yes, six nines!!!) of global population.  My audioquest cables become Mark Levinson cables, my Furutech cables become McIntosh cables - they will cost the same, maybe more.
   
  I prefer it not to be known by the the larger scientific community that cables will influence sound presentation.  Its a Hush Hush secret amongst us subjectivist and a victory against corporate conglomeration.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> The cable makes the difference. You just have to know the benefits or weakness' it can bring to your rig. And know what they sound like.


 

 The reason why I say that is wrong is that there is often wildly varying descriptions of what a cable sounds like. If cables did sound different that difference would be consistently identifiable and agreed upon. So how can you know what it sounds like. I made two cables and sent one to a friend. I refused to tell him what I thought of mine and when he came to describe the alleged sound he came out with all sorts of descriptives. None were present in my kit. He was listening to himself and his kit, not the cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





sp wild said:


> If you won't come here to prove me wrong, why then would I go there to prove you wrong?  If you tell me you do not hear differences in cabling I do not wish to prove you otherwise - yet you are unable to afford me the same benefit of the doubt as I have given to you.  If you are unable to take me up on my offer than this thread may well be closed as the answer is loud and clear.  There are members in the audio community that believe cables make a difference as derived from personal experience with those members "how do you convince that audio cables do not make a difference?" - you will not.
> 
> *If I ever get the chance to visit NW Australia I would love to hear your kit and cables. If you make it to Scotland I will arrange a blind test for you.*
> 
> ...


----------



## xnor

Quote:


sp wild said:


> If you won't come here to prove me wrong, why then would I go there to prove you wrong?


 

 Because science, tests and common sense suggests that differences exist but are too small for our hearing to be able to discern a difference.


----------



## BIG POPPA

I have a couple of friends here that can tell the difference and they do make it to the meets up here. We also have get-togethers with a little BBQ or food and listen to gear. I'm always making cables seem like, one way or another! I'm pretty hands on when it comes to cables.
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The reason why I say that is wrong is that there is often wildly varying descriptions of what a cable sounds like. If cables did sound different that difference would be consistently identifiable and agreed upon. So how can you know what it sounds like. I made two cables and sent one to a friend. I refused to tell him what I thought of mine and when he came to describe the alleged sound he came out with all sorts of descriptives. None were present in my kit. He was listening to himself and his kit, not the cable.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Please do your own DBT with your friends BIG POPPA and then start a thread to publish the results.


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


>


 

 Having an economics and marketing degree allows me to override your understanding of free markets.  You could if you want listen to my setup if you ever come to Australia - what I truly wanted was for you to come down as the mediator of a DBT carried out by me, in my turf under my terms.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> I have a couple of friends here that can tell the difference


 

 Blind and to an adequate confidence level? Or sighted?


----------



## BIG POPPA

I can say blind in some cases because some cables are the same except for the metal in the plug. They did not know if it was gold or rhodium. We all could tell the difference between the Furutech FI-15 plugs. It is not that hard guys, REALLY. We all have gear that cables make a difference in sound. We prefer non portable gear to audition critically. We all have reference music. Generally speaking we are very methodical listening to gear.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





sp wild said:


> Having an economics and marketing degree allows me to override your understanding of free markets.  You could if you want listen to my setup if you ever come to Australia - what I truly wanted was for you to come down as the mediator of a DBT carried out by me, in my turf under my terms.


 

 Your first assumption is that you can override my understanding by supposedly having more qualifications than me. You might have, you might not.
   
  I presume you referred to this quote;
   
"_I lose money because more manufacturers will jump into the market segment dramatically increasing the competition of the newly enlarged marketplace - margins get squeezed and I will eventually make less profit per unit to remain competitive.  Unable to compete with the marketing and distribution logistics of these large conglemerates (which will jump into the cable bandwagon) I will eventually go under.  After which the price goes back to the same levels (this is audiophilia, lets not forget)_"
   
  You may lose out in the newly enhanced market, but some companies will survive and prosper, just not your one for some reason. Chances are that the prices will fluctuate, but exchange rates, interest rates and competition will all have an effect. Your example is just that, an example of what might happen, not what what will.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> I can say blind in some cases because some cables are the same except for the metal in the plug. They did not know if it was gold or rhodium. We all could tell the difference between the Furutech FI-15 plugs. It is not that hard guys, REALLY. We all have gear that cables make a difference in sound. We prefer non portable gear to audition critically. We all have reference music. Generally speaking we are very methodical listening to gear.


 


 Do any of these cables show differences in the amplitude of any particular frequency range ?


----------



## BIG POPPA

Hey Nick,
  We were not measuring. To us it was not a science project. Some simple observations though. Rhodium sound was tall and detailed and Gold was wide lush and laid back. Prefer the Rhodium with tube gear and Gold with solid state. Gold had more bass. With simple observations like this it does serve like a compass to put you in the right direction in finding out what you like with your gear and what you don't. This is how I got to my opinions on cables trying different stuff on gear with a few buddies. Is it a perfect system on testing? No, but it works for me on my audio journey.
  
  Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Do any of these cables show differences in the amplitude of any particular frequency range ?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> Hey Nick,
> ... Gold had more bass.


 

  
  Now we are getting somewhere. Can you record a sample using gold and using rhodium and post them here and I will happily run a spectral analysis to quantify the bass lift.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Hey Nick, now you know you are making it a science project? That is not my cup of tea. This is the cable and connectors I used.
  cable http://www.revolutionpower.com/p/Belden+19364+14+AWG+3-Conductor+Power+Cable/205/
  Connectors
http://www.revolutionpower.com/p/Furutech+FI-15M+E+Gold/251/
http://www.revolutionpower.com/p/Furutech+FI-15+E+IEC+Gold/193/
  And
http://www.revolutionpower.com/p/Furutech+FI-15ME+Rhodium+Plug/271/
http://www.revolutionpower.com/p/Furutech+FI-15+E+IEC+Rhodium/192/
   
  Easy stuff to DIY


----------



## SP Wild

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Your first assumption is that you can override my understanding by supposedly having more qualifications than me. You might have, you might not.
> 
> I presume you referred to this quote;
> 
> ...


----------



## Shike

Quote:


big poppa said:


> Hey Nick, now you know you are making it a science project? That is not my cup of tea.


 
 *reads sub-forum name*
   
  Sound . . . Science . . .
   
  So why are you here exactly?


----------



## ddrddrddrddr

Someone make a table of resistance, capacitance, and inductance attributes of wires, one dimension diameter of wire, the other length, and the other material type. When we have that done we can move on to the shape and orientation of the wire, insulation material type and thickness, shape/braiding of wire, temperature of the wire, and pureness of the metal.
   
  Am I making my point clear yet?


----------



## Anomaly2

Quote:


ddrddrddrddr said:


> Am I making my point clear yet?


 
  Please see post 726 in this thread.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

ddrddrddrddr, is this the kind of study you are wanting?
   
http://www.apiguide.net/04actu/04musik/AES-cableInteractions.pdf


----------



## ddrddrddrddr

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> ddrddrddrddr, is this the kind of study you are wanting?
> 
> http://www.apiguide.net/04actu/04musik/AES-cableInteractions.pdf


 

 Indeed it is! I should read it in a day or two when I'm not adjusting my sleep cycle.


----------



## ddrddrddrddr

Since you are new here your posts are being held for moderation.... I can't pm, I can't post. If there was another forum catering to the same audience with the same audience base I'd so move over.


----------



## Nirvana1000

The shielding,conduction,thickness and core wire all definitely make a difference in the quality of a cable.The easiest and method to prove difference in cables is first try a crappy mini to mini cable included with your portable amp.Fiio,iBasso.or whatever.Then try a high quality OFC cable and the difference is obvious.But this varies with different types of cables.Sometimes it's subtle and sometimes it's obvious.Though i only believe this with audio cables.Video?I don't think so.But i do think it's so ridiculous how much some cables cost.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





nirvana1000 said:


> The easiest and method to prove difference in cables is first try a crappy mini to mini cable included with your portable amp.Fiio,iBasso.or whatever.Then try a high quality OFC cable and the difference is obvious.


 

 This a blind test, of course. Right?


----------



## whosasking

4 basic specs eddy current losses


----------



## Sumflow

The Truth About Speaker Wire
 Quote:


> *3602* /img/forum/go_quote.gif  I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance).


----------



## BIG POPPA

OK? But what are your opinions on gear you have or auditioned?
  Quote: 





sumflow said:


> The Truth About Speaker Wire
> Quote:


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





sumflow said:


> The Truth About Speaker Wire
> Quote:


 

 i believe cables can change the sonic characteristics wrt to LCR, but "cable lifters" - only if you blow the glass and add a hookah upgrade with some sweet smoke 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## DomaPhone

Electrons do not travel at any kind of speed. They do not exist in every place between point A and B; they simply appear at point B. This is one reason why we DO NOT understand electrons. But the bottom line is, the cord hardly means anything. The reason a cord usually seems to come in two wires is because it has to form a circuit, or a complete loop. If not, then the electrons could not travel. As long as that works alright, all you need to find is the cord that has the amount of resistance (ohms) you want and you have nothing to fear or worry about. 
   
  No cord is deficient in comparison to any other cord. It's all about the resistance in ohms and the voltage output of the source (iPod, amp, computer, CD player etc.)


----------



## Uncle Erik

Nirvana1000, can you tell the difference if you don't know what you're listening to? You have to make sure your personal beliefs and values don't interfere with what you're hearing. I do agree that good insulation, etc. will make a cable more durable. Whether it makes a sonic difference has yet to be demonstrated with listening tests or test equipment. When (if?) that happens, I'll start taking testimonials seriously.


----------



## Nirvana1000

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Nirvana1000, can you tell the difference if you don't know what you're listening to? You have to make sure your personal beliefs and values don't interfere with what you're hearing. I do agree that good insulation, etc. will make a cable more durable. Whether it makes a sonic difference has yet to be demonstrated with listening tests or test equipment. When (if?) that happens, I'll start taking testimonials seriously.


 

 I can tell the difference more so with mini cables.Copper,silver and gold cores effect the sound quality in a subtle way.Headphone cables if any difference is very subtle.My experience with headphone cables is probably mostly placebo as the cable is only supplying the current and the signal to the drivers.And again depends on how the cable is constructed.I just bought an Audioquest mini to RCA cable.And i also have a Monster and Belkin of the same type connections.Audioquest being the shortest.I did a comparison with all three and to tell the truth i couldn't tell the difference in SQ.But i think the Audioquest has the lowest RF interference.IMO the best way to change the sound of a headphone is the housing,dampening and internal wires.And i think the OP has a valid point.


----------



## AVU

Quote: 





sumflow said:


> The Truth About Speaker Wire


 

 One of the only things that article says DOES effect the SQ in wires is corrosion.  So know I want to know, we've got all these people with expensive UE and JH clear-silver cables that turn green within a few weeks to a few months.  The 'official' word from JH is that this is just aesthetic and will not change the SQ.  But as the author of the website above says at one point in discussing this, "it does not inspire confidence."
   
  anyone?


----------



## AudioCats

cables, yummm
   
  (might as well add post count. )


----------



## BIG POPPA

Hey Kevin, you coming to the meet?


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





avu said:


> One of the only things that article says DOES effect the SQ in wires is corrosion.  So know I want to know, we've got all these people with expensive UE and JH clear-silver cables that turn green within a few weeks to a few months.  The 'official' word from JH is that this is just aesthetic and will not change the SQ.  But as the author of the website above says at one point in discussing this, "it does not inspire confidence."
> 
> anyone?


 

 Silver reacts different to oxidation though, in that it still conducts very well - if not better.  Copper oxide reduces conductivity.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Oxidation is mostly a cosmetic issue. I fool around with a lot of old electronics and electrical gear. I love old fans, light fixtures, radios, appliances, and much else. Even 100 year-old wires usually conduct fine. The insulation almost always dies before the wire does. I've thought about sending around some cables for people to listen to. I'd include some ancient wiring as well as one that I'd brine in seawater for a month or two. I doubt anyone would hear the difference as long as they didn't know what they were listening to.


----------



## AVU

Good to know, because mine are already greening near the edge of one strand.


----------



## BIG POPPA

With oxidation, Copper will be affected negatively with resistance and with Silver not so much. Come on Eric, a brine in seawater?
  
  Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Oxidation is mostly a cosmetic issue. I fool around with a lot of old electronics and electrical gear. I love old fans, light fixtures, radios, appliances, and much else. Even 100 year-old wires usually conduct fine. The insulation almost always dies before the wire does. I've thought about sending around some cables for people to listen to. I'd include some ancient wiring as well as one that I'd brine in seawater for a month or two. I doubt anyone would hear the difference as long as they didn't know what they were listening to.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


big poppa said:


> With oxidation, Copper will be affected negatively with resistance and with Silver not so much. Come on Eric, a brine in seawater?


 
 It will effect the resistance, but the question is how much too.  Eric may be exaggerating (or not, I don't know), but he's probably getting at the fact that the resistance probably won't be enough to create a substantial impact.  I'm guessing moderate oxidation wouldn't be an issue, but certain severe cases could cause issues.


----------



## Nebby

Assuming both ends of a cable are terminated properly and aren't corroded as well, I'd imagine surface corrosion wouldn't have a great effect on the characteristics of the cable.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


nebby said:


> Assuming both ends of a cable are terminated properly and aren't corroded as well, I'd imagine surface corrosion wouldn't have a great effect on the characteristics of the cable.


 
 True.  The only time that oxidation could come up as an issue off the top of my head is with bare speaker wire.


----------



## MusicalChillies

Quote: 





nebby said:


> Assuming both ends of a cable are terminated properly and aren't corroded as well, I'd imagine surface corrosion wouldn't have a great effect on the characteristics of the cable.


 


 Well said. I am a production manager for an electroplating company. Copper is notorious for oxidising (hense people always using polishing compound to bring it back to its`s sparkly self.). Heat copper to even 60 degrees C and you will see discolouration. This is obviously just surface oxidising, not corrosion.
   
  Silver also will oxidise (yellowing) but again just a surface dicolouration.
  Mild steel on the other hand does corrode. Rust sets in and does corrode, gets eaten away slowly after time.
   
  In answer to the first post in this thread, I can clearly hear a difference between my 2 LOD`s so that`s that blown out of the water.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





musicalchillies said:


> In answer to the first post in this thread, I can clearly hear a difference between my 2 LOD`s so that`s that blown out of the water.


 

 Do you have any proof to such claims?


----------



## Currawong

If different cables cause a difference in the tone of the music, then they are easy to differentiate.  I'd have no hesitation doing a DBT, if someone desired, with cables that distinctly alter the tone of the music.  Headphone cables, interconnects, LODs or whatever.  I have had 3.5mm to 6.5mm converters which clearly added distortion as well, presumably because of the metal content.  Quite a few cables though, any differences I thought I heard I decided were below the threshold of me being able to reliably say for certain that I'd heard a difference, so in those cases, I tend to say that there's nothing in it I could detect reliably.  I could be wrong about my threshold, as I've never tested it, and especially since I'm sure my mood, food, time of day and a bunch of other factors would affect my listening ability.   I wouldn't be upset to find out I couldn't reliably DBT some of my gear, but I'm certain enough of some things. It'd be fun to do some experiments in the future. That's all I'll say on the subject.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote: 





big poppa said:


> ...Come on Eric, a brine in seawater?


 

 No, I'm serious.  Everyone talks about the purity of cables, etc., etc., so I'd like to see if anyone can hear a difference in a really screwed up cable.  Maybe after brining, I could solder in a paperclip on one channel and perhaps a resistor on the other.
   
  Instead of testing for differentiation, I'd want people to write up listening impressions of each cable.  It'd be interesting to read impressions of the brine cable compared to 99.999% pure cryogenically treated silver.
   
  Or perhaps the left channel would be brined and the right channel would be some $25/foot stuff.
   
  And much else.  I've got some ideas for making up five or six cables from various materials and then letting people listen and prepare a review of each one.  Cable believers tend to go with listening impressions and reviews instead of trying to differentiate A and B.  OK, so we'll have people listen to cables, prepare a review, give the cable a rating from 1 to 10, and so on, but they won't know what they're listening to.  That should take away the stress of differentiating two cables.
   
  It would be interesting indeed, if a cable made of supermarket twist-ties from loaves of bread got higher ratings and reviews than some $2,000 supercable, wouldn't it?  What if everyone finds that a coathanger (and you better believe that there will be a coathanger, possibly brined, in there somewhere) has really great sound?
   
  My guess is that this would produce some red faces among the golden ears.


----------



## BIG POPPA

To have "Golden Ears" is not that hard. You just have to have 100's and 100's of hours with the equipment. Changing something in the setup from time to time and keeping up with it. Joe from Kosmic.us was talking about some similar experiments Saturday at the Red Hook Meet. I'm up for it on my rig. I listen to my rig too much to not hear a difference.


----------



## MusicalChillies

Quote: 





shike said:


> Do you have any proof to such claims?


 



 I have a custom lod which sounds crystal clear through via my setup and a Fii0 lod that sounds veiled, plain as day, smae track, same volume.
  It`s hardly a claim, it`s one of the most obvious things I have heard.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

In various listening tests I have read, actual kettle leads, DIY cables made with the cheapest components possible and a coathanger have been used, with no one finding a difference with 'audiophile' products.


----------



## MusicalChillies

I pressume that was aimed at me.
  On a stereo/hifi setup the thinnest of speaker wire etc etc results in the same sound.
  I "inherited" my fii0 lod with the purchase of my amp and was told it was a good piece of kit.
  Funnily enough, also Scottish myself bought my custom lod from a guy in Glasgow.
   
  I think what we have here is:
  a: setup
  b: iems
  c: lod`s
   
  I sat one evening, listened to muse and a track by the sabre`s of paradise, swapped lod`s and the fii0 just doesn`t have the top end.
  This is obviously iem dependent, I will try it out with my IE8`s but I know they do not show enough detail throughout the range.
   
  Ok, maybe the monster coppers which are detailed throughout show this?
  Don`t shoot me down for hearing what I hear, I even have mild tinnitus.
   
  The opamp setup in my amp has very little background noise, almost silent.
  I even told the seller about this in a very detailed post, I do not want to post out of respect to him and neither feel I have to.
   
  Once again, If I can spot something obvious that others cannot then it`s not my fault.
  Stu


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Stu, can you spot the difference between LODs in a blind test?
   
  (I bought my custom Pailiccs LOD, for £18 off ebay from a seller in Glasgow, before FiiO brought out their own one. It was the cheapest at the time. I would not buy it now.)


----------



## MusicalChillies

If you were at my house, gave me both options, I would tell you straight away, with the tracks I chose.
  I stand by that 110%.
   
  If you asked me to change iems, not sure, haven`t done that yet mate, why would I, the coppers with my Denon large silicone tips are just first class.
   
  You say you bought a custom lod, probably from the same guy as me, pualics plug, what do you use now and/or before?
  You can see in my pic the lod.
  Stu


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The LOD looks like this.......
    
      
   
  I have not tried any other LOD, because I doubt I would hear any difference and because I don't use my portable setup that often.
   
  Can you get a mate to swap LODs in such a way you cannot see which one you are listening to and do a blind test?


----------



## MusicalChillies

Funny I had the Fii0 E5 amp, sold it along with my shure 750dj headphones. (check my sales), nearly the same cable.
  I don`t need a mate to tell me, I have 2 items which I can tell the difference from.
  I`m not going to post anymore, I know what what I hear.
  If people cannot hear a difference then fair doo`s, I can, not even a close one.
   
  I am not being bolshy, just posting what I hear and a little bit amazed actually.
  Send me a pm mate if you want, I will even send you my fii0 lod to do a comparison but I notice you are not using iems?
  Stu


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hey Stu, you are in the sound science part of the forum, where you need a thicker skin to survive! I do not think you are being bloshi at all. I was all for cables until I read about all of the blind tests that have been done and some major hifi dignitaries such as the founder of Linn failing such tests. Then I made my own cable out of the cheapest stuff I could find on ebay after teaching myself to solder. It works just as well as any other cable I have.
   
  So in myself I go with the blind tests and save myself a fortune in cables.
   
  I am sure that differences in cables are caused by placebo, psychoacoustics and attenuation resulting in volume differences. Blind testing where volume has been equalised shows that when you take the other factors out of the equation, there is no reliable difference.


----------



## MusicalChillies

Hi mate, ok harder skin lol.
  I am pretty new to this high end sound format, for iems anyways and amps.
  This was never a search for 1 cable beats another, I just happen to sit with 2 items that does that.
  I was in the search for which opamp sounds better than the other and just stumbled across this.
  Switching my lod instantly after a track and listening again proved it to me, same seal in the ear, volume etc.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


musicalchillies said:


> Hi mate, ok harder skin lol.
> I am pretty new to this high end sound format, for iems anyways and amps.
> This was never a search for 1 cable beats another, I just happen to sit with 2 items that does that.
> I was in the search for which opamp sounds better than the other and just stumbled across this.
> Switching my lod instantly after a track and listening again proved it to me, same seal in the ear, volume etc.


 
 There are psychological variables that have to be accounted for when you see both LODs and know which one is being used, and there could also be attenuation between cables for all we know.  Do a level matched DBT for yourself and see if you feel you can reliably identify them after - I doubt you will.
   
  As for opamps - even ones rated poorly here can be good.  The circuit made with a particular opamp in mind will probably sound better than one with the "best" (I use that tongue-in-cheek) shoved in but oscillating.


----------



## MusicalChillies

Please mate, do not insult my intelligence.
  Good luck on a thread that is false.
   
  Stu


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





musicalchillies said:


> Please mate, do not insult my intelligence.


 


 Shike does not need to, you have already done that very nicely yourself !
   
  But seriously, the literature is riddled with the vulture-picked corpses of those with utter certainty of their convictions that A and B are fundamentally different but who when required to verify this in controlled tests are wholly unable to do so...it is not a matter of intelligence or golden ears so much as psychology and the biases that humans have, For starters back in the 1980s Masters and Clark found listeners who sighted could describe huge differences between amps, under DBT they were wholly unable to replicate this feat. In a prior thread someone simply told that he was listening to a much chepaer amp heard all the faults in the amp, sadly he was actually listening to his own beloved amp.
   
  Also, you talk about
  Quote: 





> Switching my lod instantly after a track and listening again


 
   
  but it is far from instant. You have to remove one LOD, plug in the other then start the track again, how many seconds does that take ? Enough to interfere with audio memory. And volume matching is an absolute must in any controlled tests, a difference of even 0.25 db can be detected.
   
  Instead of doing a DBT you could just record the same track via the two LODs and compare the files, carefully trimmed of course, you might be surprised...


----------



## lazard

Trying to convince someone that audio cables don't make a difference is like trying to convince someone that God exists.  Can't be done nor should it be done.


----------



## ROBSCIX

Why bother trying to convince other people of anything?  Going on some type of crusade to prove your view on a topic is a waste of time.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


musicalchillies said:


> Please mate, do not insult my intelligence.


 
 Where did I insult your intelligence?  I'm saying you're using a faulty testing procedure - that's a fact.
   
   
  Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick_charles*
> 
> In a prior thread someone simply told that he was listening to a much chepaer amp heard all the faults in the amp, sadly he was actually listening to his own beloved amp.


   
  Oof, that's got to be a blow to the ego.  Has this persons opinion of amps changed by chance?
   
  Quote:


robscix said:


> Why bother trying to convince other people of anything?  Going on some type of crusade to prove your view on a topic is a waste of time.


 
  In audio there's little point besides enjoying the hobby and trying to help those new focus their funds more wisely on differences that can be proven.  
   
  However, beyond audio there's plenty of reason to convince people of certain things.


----------



## AudioGlow

Well, I don't know that if I believed that cables don't make a difference that I'd care if others did or not. I can tell you for sure from selling hifi and being a listener and enjoyer of music for many years, I KNOW they make a difference. Now weather there's a noticable difference between two cables you may have tried I do not know. When you get to a point that the resoloution of your system reaches a very high level, it's much more easy to dicern subtle differences. The point of diminishing returns is another issue altogether. There are people who spend $15,000 on a 1m rca interconnect. I'm sure they sound good, but for me they don't sound THAT good. Lol


----------



## vhbaske

"How do you convince people that cables don't make any difference?" 





   
   
  Well, open a cable selling shop and you will see the difference, in your pocket, that is !!!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


audioglow said:


> Well, I don't know that if I believed that cables don't make a difference that I'd care if others did or not. I can tell you for sure from selling hifi and being a listener and enjoyer of music for many years, I KNOW they make a difference


 
 Care to prove it then?  As a dealer it would be highly beneficial for you if you could do so too, would it not?
   
   
  Quote: 





vhbaske said:


> "How do you convince people that cables don't make any difference?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I couldn't do that, I'd have problems looking at myself in the morning doing something so unethical.


----------



## lazard

Quote: 





shike said:


> However, beyond audio there's plenty of reason to convince people of certain things.


 
   
  like...


----------



## Shike

Quote:


lazard said:


> like...


 
 Like certain voodoo superstitions that can pass STDs around in Africa, and why it's important to use condoms.  Some of the natives still believe that sex with a virgin will heal them of ailments.  Same with trying to convince certain religions that prayer healing alone doesn't work and that they're just leaving their young to die (a while back it seemed like at least one case a month was popping up in the news).
   
  Everyday work can require trying to convince those in control of your departments budget that you need $x amount of dollars, and that usually takes lots of convincing.
   
  Retail work can require you to convince someone to buy a subscription or sign-up for some promo or you'll lose your job.
   
  All of these are outside audio and are of varying importance - but may be considered an example where one would need to convince someone of something contrary to their beliefs.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Actually, cables do make a difference.
   
  Sighted testing regularly shows that people can discern a difference when they know cables are being swapped around.
   
  Buying a new cable which has rave reviews or high recommendation can make your hifi sound better.
   
  The actual construction of a cable and its electric properties vary, which explains why cables can sound different.
   
  Actually, cables do not make a difference.
   
  Blind testing continually shows that the alleged differences between cables is not as real as people think it is.
   
  Too often buying a new cable, means buying a more expensive one, as that is an upgrade, when there are many cheap unbranded cables that perform exactly the same.
   
  The actual construction of a cable and its electrical properties vary, which in turn can affect the volume setting between different cables on the same hifi equipment. That makes cables sound different because of volume variations. There is no difference in sound quality so long as the volume is equalised.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Where is the meet to show cables do not make a difference? If it is my area, would sure attend the demonstration.


----------



## Uncle Erik

big poppa said:


> Where is the meet to show cables do not make a difference? If it is my area, would sure attend the demonstration.






 I'd like to set up a testing table at the next CanJam. I'd bring in few cables and let people listen and write down impressions. I wouldn't allow measurements, because that would show which ones have resistors, capacitors and other surprises hidden inside.

 This would also be a good way to have lots of other cables on hand.

 Wouldn't it be something if someone gave top marks to a $3,000 cable as well as a string of paperclips soldered together?

 I think we'll see that and plenty more at CanJam 2011.

 P.S. If you give the brine cable a nice review, I'll let you keep it.


----------



## BIG POPPA

I will have another meet up here around October. It will be a great time to try out some cables? I will be looking at the space in a few days and beer is allowed on premises. It should be a few notches better then the last one and it was pretty darn good.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I hope you guys do get something sorted. A test with various members of Head-fi taking part would be, well lets see first.....!


----------



## gilency

Quote: 





lazard said:


> Trying to convince someone that audio cables don't make a difference is like trying to convince someone that God exists.  Can't be done nor should it be done.


 
  Could not agree more. It is sad to see 'respected' head-fiers mention cables make such a difference. Even sadder to see many others believing what they say..... *sigh*


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote: 





gilency said:


> Could not agree more. It is sad to see 'respected' head-fiers mention cables make such a difference. Even sadder to see many others believing what they say..... *sigh*


 


 Have you ever thought that head-fiers have more or less experience with gear then your own? Not saying you don't have a good opinion.  Just saying some may have a different point of view based on their own experience. That is the part that makes head-fi great.


----------



## mortonP

ISP installer was here recently and said he used to own a stereo store so we got around to speaking about audio quality. When he said audio cables make 150% difference I ended the conversation right there because I felt his opinion was no longer credible.


----------



## gilency

Quote:


big poppa said:


> Have you ever thought that head-fiers have more or less experience with gear then your own? Not saying you don't have a good opinion.  Just saying some may have a different point of view based on their own experience. That is the part that makes head-fi great.



   
  My opinion does not matter. The scientific method does. If there is no sound science behind the alleged differences, they mean nothing to me. Personal anecdotes have no value.
  How many cables I have listened carries no bearing on the truth. If it sounds better to you, but you can not back up your findings with facts, I am really not interested.
  Anything that can be objectively proven is valid. The rest is hocus pocus, until proven otherwise.
  Lazard is right, it is futile to argue this point. When you have some hard facts pm me and we can then discuss the validity (or not) of your findings.


----------



## BIG POPPA

gelency, your opinion does matter. At the end of the day you are the one listening to your rig. You are the one paying for everything for your rig. Scientific facts are really mute, are they using your rig to try out cables? Going to demonstrations, the many meets, any all the cables that have been in my system, have got a good opinion on cables. My rig hasn't changed for a long time. Yeah I known it's all "hocus pocus", "snake oil" for gear that some really don't understand how it works, the metallurgy, or the principles behind them? Nothing is for free. You will pay for someone to design a cable. That is why I make all the cables I use. And I go to every meet in my area. Very active defining my opinion.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Big Poppa, how do you go about designing a cable? I mean, you can't measure it and refine the design to meet engineering criteria. I'm curious how someone would design something that defies any and all measurements and is apparently extremely difficult to compare A/B.


----------



## BIG POPPA

It is not that hard Uncle Erik. Learn the metallurgy (Learn the difference between all the different metals). Then once you understand the strengths and weakness's of your gear, you will know which direction to go in. Oh yeah, you have to define the sound you are looking for.
  Everything is straight forward. Make a few cables, you will know what you like and dislike quite quickly.


----------



## gilency

BigPoppa: is not about my opinion. It is about the truth.
  I wont waste my money unless there is evidence to the contrary.
  Just because somebody makes some pretty cables (they may be more durable and nicer, yes), does not mean they sound better.
  I may even convince myself they sound better, but if I know there is no data to support my feelings, I know I am deluding myself. I'll pass, thank you.
   
[size=1.7em]  [/size] [size=1.7em] BTW, I really like this book. I wish there were more people like him. (Carl Sagan)[/size]   
[size=1.7em] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark[/size]


----------



## BIG POPPA

It is not about pretty cables. All about what compliments the gear you have. You do need to do a little homework to learn what will compliment your rig.


----------



## gilency

Like I said. Show me the evidence.


----------



## BIG POPPA

I am not here to sell you anything. What is your point? Just a realist. I know what sounds good on my rig. Don't need an approval from a scientist to say so. Not afraid to spend money on my rig when i need to.


----------



## gilency

I know. But I do have to give my opinion here. I don't want newbies thinking everything is said here is true, because it isn't.
  To me, is like homeopathic medicine: lots of mystery, paucity of objectivity.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Understand your point gilancy. My point is if you give your honest opinion good or bad, it is still good opinion. With the gear you audition or use, it is a good opinion. To me every post is an opinion. Take it or leave it. Yes I do agree with some and disagree. It is all good.


----------



## ExpatinJapan

Quote: 





gilency said:


> I know. But I do have to give my opinion here.


 

 `A fanatic is one who can`t change his mind and won`t change the subject`-Winston Churchill.


----------



## gilency

BigPoppa, you are a good guy, even if we disagree.
  An opinion can be misleading though, and if that is the case, then is bad.
  I guess what bothers me here sometimes is the lack of critical thinking. I take it all with a grain of salt. A healthy dose of skepticism is always good to have around.
  Always question, always look for data. Empirical evidence is what it is, unproven.
  And since when a fanatic is somebody with an inquisitive mind?
  Don't criticize the scientific method, criticize the lack of evidence. I would easily change my mind if you show me the beef. Where is the beef?


----------



## BIG POPPA

I agree that a bit of skepticism is needed. But isn't it like that with everything?


----------



## gilency

yup.
  BTW, fanaticism is an irrational belief. Evidence based thinking is not irrational. Even Churchill would agree with that. DYT?


----------



## BIG POPPA

To me this is just a hobby, Nothing really serious. Have wife and child. She lets me organize meets and listen to music every night. Can't complain.


----------



## ExpatinJapan

fa·nat·ic    [f_uh_-nat-ik] 

 Show IPA
  _—Synonyms _
1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot,militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: _a wild-eyed fanatic. _Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: _a tireless zealot for tax reform. _Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: _a jazz devotee. _
  
 *`Evidence based thinking is not irrational`- but your behaviour on this thread is growing irrational. 
 btw I will not be returning nor replying to this thread in future.


----------



## gilency

OK ExPatin. End of discussion for me too.


----------



## Sennheiser92

BIG POPPA said:


> It is not about pretty cables. All about what compliments the gear you have. You do need to do a little homework to learn what will compliment your rig.


Well spoken!  Research is definitely required.


----------



## Whitigir (Aug 14, 2018)

To answer your question.  I am convinced myself that Cables make the differences, because I can make it myself, and I can make it into whatever I want at prices I want which is much cheaper than expensive cables vendors.  Even the cheapest cables I make that is with quality materials, will still sound better than any stock cables can provide.

So...no, you can not convince people of something that is not real

Also, yes, Cables has different characteristics that can synergize with your systems in a positive or a negative results depend on personal preferences, which, not all 3rd expensive vendor can customize either


----------



## bigshot

Sennheiser92 said:


> Well spoken!  Research is definitely required.









Eight years in suspended animation.... IT'S ALIVE!



Whitigir said:


> Cables has different characteristics that can synergize with your systems in a positive or a negative results depend on personal preferences, which, not all 3rd expensive vendor can customize either



Nope!

Dead thread.


----------



## gregorio

BIG POPPA said:


> [1] My point is if you give your honest opinion good or bad, it is still good opinion.
> 2. I agree that a bit of skepticism is needed. But isn't it like that with everything?



1. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they're not entitled to their own facts though! If an opinion, honest or not, contradicts the facts, how is that still a good opinion?

2. No, it isn't. Are you sceptical that gravity exists or that the Earth is spherical rather than flat? The trick surely, is to know what to be sceptical about? In other words, having the knowledge to differentiate what are effectively incontrovertible facts from what are not, and therefore what deserves scepticism. Herein lies the problem: Many/Most audiophiles do not have the knowledge to make this differentiation, they are not aware of (or do not understand) the effectively incontrovertible facts of human hearing perception and the behaviour of an electrical current down a wire and therefore, they direct their scepticism in completely the opposite direction. They accept appearances and are sceptical of the actual facts! The solution is indeed as you stated, "to do a little homework" and discover the effectively incontrovertible facts but few audiophiles are willing to do that homework, preferring instead just to accept the marketing and uncontrolled "impressions".

I'm sure the OP has discovered by now there is no convincing some people. Some people are convinced the Earth is flat, it's an irrational belief and therefore no amount of rational arguments and effectively incontrovertible facts will convince them otherwise.

G


----------



## ExpatinJapan

3. The Earth is fat.


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> I'm sure the OP has discovered by now there is no convincing some people.



That may be true, but it's even more amazing that it took 8 years to not convince them1


----------



## bonesb

I always wonder how much of all these are ture, and how much of a difference can be notice by normal ear, I also try to stick to audiophile products being a normal customer, maybe I am just wasting my money.


----------



## colonelkernel8

This thread title may as well be "How do I convince people that religion isn't real" at this point.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

You need to at least be more specific about cables. Whether or not there’s an audible difference between two $300 cables might be debatable. But cables absolutely make a difference if you’re comparing a crappy cable to a good one.


----------



## castleofargh

Hifiearspeakers said:


> You need to at least be more specific about cables. Whether or not there’s an audible difference between two $300 cables might be debatable. But cables absolutely make a difference if you’re comparing a crappy cable to a good one.


please tell us how you define good and crappy cable as specifically as you can. and to avoid wasting time, your own and everybody's, remember this is the Sound Science section of the forum. sighted listening does not prove audible difference.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

castleofargh said:


> please tell us how you define good and crappy cable as specifically as you can. and to avoid wasting time, your own and everybody's, remember this is the Sound Science section of the forum. sighted listening does not prove audible difference.



First of all, I don’t care what parameters you all want to use. I’m not going to cite some 6 month long double blind study to back up my perspective. But I will share an autobiographical story and then I’m out. 

About 2 years ago I bought the Oppo PM-3. It came with two stock cables. One had smart phone controls built in and the other one didn’t. By default, I used the cable with the controls because it was convenient. I thought the headphones sounded decent but very flat, not dynamic, and with an extremely small soundstage. I was ready to ship them back immediately. 
But then I read about other people complaining about poor audio quality with cables that have built-in controls and microphones etc. So I decided to just try the other cable out of curiosity. And it immediately sounded noticeably better. I did not have to do a quick A and B to hear the differences. It was obvious. 
So, my definition of a crappy cable is the stock Oppo PM3 cable with smart phone controls. My definition of a good cable was the other stock cable without controls. 

Now I’m out and you all can argue amongst yourselves.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 25, 2018)

gregorio said:


> Some people are convinced the Earth is flat


I thought it was oval??..






bigshot said:


> That may be true, but it's even more amazing that it took 8 years to not convince them1


When will everyone realize this market is based on "what sounds better" to the buyer, and so you cannot convince someone of their preferences..



castleofargh said:


> please tell us how you define


I know this is a good starting question, but also
 "sounds" like a classic trolling question.
Although the intention is to make one think, their pre-concieved bias and experiences will instead put them on the defensive.

There is absolutely no way you can convince a person either way, when they have made their decision on their own experience.

If you can't hear a difference, regardless the explanations or system conditions, consider yourself blessed lol.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Not everyone suffers with the same level of stubbornness, ignorance, or delusional thinking.  Some could very well benefit from knowing the facts.


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> I know this is a good starting question, but also
> "sounds" like a classic trolling question.
> Although the intention is to make one think, their pre-concieved bias and experiences will instead put them on the defensive.
> 
> ...


 of course it's a trick question, because there is a lot that depends on the answer. which is also why it's a necessary question.
if the total value of his claim amounts to saying good is better than bad, or that working cable is better than broken cable, was it even worth posting? but if he has a specific idea about what defines a good cable, then maybe there is something to discuss. like what to measure, what are the nominal specs for a specific cable under a specific use, etc. 

as for my warning about sighted test, the problem of sighted listening is that we can't know when we're right and when our brain is full of crap. there is no way with such experience to confirm the real answer, or that our feeling is actually coming from sound. lacking control removes any confidence in the result no matter what it is. that's why we don't want a claim about audible sound difference made from sighted impressions. the point isn't to win internet one more time, but to draw conclusions based on proper experimentation. without proper testing, everything else is futile.

aside from that, can big audible differences happen under specific circumstances? sure. there won't be many people to claim that weird stuff cannot ever happen. but should we make claims about all cables based on accidents and poor choice of gears? should we on the contrary, make claims about the average typical results we can expect from typical cables? or shouldn't we just stop making general claims about everything just to show off on a forum? I vote for the last option. instead of fighting over what to claim, I'd be much happier to simply see fewer claims or very conditional claims based on very conditional experiences(exhaustively described). the sort of stuff we might be able to call a fact instead of an empty claim for a change.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 25, 2018)

Hifiearspeakers said:


> I’m not going to cite some 6 month long double blind study to back up my perspective. But I will share an autobiographical story and then I’m out



Sorry, you're in Sound Science. Anecdotal impressions don't cut it around here. I could tell you a anecdotal story about my house being haunted but I have no [/SIZE]scientific proof and no one would be expected to believe me. Why should you expect us to believe you when you present some anecdotal story that bears no relationship to the reality of electrical engineering and physics.

You've been a wonderful guest and we're all going to miss you. We have some lovely parting gifts and a copy of the Sound Science home game for you.

Next!



Maxx134 said:


> There is absolutely no way you can convince a person either way, when they have made their decision on their own *degree of ignorance.*



FTFY


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> Sorry, you're in Sound Science. Anecdotal impressions don't cut it around here. I could tell you a anecdotal story about my house being haunted but I have no [/SIZE]scientific proof and no one would be expected to believe me. Why should you expect us to believe you when you present some anecdotal story that bears no relationship to the reality of electrical engineering and physics.
> 
> You've been a wonderful guest and we're all going to miss you. We have some lovely parting gifts and a copy of the Sound Science home game for you.
> 
> ...



I really don’t care if you believe me. I don’t have a stake in your smug game and I have no reason to lie and nothing to gain.


----------



## bigshot

Hifiearspeakers said:


> I really don’t care if you believe me. I don’t have a stake in your smug game and I have no reason to lie and nothing to gain.



Do you care about knowing at all? Because the proof is in this post right here... https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ Search it for the word cables and you'll have a mountain of evidence. If you want to know how cables work and what it would take for one cable to sound different than another one, all you have to do is ask in this forum. There are many knowledgeable engineers who post regularly to this group who would be happy to answer your questions and explain the science behind it.

But if you're just going to come in here and drop an anecdotal story and claim that your opinion is as valid as someone who has done the research to know for themselves, then you're wasting your time. That works in the rest of Head-Fi, but it doesn't work in Sound Science.


----------



## Don Hills

Hifiearspeakers said:


> I really don’t care if you believe me. I don’t have a stake in your smug game and I have no reason to lie and nothing to gain.



This is the Sound Science sub-forum. If you aren't prepared to consider that you might be wrong about your beliefs in the differences between your headphone cables, why are you here? There are other areas of Head-Fi where you will find like-minded people who will validate your beliefs.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> Do you care about knowing at all? Because the proof is in this post right here... https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ Search it for the word cables and you'll have a mountain of evidence. If you want to know how cables work and what it would take for one cable to sound different than another one, all you have to do is ask in this forum. There are many knowledgeable engineers who post regularly to this group who would be happy to answer your questions and explain the science behind it.
> 
> But if you're just going to come in here and drop an anecdotal story and claim that your opinion is as valid as someone who has done the research to know for themselves, then you're wasting your time. That works in the rest of Head-Fi, but it doesn't work in Sound Science.


I think psychology and human social behavior also has a huge play in this case too. The person mentioned because other people on head-fi (mercy be upon their souls) said that "cables sound horrible with controls" vs cables without controls sound better. 

"But then I read about other people complaining about poor audio quality with cables that have built-in controls and microphones etc. So I decided to just try the other cable out of curiosity. And it immediately sounded noticeably better. I did not have to do a quick A and B to hear the differences. It was obvious.
So, my definition of a crappy cable is the stock Oppo PM3 cable with smart phone controls. My definition of a good cable was the other stock cable without controls."

This person is clearly parroting what other people are making opinions on and basing it upon social beliefs on head-fi.

It has Mcgurk effect written all over. When someone on head-fi makes statements on cables or headphone. "This cable makes the treble sparkle." Including well known reviewers, I guarantee others will parrot the same information and hear what they see others write.


----------



## gregorio

Hifiearspeakers said:


> [1] Whether or not there’s an audible difference between two $300 cables might be debatable.
> [2] But cables absolutely make a difference if you’re comparing a crappy cable to a good one.
> [3] But I will share an autobiographical story and then I’m out. ... [3a] It came with two stock cables. One had smart phone controls built in and the other one didn’t.



1. "Might be debatable" by whom?

2. As Castle asked, what do you mean by "crappy cable"? Crappy cables can cost just cents to make, maybe a dollar or two, commonly have faults and/or high failure rates and therefore can, sometimes be audibly differentiated from higher quality cables. High quality cables are likely to cost over $10 rather than just one or two but some audiophiles would still consider these cables to be "crappy" and they would be wrong! So, it's important to identify what you mean be "crappy".

3. Huh, what's that got to do with cables?
3a. Which is it, did it come with two stock cables or did it come with one stock cable plus two cables joined together with smartphone controls in between? If it's the latter then isn't it blatantly obvious that you're comparing apples and oranges, comparing a simple cable with a bunch of (presumably cheap) smartphone control circuitry? From this you've decided there's a difference between cables when in fact you haven't even been comparing cables? That's just bizarre!



Hifiearspeakers said:


> [1] I don’t have a stake in your smug game and [2] I have no reason to lie and nothing to gain.



1. Of course you have a stake in this game, making a public post stating your assertions is a "stake".

2. Firstly, there's no way for anyone to know that, which is pretty much why science exists in the first place! And secondly, even if you're not deliberately lying and have nothing to gain, still you may just be deluded and/or your conclusions/assertions based on an error. Indeed, your anecdote appears to clearly indicate the latter! Again, this is why science and the scientific method exists. 

If you don't want to play our "game" of eliminating erroneous conclusions to get at the actual facts/truth, no problem, that's your choice but then why did you come here to this sub-forum in the first place? 

G


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Even as a layman I find it troubling to identify where exactly one could manage to squeeze "extra" sound quality out of music through a cable unless someone intentionally added pleasant distortion to it by messing with it...not by changing the wiring from silver to copper or vice versa.
In my world a cable either works or it doesn't. It has one job to do. Sure I've come across horrendous ones but that was never due to how they sounded (cables should have no sound to begin with unless they're faulty) but because of their stiffness, weight, length etc etc. I even bought a blue nylon coated audio cable for my old hifiman headphone and spent far too much money on it, but it offered me freedom and indeed added comfort coming from the stock vacuum cleaner one that weighed a ton. 
So yeah cables do matter


----------



## Quasimodosbelfry

So I too, came from the skeptical camp. I never did believe there would be a difference in sound if I "rolled" cables.
And one day, a friend just had me sit at the counter at a local head fi store and just had me go through probably 5 or 6 different cables without telling me what brand, model or price they were.
I didn't ask either because I just had no interest  to know.

The IEMs were my own, and the player was my WM1A.

And the outcome... Was a surprise to me. There was indeed a difference between cables. Whether copper or silver, even the number of strands made a difference.

While not night or day, there was a noticeable difference. Instead of drastically altering the sound signature of my IEM, a couple of the cables seemed to make the IEM sound better with better separation, definition or staging.

Granted, there is too much gobbledygook and pseudo- science in many manufacturers' marketing pitch and this makes if very hard to separate the opportunists from the legitimate offerings. But from my own experience, there is definitely a difference and the best way really is to be able to audition them for yourself before you buy. A-B testing is the most effective; relying on memory isn't effective and is misleading.


----------



## PointyFox

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> So I too, came from the skeptical camp. I never did believe there would be a difference in sound if I "rolled" cables.
> And one day, a friend just had me sit at the counter at a local head fi store and just had me go through probably 5 or 6 different cables without telling me what brand, model or price they were.
> I didn't ask either because I just had no interest  to know.
> 
> ...



If you did hear a difference, it was probably just the cable changing the impedance which may change the frequency response slightly. I think that's where any difference in cables comes from.


----------



## gregorio

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> [1] And one day, a friend just had me sit at the counter at a local head fi store and just had me go through probably 5 or 6 different cables without telling me what brand, model or price they were. I didn't ask either because I just had no interest to know.
> [2] And the outcome... Was a surprise to me. [2a] There was indeed a difference between cables. [2b] Whether copper or silver, even the number of strands made a difference.



1. You don't need to know what brand or price they were, just they they were different.

2. It's very well known that if you see or know there is a difference, then the brain can/will create the perception of a difference, regardless of whether the difference is audible or even if there is no actual difference whatsoever. So, why was the outcome a surprise to you?
2a. Hang on, how did you make that leap of logic (illogic)? While "there was indeed a difference between cables" you did NOT demonstrate there was any performance difference or any audible difference.
2b. Made a difference to what? To how the cables looked, to how you thought they should sound, to what you thought you perceived or an actual audible difference?

If you haven't already, please watch this short video (the McGurk Effect), a "night and day" difference in perception where in fact there is zero actual difference.

G


----------



## Quasimodosbelfry

PointyFox said:


> If you did hear a difference, it was probably just the cable changing the impedance which may change the frequency response slightly. I think that's where any difference in cables comes from.


Yup. I reckon that's most likely what I perceived.
The effects though were left to my own devices to interpret.


----------



## Quasimodosbelfry

gregorio said:


> 1. You don't need to know what brand or price they were, just they they were different.
> 
> 2. It's very well known that if you see or know there is a difference, then the brain can/will create the perception of a difference, regardless of whether the difference is audible or even if there is no actual difference whatsoever. So, why was the outcome a surprise to you?
> 2a. Hang on, how did you make that leap of logic (illogic)? While "there was indeed a difference between cables" you did NOT demonstrate there was any performance difference or any audible difference.
> ...


I understand where you're coming from and I know all the arguments against. I used to come from that camp.
What I'm trying to say is that there were perceptible differences even though I was adamant there would be none.
No one gave me a heads up what to expect before they swapped out the cables and the experience was entirely mine.
Despite my expectation of there being no effect, there was indeed a difference.

What you're implying is if I was unaware of the switch, I wouldn't have perceived a difference. While that is plausible, I also accept that nuances in the impedance of a cable may be translated into the manner in which a driver performs, withing it's operating parameters.

On the reverse, I've been presented different IEMs that we're touted as world's apart but to my ears, the differences were so subtle I barely perceived  it and was hard pressed to tell them apart.

However this is all subjective and I'm not here to persuade anyone of my opinions. Merely here to share my experience.

If it's magic and voodoo, I frankly couldn't care less; it works for me and I'm happy with it.


----------



## Whazzzup




----------



## castleofargh

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> So I too, came from the skeptical camp. I never did believe there would be a difference in sound if I "rolled" cables.
> And one day, a friend just had me sit at the counter at a local head fi store and just had me go through probably 5 or 6 different cables without telling me what brand, model or price they were.
> I didn't ask either because I just had no interest  to know.
> 
> ...


indeed, I also had similar experiences, and IEMs can certainly magnify variations when they have very low and vastly changing impedance response. I perfectly understand how easy it is to be convinced that indeed cables make a big difference after such extreme experience. and then start devising likely causes for those changes and make up our own definition of good and bad cable. but you still have to consider 2 main questions:
- was the test displaying typical use, or was it a demo of a most extreme situation we achieve when we put our mind toward doing everything wrong?
- how much confidence should I put in my impressions of that one test? only by removing biases, can we really know they didn't influence our judgement. misplaced self confidence leads to thinking we're always right, but it doesn't lead to actually being right more often, probably the opposite.
if your experience was like my first one of the sort, it would have been good to try those cables on a bunch of other IEMs and maybe use other sources. to notice how the variations were inconsistent and depended on what was on each side of the IEM cable. the different cables mostly giving the opportunity to notice the total lack of stability of some setups. mostly like that https://www.head-fi.org/threads/feedback-about-gears-stop-doing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/ but at a smaller scale because I don't expect to find too many 60ohm IEM cables. not that it's hard to make.


the other issue we see all the time is about how to discuss those stuff. people just keep making black&white statements makes those discussions silly IMO. most debates should be answered by "probably not", "it depends", and some practical measurements showing anecdotal situations and more usual ones. instead every other day there is an audiophile who wants a definitive and universal answer based on gut feelings . and what's worst, he often won't see why that could be wrong. the ignorance and arguments aren't so much about electricity in a circuit, that's something well understood by now. it's often ignorance of self as part of the so very easy to fool, human race.
if someone claims that cables can't ever cause audible differences, I'll oppose that claim because it's obviously false.
if someone claims that we need fancy, and weirdly expensive for no reason, types of cables to get high fidelity sound, I'll oppose that claim because again it's obviously false. a cable is almost never going to be the limiting factor in a playback system.
if someone claims almost anything universal about cables because of one sighted experience, I'll oppose that claim because that's just jumping to conclusion and overconfidence.

then someone will push the logical fallacy one step beyond and start accusing me of claiming the total opposite of what I contest, and from there, cables aren't the topic at all. I wish that description was just a satirical caricature, but it's actually almost systematic in that sort of topics. that's why I really advise skepticism and for those who really care about knowing stuff, to try and setup a proper test or some decent measurement rig. it will almost always bring more answers than those topics. 

 obvious way to limit the impact of cables is to get electrically appropriate gears together, and to use a simple cable to spec for that specific use. then there isn't much wondering about if a different cable would be different, because a different cable would also be to spec and sound the same, or wouldn't be and you wouldn't want it. for IEMs the obvious solution would be to stay away from IEMs with ludicrously low impedance and wide impedance variations over frequencies. also making sure to keep a good damping ratio between the amp and the IEM will automatically reduce the possible impact of an out of spec cable.

I ended up writing a book again, but to be clear I'm not blaming you for any of those malpractices and logical fallacies. I'm merely describing the lame state of usual arguments about cables and how little actual facts end up involved.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

gregorio said:


> 1. "Might be debatable" by whom?
> 
> 2. As Castle asked, what do you mean by "crappy cable"? Crappy cables can cost just cents to make, maybe a dollar or two, commonly have faults and/or high failure rates and therefore can, sometimes be audibly differentiated from higher quality cables. High quality cables are likely to cost over $10 rather than just one or two but some audiophiles would still consider these cables to be "crappy" and they would be wrong! So, it's important to identify what you mean be "crappy".
> 
> ...



This will be my last post “here”. Why am I here? To share a true, unbiased, story with you all. I don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t care if you’re skeptical of my story. It happened. It’s true. Get over it. 

Both cables were stock cables for the Oppo PM3. If you all want to reproduce my experience, then buy a brand new Oppo PM3 headphone and try both cables. Knock yourselves out! Bye.


----------



## Quasimodosbelfry

castleofargh said:


> if someone claims that cables can't ever cause audible differences, I'll oppose that claim because it's obviously false.
> if someone claims that we need fancy, and weirdly expensive for no reason, types of cables to get high fidelity sound, I'll oppose that claim because again it's obviously false. a cable is almost never going to be the limiting factor in a playback system.
> if someone claims almost anything universal about cables because of one sighted experience, I'll oppose that claim because that's just jumping to conclusion and overconfidence.



Indeed! I most certainly don't subscribe to the idea that the only way to get "better" sound is through more expensive kit. While expensive kit may deliver "very good" quality in some (or many) circumstances, it also isn't universally true.

At the end of the day, hearing is one aspect of perception. And perception is a terribly subjective thing.

We just need to reach our happy place and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Whazzzup




----------



## JaeYoon (Aug 26, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Even as a layman I find it troubling to identify where exactly one could manage to squeeze "extra" sound quality out of music through a cable unless someone intentionally added pleasant distortion to it by messing with it...not by changing the wiring from silver to copper or vice versa.
> In my world a cable either works or it doesn't. It has one job to do. Sure I've come across horrendous ones but that was never due to how they sounded (cables should have no sound to begin with unless they're faulty) but because of their stiffness, weight, length etc etc. I even bought a blue nylon coated audio cable for my old hifiman headphone and spent far too much money on it, but it offered me freedom and indeed added comfort coming from the stock vacuum cleaner one that weighed a ton.
> So yeah cables do matter


I also feel the same way, I would definitely be buying a 3rd party cable on size, resistance to microphonics, material and durability.



Hifiearspeakers said:


> This will be my last post “here”. Why am I here? To share a true, unbiased, story with you all. I don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t care if you’re skeptical of my story. It happened. It’s true. Get over it.
> 
> 
> Both cables were stock cables for the Oppo PM3. If you all want to reproduce my experience, then buy a brand new Oppo PM3 headphone and try both cables. Knock yourselves out! Bye.


Good Lord.. this is a clearly biased story. I hate to be this way but, I guarantee if someone got both cables and put a black blanket over both cables connected to an A/B switcher, as long as both stock cables were of similar specs you would struggle to notice the difference. It even has the same audiophile insecurity that they have to always be right, never debating to learn but only to try to win.

Your mind is already made up the moment you unplug the cable with the mobile controls. You want to hear what you see. Your brain is already biased towards the cable that does not have the controls. 

It's just baffling to see your own brain fool itself.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I was going to post something similar to what you just wrote JaeYoon. It was actually a little weird reading such a claim as it almost simultaneously annulled itself. 

The mind is a tricky charlatan that misleads you every chance it gets. We're just so used to the effects that we believe that we're in control - that we can detect things that aren't there or just waaaaaaaay out of our species' grasp and that science and facts only really matter when they support the dreamworld we've managed built up brick by brick all these years. 
What's that line in Tommy? 'Go to the mirror boy!'


----------



## castleofargh

JaeYoon said:


> I also feel the same way, I would definitely be buying a 3rd party cable on size, resistance to microphonics, material and durability.
> 
> 
> Good Lord.. this is a clearly biased story. I hate to be this way but, I guarantee if someone got both cables and put a black blanket over both cables connected to an A/B switcher, as long as both stock cables were of similar specs you would struggle to notice the difference. It even has the same audiophile insecurity that they have to always be right, never debating to learn but only to try to win.
> ...


it could certainly look like a textbook case of suggestibility. but without measurements of anything, it is just as bad to claim it's all nocebo. we don't know that.


----------



## JaeYoon

castleofargh said:


> it could certainly look like a textbook case of suggestibility. but without measurements of anything, it is just as bad to claim it's all nocebo. we don't know that.


Then let's find someone who has both stock cables and the PM-3 headphone and borrow their equipment for measurements. Non-violently, of course just to borrow their equipment.


----------



## gregorio

Hifiearspeakers said:


> I don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t care if you’re skeptical of my story. It happened. It’s true. Get over it .... Both cables were stock cables for the Oppo PM3.



I'll ask you again, were both stock CABLES or was one a stock cable and the other an also supplied cable with a bunch of circuitry in the middle of it? if it was the former, then that's quite different to your original story and if it's the latter then you were not comparing two stock CABLES and your conclusion is invalid and rater bizarre!



Hifiearspeakers said:


> Why am I here? To share a true, unbiased, story with you all.



Why would you want to share a story with us? This is not the "Share a Story" forum and your story which has nothing to do with this thread anyway? Your story was about comparing a cable with a bunch of smartphone circuitry, this thread is about differences (or the lack of them) BETWEEN CABLES.

G


----------



## bigshot

I find it interesting that all the reports of cables sounding different come from comparisons in stereo stores conducted by salesmen. I have seen commissioned stereo salesmen try to be my friend too. And I’ve caught them adjusting controls behind their back to try to skew the results of my in store comparisons. You don’t hand the keys to the henhouse to “friend fox”.


----------



## bigshot

JaeYoon said:


> Then let's find someone who has both stock cables and the PM-3 headphone and borrow their equipment for measurements. Non-violently, of course just to borrow their equipment.



I have PM1s. They came with a fancy cloth covered cable and a small cheap short one to use with a phone in your pocket. They sound identical.


----------



## bigshot

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> What I'm trying to say is that there were perceptible differences even though I was adamant there would be none.



I’ll bet you five bucks that your friend was a salesman and he had slightly altered the volume level of the sources to make on cable a little louder. I’ll bet another five bucks that the one he boosted was the one he got the best commission on.


----------



## castleofargh (Aug 26, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I’ll bet you five bucks that your friend was a salesman and he had slightly altered the volume level of the sources to make on cable a little louder. I’ll bet another five bucks that the one he boosted was the one he got the best commission on.


with IEMs it can be real easy to make an audible difference just with a small change in the cable's impedance. so all you really need is to pick the right IEM to magnify source variations, and some really low impedance cable. then maybe one other cable with 2 or 3ohm impedance(not that rare), and you'll get a change very easy to notice. some multidriver IEMs have impedance variations so wild and reaching so low that even rather small impedance changes from the cable(or the DAP of course), can really change the response by several dB in selected areas. I've measured as low at 6ohm myself in IEMs, with fluctuations easily reaching 10 times that at a given frequency. and there is lower.
of course as the main variation in this case is FR(if the amp can handle such a small load), the notion of good vs bad cable takes a subjective life of it own with such IEMs. not much to do with respecting electrical specs dictated by standards as IEMs theses days piss all over standards and the principle of impedance bridging between the amp and the transducers. which is exactly why a small change even from cables can result in significant change in the FR of the IEM.
no big mystery there. reject standards, then be amazed that rules based on standards don't work ^_^.


----------



## JaeYoon

castleofargh said:


> with IEMs it can be real easy to make an audible difference just with a small change in the cable's impedance. so all you really need is to pick the right IEM to magnify source variations, and some really low impedance cable. then maybe one other cable with 2 or 3ohm impedance(not that rare), and you'll get a change very easy to notice. some multidriver IEMs have impedance variations so wild and reaching so low that even rather small impedance changes from the cable(or the DAP of course), can really change the response by several dB in selected areas. I've measured as low at 6ohm myself, with fluctuations easily reaching 10 times that at a given frequency. and there is lower worse.
> of course as the main variation in this case is FR(if the amp can handle such a small load), the notion of good vs bad cable takes a subjective life of it own with such IEMs. not much to do with respecting electrical specs dictated by standards as IEMs theses days piss all over standards and the principle of impedance bridging between the amp and the transducers. which is exactly why a small change even from cables can result in significant change in the FR of the IEM.
> no big mystery there. reject standards, then be amazed that rules based on standards don't work ^_^.


Thanks for the information.
That's actually worrying too. I can start to understand why so many in IEM community and ones in $2000+ with multiple drivers have so many people buying and selling different cables.

Different frequencies can easily be all over place since many iems tend to have very funny specs. Like for instance this multi driver iem has
Impedance: 10 Ω @ 1kHz
10 ohms.
People posting reviews have been plugging different audiophile cables that have no standards and getting different perceptions due to their variations.


----------



## BlueFan

I beg to differ.


----------



## sonitus mirus

What cracks me up is how the supposed audible differences are being described as being attributed to changes in cables.  Did anyone mention a fuller sound yet?  How about more musical?   I love that one...musical.   Probably adding a few more strands of silver makes the sound more musical.  The hell with math.


----------



## Whazzzup




----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 26, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> because there is a lot that depends on the


I agree that there is alot variables that depends on the outcome what is heard.



castleofargh said:


> maybe there is something to discuss. like what to measure, what are the nominal specs for a specific cable under a specific use, etc.


I am of belief that the complexity and sensitivity of the human ear can be trained to hear more variables than we currently are focused on in the measurement areas.




castleofargh said:


> as for my warning about sighted test, the problem of sighted listening is that we can't know when we're right and when our brain is full of crap. there is no way with such experience to confirm the real answer, or that our feeling is actually coming from sound


This is true many circumstances but in reality when a person isn't "thinking" so hard, they can perceive more naturally sounds of recognition and perceptions, like where they are and familiar voices or sounds and such, like if they know how an instrument sounds in real life.

Their is another aspect or field that takes things with certainty.
*The Audio Engineer must be certain *about "how things sound" when he is mixing on the board, or placing the microphones position for best perceived sound.

*The musician "must" know* his keys if he is out of tune, or his/her timing when playing notes, and how to give the instrument "emotion".

These things are based on certainty.
You have to be certain in these fields where your income and livelihood and career is at stake.

I think these thread topics can very well help users understand the many many variables, but there is a also an "evil" stigma going on that causes _*doubt *_in a person's mind.

This is where the mind starts playing tricks on you if your "not sure".
I hate to see members uncertain or scared to give their own opinions.

We need sound-science to be a belt of wealth and knowledge to the member, and not cause them to be uncertain of their own perceptions.
They should know how much other aspects like the eyes and other senses add (help) to the experience, and accept all these things to relax and enjoy and not be worried about what they hear.



bigshot said:


> Search it for the word cables and you'll have a mountain of evidence


There is the "cable company" which you can rent out cables to see how they "interact" with you, & your setup.

Since we do not listen to music by using any type of  "blind-testing", we should use cables normally and accept all the variables that will take into account to give whatever end result.

I understand Keeping the "open mind" is hard and key, and I think there is a level of compromise to accept, like visual difference or price,
But if you are truthful to yourself and realize these things are there to try to bias you, then you already are prepared (to an extent) to not let that happen.

In *many *cases when I ask another member what they heard, they often describe another view and aspect which adds to the impression and experience that I myself may have not noticed or overlooked, like mentioning an "ambience cue" or "aspect of an instrument" or other sounds that I did not pick out until they pointed it out.

Aspects of perception that other members pickup is a good thing, and _may be_ a result of expecting differences.



Don Hills said:


> This is the Sound Science sub-forum. If you aren't prepared to consider that you might be wrong about your beliefs in the differences between your headphone cables, why are you here? There are other areas of Head-Fi where you will find like-minded people who will validate your beliefs.


I believe the sound-science forum is instrumental to knowing the many variables that can take place when your mind is interpretating all the information from the ears.
I only whish it more focused members with certainty for dececiphering, instead of getting tied down with the specific issues of what your hearing or not hearing.

I think different cable helps us perceive the music differently, and as to why because it may not technically make a difference (theoretically) in a simplistic view, when it does.

Wire is not perfect or uniform.
In an electrician field, wire  can heat up in spots and break in other spots and corrode in other circumstances.

So the "real world" usage is not what's on paper.
So similarly also in a micro-level there must be variables going on.
Why does a cable manufacturer choose a specific winding or different materials aside from the insulation type, like cloth and such.
Many reasons are like another field in itself and the end result cannot be same performance on a micro level.
How that translates to the user is why we need sound-science to help understand,  instead of going off on a "tangent" to focus on tearing down a member's perceptions that even if may be skewed, they still need as a foundation for "certainty".

My view is that a member must use all his/her  audible "tools" they have to be certain, not uncertain.

They just need to realise alot goes into play, (even placibo) at determining their outcome.
This "self-aself-awarness" will keep them more grounded.




Quasimodosbelfry said:


> And the outcome... Was a surprise to me. There was indeed a difference between cables. Whether copper or silver, even the number of strands made a difference


Especially when your brain is expecting a difference, you will find one.

But if you didn't know the cable was swapped you may not notice right away, as your mind would probably fill in any differences as just a different "feeling", and can explain why some users feel more certain with long term listening, or owning a product for a few weeks to be sure, untill the "new toy" syndrome wears off..


----------



## bfreedma

Maxx134 said:


> I agree that there is alot variables that depends on the outcome what is heard.
> 
> 
> I am of belief that the complexity and sensitivity of the human ear can be trained to hear more variables than we currently are focused on in the measurement areas.
> ...



So many anecdotes and repetition of marketing hype.  No supporting evidence of audiblity.

Are we really going down this rat hole again in Sound Science?  Isn't there a separate Cables forum for that?


----------



## Quasimodosbelfry

bigshot said:


> I’ll bet you five bucks that your friend was a salesman and he had slightly altered the volume level of the sources to make on cable a little louder. I’ll bet another five bucks that the one he boosted was the one he got the best commission on.


You owe me 10 bucks.

He wasn't a salesman. And it was my own player in my own hand.

How hard do you want to disprove this?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> You owe me 10 bucks.
> 
> He wasn't a salesman. And it was my own player in my own hand.
> 
> How hard do you want to disprove this?



There is exactly nothing provided by your story to disprove.  The cables were either defective, improper for the intended application, or any audible differences were only perceived and not real.  What else would you attribute to the differences you claim to have heard?


----------



## Quasimodosbelfry

sonitus mirus said:


> There is exactly nothing provided by your story to disprove.  The cables were either defective, improper for the intended application, or any audible differences were only perceived and not real.  What else would you attribute to the differences you claim to have heard?



I was being friendly and sharing my experience and not attempting to shove my opinion in anyone's face. If anyone felt that from me, you have my apologies. The degree of animosity in this thread and zealous insistence is palpable.

Nah, nothing else whatsoever can be attributed. I'm just an uneducated hick that's been dwindled by the overwhelming marketing hype touted by the con men who run audio stores.
Heck, I'm probably imagining how much I enjoy that empee-three player I have. Pffffttt, what does Soh-nee know about making electronics? High end capacitors inside the WM1A /Z? Must be bullcrap. Cassette tapes were already the top of how good quality was. There was no need and no way anyone could have improved anything.

I'm gonna go watch some teevee on my VHS and haul out my mixtapes. Ciao!


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 27, 2018)

But why would you come to this part of the forum if you have no way of proving your findings?
People here expect proof if you're going to make extraordinary claims.
Simple as.

No animosity in here - you're just perceiving it that way. People are perhaps a little tired of always having to disprove anecdotal evidence because it is nigh on impossible to do. So we go in circles - on and on and on. Why? Because the believers of cable magic never bother to properly read the answers they were given or indeed just dig their heads into the sand - willing stuff to be true. The distribution of knowledge in here is a one-way street. If we're to believe the cable crowd then they better provide detailed proof.
As it is though it's like debating politics with children. Impossible.


----------



## castleofargh

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> I was being friendly and sharing my experience and not attempting to shove my opinion in anyone's face. If anyone felt that from me, you have my apologies. The degree of animosity in this thread and zealous insistence is palpable.
> 
> Nah, nothing else whatsoever can be attributed. I'm just an uneducated hick that's been dwindled by the overwhelming marketing hype touted by the con men who run audio stores.
> Heck, I'm probably imagining how much I enjoy that empee-three player I have. Pffffttt, what does Soh-nee know about making electronics? High end capacitors inside the WM1A /Z? Must be bullcrap. Cassette tapes were already the top of how good quality was. There was no need and no way anyone could have improved anything.
> ...


yes people doubt *your* anecdote, you posted it after after all. wouldn't it be silly to take every empty anecdote as factual on the web? it hurts your pride and you think you have to get mad, but that's only because you're not getting the reasons why we react like this. when we request controlled tests, it's not just for you because we're convinced you're an idiot. we don't have a clue who you are. it's for every human because we know* for a fact*(as in having a shitload of evidence from controlled experimentation), that every human can and will be fooled, can and will fool himself several times a day. why else would we insist so much on controlled tests which are a massive PITA?






Maxx134 said:


> I am of belief that the complexity and sensitivity of the human ear can be trained to hear more variables than we currently are focused on in the measurement areas.


if we consider only looking at frequency response and maybe THD+N at 1khz, then sure, we could sometimes perceive something that isn't measured in those specific tests. but in general when pitting measurements against human hear, the human hear will be humiliated. we can measure most variables of sound with a precision going magnitudes below what a human can notice.
we have creativity and musical sensibility and all the subjective and emotional stuff which are amazeballs and make us all love and enjoy music. but get some output signal, try to find a variation, and you'll see that a human ear doesn't stand a chance against even an average microphone and ADC.

so depending on how I read your sentence, I think you're right, or want to have you burned as a witch ^_^.



Maxx134 said:


> *The Audio Engineer must be certain *about "how things sound" when he is mixing on the board, or placing the microphones position for best perceived sound.
> 
> *The musician "must" know* his keys if he is out of tune, or his/her timing when playing notes, and how to give the instrument "emotion".
> 
> ...


 of course musicians and sound engineers need to rely on subjective impressions all the time, and some of their work is beyond what a machine could do(for now). that's part of their skill. any human will get fooled by moving an EQ slider up and down in the bass. somehow once you've boosted the low end for a while, going back to zero gain feels like we lack bass. I don't believe the effect can be avoided, knowledge and experience allow an engineer to account for that effect and know not to fall for it all the time. but few biases and psychoacoustic effects can be ruled by will. the sure method is still very much to know extensively about them and remove/limit those we can. blind self confidence doesn't work for everything.
the argument about judges in a music competition who should not see the musician playing is just one but oh so obvious example. if we really claim to care about the sound and only the sound, then ultimately, other biases should be removed. the end. 
we could also embrace the rest of the experience and give points for the visual charisma which is relevant for many artists IMO. but it's not sound and it shouldn't be mistaken for it.






Maxx134 said:


> I think these thread topics can very well help users understand the many many variables, but there is a also an "evil" stigma going on that causes _*doubt *_in a person's mind.


again, sometimes I would fight you with all I have, sometimes I'm the one making your argument. we can't get a cut and dry position for all situations IMO. by default I believe that if people could get down of their high horses where they imagine that they're the most amazing listening machine we will ever be able to build, that would be great.
arguing against egos instead of facts and ideas, it gets tiring real fast and benefits no one.so I believe we could all make the effort to calm the alpha male in us, even just a notch. 
but it's also true that many real interesting people will never share their relevant observations because they lack confidence.





we have to live with that human tendency too. 




about the main idea of your post, we differ in that I make a very strict distinction between experiencing something and having evidence of causality. on the other hand you apparently give a lot of credit to subjective impressions. 
when I'm alone and wonder what I will listen to, the sum of my thinking ends when my brain goes: "me likes!". and most of the time I'm very satisfied with that. but when I come on this forum to discuss objective variations in sound(audible or not), and maybe try to find out the cause for those changes, I have to adapt to new requirements and standards for the conversation. we all have to!
and each section comes with its share of requirements. in here there is a strong emphasis on blind tests and measurements. so that's what people will welcome as an attempt to convince them of something real(look I'm almost on topic!). at the same time, in the cable section, even talking about blind test is forbidden.


----------



## Whazzzup




----------



## bigshot (Aug 27, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> with IEMs it can be real easy to make an audible difference just with a small change in the cable's impedance.



I don't know much about IEMs... Do they have demo loaners in stereo stores? That seems a little gross to me, but the whole idea of sticking things in my ears skieves me.

But if the difference is caused by impedance mismatch, wouldn't it be the IEMs fault, not the cable? The cable would work fine with any other type of headphone. And weren't we talking about interconnects?

In any case, dumb thread titles seem to spawn dumb posts.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 27, 2018)

Quasimodosbelfry said:


> You owe me 10 bucks. He wasn't a salesman. And it was my own player in my own hand.



Did you use a switch box? What kind of cable were you comparing? You've given us very little information about how you compared, what you compared, and the controls you applied; but you keep repeating your conclusions and seem to expect us to accept that without any supporting evidence. Share some more information with us and let us come to our own conclusions. Did you conduct the test, or did your friend conduct it? Why did you have to do it at a stereo store? How many times were you able to identify a specific cable, and how many trials did you do? All these things matter.


----------



## JaeYoon (Aug 27, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> But why would you come to this part of the forum if you have no way of proving your findings?
> People here expect proof if you're going to make extraordinary claims.
> Simple as.
> 
> ...


It feels like to me Sound Science forum is like the Roman Senate. The audiophiles are like Emperor Caligula, he wants to pass legislation that makes Audiophile equipment 100% pure truth and infallible, he's drank the advertising Kool aid from expensive capacitors to putting stickers on Headphones,iems(yes literally someone on head-fi mentioned putting stickers made their headphones sound better don't ask me), to putting magic rocks and ultra purity anti oxygen silver gold plated cables that cost thousands. Now the Roman Senate only asks for measurements and proof besides anecdotal proof. (Audiophile) Emperor Caligula has a childish tantrum and starts lashing out at the Senate that their ears are bad, their audio equipment is crap and so on.


----------



## bigshot

Let’s consult the Oracles of Delphi before buying audio equipment. Talking with audiophiles can be like riddling the Sphinx.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I don't know much about IEMs... Do they have demo loaners in stereo stores? That seems a little gross to me, but the whole idea of sticking things in my ears skieves me.
> 
> But if the difference is caused by impedance mismatch, wouldn't it be the IEMs fault, not the cable? The cable would work fine with any other type of headphone. And weren't we talking about interconnects?
> 
> In any case, dumb thread titles seem to spawn dumb posts.


the IEM mess comes from the fact that IEM manufacturers try to improve fidelity in their IEMs and don't really care if it makes things weird or unstable at the source. in a way, as the transducer tends to be the weak link, it's not unreasonable, but it can sure be annoying sometimes. 
to try IEMs, some brands will send loaners on request if they think you can turn into almost free advertising for them with reviews. otherwise the unicorn land for IEMs is found in Asia where many countries let people try IEMs in stores. in the US I don't really know how many places offer that and how much choice there will be. most CIEM manufacturers will have universal versions of their custom IEMs to try at their store/factory. 

to be clear about my opinion on cables in general and people who justify paying a lot for a cable because it sounds better. most of the time I believe that people make up audio differences from cables using non audio biases. if we could get stats on this under controlled listening tests, I'm highly convinced that people claiming audible improvement from cables are wrong way more than half the time(and I'm being nice here). but it's no more than my opinion, I only have a lot of reasons to think that way, but no conclusive proof. so I can't just put everybody into a box labelled placebo, and close it. that IMO wouldn't be fair to some people in a "crap happens" situation. 
now if someday we get stats, then I will agree to ignore the all group for good if the real percentage of audible differences end up being anecdotal.


----------



## castleofargh

JaeYoon said:


> It feels like to me Sound Science forum is like the Roman Senate. The audiophiles are like Emperor Caligula, he wants to pass legislation that makes Audiophile equipment 100% pure truth and infallible, he's drank the advertising Kool aid from expensive capacitors to putting stickers on Headphones,iems(yes literally someone on head-fi mentioned putting stickers made their headphones sound better don't ask me), to putting magic rocks and ultra purity anti oxygen silver gold plated cables that cost thousands. Now the Roman Senate only asks for measurements and proof besides anecdotal proof. (Audiophile) Emperor Caligula has a childish tantrum and starts lashing out at the Senate that their ears are bad, their audio equipment is crap and so on.


if his horse is Clever Hans, then I support making him part of the senate. I also vote to fire Palpatine, that guy is up to no good.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 27, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> So many anecdotes and repetition of marketing hype.  No supporting evidence of audiblity.
> 
> Are we really going down this rat hole again in Sound Science?  Isn't there a separate Cables forum for that?


Don't need to go down rabbit holes..
Its like the physics teacher who says everything is atoms..
We can't see atoms spinning like they say.
We can only "perceive" a certain reality as it is..

Ride the top of the wave and not let yourself get sucked down into the riptide..

On the other side of the argument,
It could be said sound-science is a place were deaf people validate themselves lol.
Sorry I'm just kidding.




Kammerat Rebekka said:


> People here expect proof if you're going to make extraordinary claims.


Yet is can also sound extraordinary to others to say there is no difference,
as the whole market is based on hearing differences...
Yet these are extremes and we should know there is probably more than one reason for everything perceived or not perceived.





castleofargh said:


> but it's also true that many real interesting people will never share their relevant observations because they lack confidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha that's a great info!
No wonder so many are afraid to innocently give comments...
Its ok to have your own view, as everyone's ears are also different and the ear size keeps growing with age so your hearing is in a stage of change all the time.

I have come to a point where I can appreciate all the very involved hard work that has been done in sound-science forums, to try and explain the complexities involved.

Yet I personally lower the value of most blind tests when they involve the components of "uncertainty"..

Uncertainty is a mental condition that can ruin the perception of the mind, and to me invalidates the full potential of a person's perceptions..
IMHO...


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134, I admire your attempt to try to keep up here. You would probably do better to just listen though.


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> Maxx134, I admire your attempt to try to keep up here. You would probably do better to just listen though.


Haha yeah actually my intention was browsing other threads but this one was like clickbait lol


----------



## bfreedma

Maxx134 said:


> Don't need to go down rabbit holes..
> Its like the physics teacher who says everything is atoms..
> We can't see atoms spinning like they say.
> We can only "perceive" a certain reality as it is..
> ...




Maxx134, I do think you're being sincere with your comments but please come forth with some actual evidence of the claims you make.  Some perspective:  Every month or so, the subjective cable evaluation discussion is brought up - sometimes in good faith like I believe you are, and sometimes, well, no so much.

The answers to the majority of the points raised are posted with much repetition of the same debate and the inevitable frustration, and lately, IMO, it's not helping the technical conversations that again, IMO, is the purpose and value of Sound Science.

If one reads this thread, the general scientific consensus is out there.  It would be great if people who wanted to investigate the subjective side of cables took a quick review of this thread and similar others, then posted any questions or clarification they might want to discuss.

I have big dreams...


----------



## hamhamhamsta

castleofargh said:


> if his horse is Clever Hans, then I support making him part of the senate. I also vote to fire Palpatine, that guy is up to no good.


Hahaha…the part about Roman senate and Emperor CLigula are golden


JaeYoon said:


> It feels like to me Sound Science forum is like the Roman Senate. The audiophiles are like Emperor Caligula, he wants to pass legislation that makes Audiophile equipment 100% pure truth and infallible, he's drank the advertising Kool aid from expensive capacitors to putting stickers on Headphones,iems(yes literally someone on head-fi mentioned putting stickers made their headphones sound better don't ask me), to putting magic rocks and ultra purity anti oxygen silver gold plated cables that cost thousands. Now the Roman Senate only asks for measurements and proof besides anecdotal proof. (Audiophile) Emperor Caligula has a childish tantrum and starts lashing out at the Senate that their ears are bad, their audio equipment is crap and so on.


Oh man you are very funny my friend
Hahahaha…this is golden


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> Yet I personally lower the value of most blind tests when they involve the components of "uncertainty"..
> 
> Uncertainty is a mental condition that can ruin the perception of the mind, and to me invalidates the full potential of a person's perceptions..
> IMHO...


and I get why you have that position. after all, believing in ourselves is often the first step toward success in anything.  when being overconfident will help make you a creative artist or a talented athlete, the side effect is "only" that you tend to become a bit of a jerk. as the target is success and is helped by confidence, of course confidence becomes a positive force and even a requirement at some point.
now back to our situation. a random audiophile is affected by a wild range of biases and senses other than hearing. he has no tool in his brain to isolate completely any of those non audio factors, to the point that vision or touch can and will alter what he thinks he's heard. we have all the research demonstrating that in so many ways. our random audiophile also has no reign over his memory, or maybe too much depending on how you look at things. and again research has demonstrated that we can start altering our memory of sound as soon as 6 to 10s later(depending on the research) and that the more time passes the less reliable we are. just replacing cables manually tends to take more time than that and will be advised against by any half descent expert in audio research.
so we're in a situation where a great many things can influence our impressions of sound and make us get the wrong idea. in that context, being confident will only make the listener dismiss the very real issues and trust his guts more. so he won't think he has any reason to try and mitigates the various problems of his "test". that in turn will make him wrong more often and claiming false stuff with great confidence. in that situation, confidence in our impressions directly opposes success.
if the situation was confident people vs self doubting people going through the same experiment, I'd be tempted to root for the confident people more often. but we're not talking about that situation. we're talking about confident/ignorant people doing it wrong, and other people doing it less wrong because they don't overestimate themselves so they adapt the test for it to be less biased. once I've set up a serious listening test, I'm actually pretty confident in my hearing abilities.
if I had to use a crappy analogy to your point, it would be arguing that wearing a seat belt and replacing the flat tire is bad because it makes you doubt your driving skills. biases are real, they do affect our impressions, looking the other way with confidence makes us wrong more often, not better at hearing.
and the feeling that we can notice more details when in a sighted tests is yet another fallacy. of course we feel like we notice more details, the brain is processing all the crap we already know and all the crap we're looking at like which cable is used, how it looks, the price, the marketing that convinced us to purchase it... the brain is using all that while making up an impressions of "sound". we do get more details, but they're not acoustic.


----------



## gregorio

Maxx134 said:


> I am of belief that the complexity and sensitivity of the human ear can be trained to hear more variables than we currently are focused on in the measurement areas.



This is the Sound Science forum, where we rely on facts, not beliefs and you while you are perfectly entitled to your own beliefs, you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are:
1. We cannot train the human ear, what we can train is the human brain. We can train the human brain to focus on different aspects of the sound the human ear picks-up, train it to change it's perception.
2. EVERYTHING that we "hear" is a perception and there are potentially an enormous number of variables which can affect that perception. However, this fact has NOTHING to do with the reproduction of sound, which is simply the reproduction of an electrical current and the conversion of that electrical current into sound pressure waves. "Measurement areas" therefore cover the measurement of this electric current and the resultant sound pressure waves.
3. In other words: Today's recording technology is the act of measuring amplitude and time. If there is ANYTHING which is not covered by these two "measurement areas" then it CANNOT be recorded or reproduced and therefore it doesn't exist in any recording you're trying to reproduce!!



Maxx134 said:


> Their is another aspect or field that takes things with certainty.
> *The Audio Engineer must be certain *about "how things sound" when he is mixing on the board, or placing the microphones position for best perceived sound.
> *The musician "must" know* his keys if he is out of tune, or his/her timing when playing notes, and how to give the instrument "emotion".
> These things are based on certainty.



This is the reason why we need a science/fact based forum! Audiophiles tend to have an unquestionable belief in their observations of their perception (of hearing) and because this belief is unquestionable, anything, any actual facts or demonstrated science which disagrees with those observations of their perception MUST be wrong. Unfortunately, they will manipulate, misrepresent or simply make-up facts, no matter how ridiculous, in order to maintain the unquestionability of their belief. The quote above is such an example, you've simply just made-up some facts to support your belief. An audio engineer is almost never "certain about how things sound", because any decent audio engineer knows that "how things sound" is entirely dependant on human perception (rather than human hearing) and as perception varies from person to person, an audio engineer can NEVER be "certain" how everyone will perceive his/her recording or mix. All an audio engineer (or musician) can have is a level of confidence, NOT certainty.

What can often be very annoying is that many of these made-up or misrepresented facts can be easily be checked. For example, rather than just make-up the above quote, you could simply have asked some audio engineers and musicians. A musician for example only knows if they are out of tune or time to a certain fairly loose tolerance and they only know how to perform their instrument in a way which creates "emotion" for some people. Likewise, an engineer only knows/guesses how some people will perceive their mix/recording. An engineer could for example create the most perfect mix of a piece of heavy metal that there's ever been, some people will perceive that fact but others won't be able to perceive that it's even music!

What's particularly frustrating about many audiophiles and their beliefs is that they will not question their unquestionable beliefs but will question pretty much every unquestionable fact. This of course is logically backwards and to make matters even worse, they'll then typically state that we should "keep an open mind".  We should keep an open mind that proven/unquestionable facts are wrong but audiophiles should not keep an open mind that their beliefs are wrong? It's hard to think of a more hypocritical stance to take!



Maxx134 said:


> [1] Wire is not perfect or uniform.
> [2] In an electrician field, wire can heat up in spots and break in other spots and corrode in other circumstances.



1. True, no one would rationally argue with that fact. But, that's NOT the fact we're arguing, the fact we're arguing is whether those imperfections or non-uniformities create distortions or some sort of differences which are audible. Maybe they can, if we look at cables made a century or more ago but today, we can not only can reduce those imperfections to well below the limits of audibility but we achieve this feat so routinely and on such a large scale that it only costs a few cents a foot.

2. Sure, if you run 20amps though a cable designed for 1amp it will heat up, even to the point of breaking and/or catching fire. HOWEVER, firstly we never that level of power with an audio signal and secondly, NO ONE is saying there is NOT any difference between cables. We are saying there is not any audible difference between different cables designed for the same task or has the same basic properties as a cable designed for that task.



Maxx134 said:


> [1] So the "real world" usage is not what's on paper.
> [2] So similarly also in a micro-level there must be variables going on.
> [3] Why does a cable manufacturer choose a specific winding or different materials aside from the insulation type, like cloth and such.



1. Obviously it must be, if it wasn't the modern world would not exist.
2. There are micro-level "variables going on", the question is: How do those micro-level variables relate to audibility? Andthe answer is: They do not relate at all, they are inaudible and not just inaudible but many times below audibility.
3. One of two reasons: A. Because scientific testing has demonstrated certain desirable properties from doing so or B. Appearance/marketing.



Maxx134 said:


> [1] I believe the sound-science forum is instrumental to knowing the many variables that can take place when your mind is interpretating all the information from the ears.
> [2] My view is that a member must use all his/her audible "tools" they have to be certain, not uncertain.
> [2] They just need to realise alot goes into play, (even placibo) at determining their outcome.
> This "self-aself-awarness" will keep them more grounded.



1. Hmm, not sure I can entirely agree with this. Science has identified, demonstrated and proven that there are many variables involved in the creation of a perception but it's unclear if it has identified all the variables and it cannot measure or accurately predict what variables will come into play for each person.

2. Do due all the variables, most of which are sub-conscious biases and pattern matching processes, the only rational position to take is one of uncertainty!

3. Again, I cannot entirely agree with this. The facts and reality is that perception doesn't sometimes include "even placebo", perception is based on placebo! Taking the usual meaning of the term "placebo" (as used in the audio world) to mean anything created by the brain rather than inherent to the audio signal/sound waves, then without placebo there is no music in the first place and what is it that audiophiles are listening to, just semi-random noise?

The issue always comes back to what is unquestionable fact and what is unquestionable belief. It's easy to sit on this side of the fence and condemn audiophiles as just delusional and/or complete idiots but that's not entirely fair. Most, if not nearly all audiophile marketing in effect questions the unquestionable facts. If one exclusively inhabits the world of audiophile marketing and reviews, it's therefore virtually impossible to correctly identify what the actual facts are, how they relate to human audibility and therefore what facts are unquestionable. Most audiophiles are NOT complete idiots, they're just somewhat gullible. However, coming to a science/fact based sub-forum and then arguing for fallacious beliefs over the actual science/facts and even misrepresenting the science/actual facts to support their fallacious beliefs, is somewhat idiotic.

G


----------



## JaeYoon (Aug 28, 2018)

@gregorio I agree with the advertising in audiophile world. I see audiophiles mentioning they usually don't have access to audio equipment they can test.

People in India and Singapore and Asia in general tend to be able to find equipment to test before they buy.

So audiophiles elsewhere must rely on advertising and reviewers (either bought themselves or given audio equipment to review to keep or give back).
Now there are a lot of incentives to give free audio equipment to well known reviewers, it can ensure their loyalty to giving 5 star glowing reviews to encourage sales. Put in some subjective downsides such as "well the bass is just a little bit more than average in quantity which is a downside for me. But compared to other products in this price range! This is a beautiful bargain!". So it leaves a positive note to get others to buy it to give it a try.

Now I won't say the company name, but a long time ago I remember the representative advertised their DAC would sound "musical and warm". A well known reviewers mentioned it sounded accurate and reference. The rep immediately changed his tune and said "yes we also tuned it to sound reference for the audiophile too. We balanced warm and neutrality".

Beautiful smokescreen. People bought it and repeated it too. I never purchased I, but it definitely influenced the buyers decision on what it sounded like.


----------



## seamon (Aug 28, 2018)

JaeYoon said:


> People in India tend to be able to find equipment to test before they buy.


This is 100% unadulterated bull. There is not one high end Audio Shop in India. There is just one website which is good but other than that Head Fi scene in India is pretty much dead and the most people would spend on a pair of headphone is $10 and even that "too expensive" for most people.


----------



## bigshot

There's really no need for a high end audio shop if you have Amazon. Just order, test and return if necessary.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 28, 2018)

Indeedio Amazon. They are pretty handy if one wishes to testdrive a couple of cans before making a decision. I believe amazon exist in India as well?

On another note. It is rather peculiar to see audiophiles go to great lengths trying to disprove blindtesting without ever having the balls to actually try it for themselves. To me that says it all really.
Why risk basically annulling the thousands of posts and reviews under one's belt with a swift pull of the rug?

P.S. That thing about blind testing basically rendering the subject blind really grinds my gears! What!?!!?! If you think you hear something late at night but can't really be sure you close your eyes and listen again. You take away any superfluous senses in order to focus entirely on the subject at hand ie 'What was that sound!?!!'.
In a music situation I'd bet a couple of beets that most folks do the same thing. Close their eyes either when the music really hits home or if they want to concentrate on something very specific.
Why would you need your eyes in order to judge sound? Do you also need your tastebuds in the gym?


----------



## bigshot

Audiophiles object to blind testing because their mind is already made up and the truth would be a blow to their ego.


----------



## seamon

bigshot said:


> There's really no need for a high end audio shop if you have Amazon. Just order, test and return if necessary.


Yeah no. Amazon India mostly does not sell High end headphones or IEMs.

Also, I was calling BS on his assumption that you can readily test headphones out in India


----------



## seamon

bigshot said:


> Audiophiles object to blind testing because their mind is already made up and the truth would be a blow to their ego.


On that note, I once did a blind test between a $10 USB wire and $150 Cabledyne Pure Silver USB wire. Couldn't tell jacksht which was which xD


----------



## JaeYoon

seamon said:


> This is 100% unadulterated Bull****. There is not one high end Audio Shop in India. There is just one website which is good but other than that Head Fi scene in India is pretty much dead and the most people would spend on a pair of headphone is $10 and even that "too expensive" for most people.


Well that was my mistake about the hi-fi market in India.


----------



## bigshot

I just checked Amazon and I see headphones that cost over a grand. How high end do you mean by high end?


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> I just checked Amazon and I see headphones that cost over a grand. How high end do you mean by high end?


Which headphone did you find?

Check out the Audeze LCD 4
https://www.amazon.com/AUDEZE-LCD4-headphone-Ebony-Leather/dp/B01DTQ6AMS


----------



## bigshot

They have high end Senns and Oppo PM-1s through third party sellers.


----------



## Maxx134

gregorio said:


> All an audio engineer (or musician) can have is a level of confidence, NOT certainty


Good point. 
Probably both at different levels depending on situation.
Let's say your spouse called you while you were watchn TV...
Are you going to tell them you were "uncertain" it was their voice?
Ha



bigshot said:


> Audiophiles object to blind testing because their mind is already made up and the truth would be a blow to their ego.


Another good point.
It's sad these things of "ego" happen, *both ways. *

I for one di think blind testing can be useful but needs to be improved for the condition of *"doubt"* to be negated.

Like, giving the control (in whatever way) to the listener.

There is a quote;
"A doubt is a stumbling block in your journey to an answer"
Ravi Zacharias

So its important _we do_ need to know the technical aspects (science & facts) to find out "why", if there is a difference.
Could even be a simple reason like a mistake in settings.

I do realize many circumstances can be a result expectation bias but this whole thread is a "generality" statement.
It is reliant not only on a person's ability at the given time, but his well being to perceive it.
In these cases very much can be negated as most people do not bother to consider the tiniest 2-10% differences in sound.

Wire differences are most probably lower than that range, so its a valid point in this thread to say wire should not be a concerning factor..

I haven't seen a mention of  possible answers such as headphone or component interaction with cable which could be the culprit.

I think the solutions of A-B testing are a good  "procedure" which can narrow all the possible parameters.

To me, But blind testing is fundamentally flawed and sadly the main type of proof that comes up.

Better to come up with scientific or measurement proof than a "blind test" wich in itself is just a test, not a proof.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 29, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> I for one di think blind testing can be useful but needs to be improved for the condition of *"doubt"* to be negated.



The way you do that is by repeating the test with different people and different equipment. When it comes to cables, the tests have been done so many times, it's just plain foolish to claim that they make a difference. A properly manufactured cable used for the purpose it was designed for is audibly transparent. For all intents and purposes, it is exactly the same as any other audibly transparent cable. You can get perfectly transparent cables for a few bucks at Amazon. Why spend more?

Now if you know a specific cable that isn't audibly transparent, and you've done a controlled test to verify that, I would be very interested to hear about it. I am always looking for evidence that I might be wrong. I have nothing invested into this, except to know how to put together a great sounding stereo system. If I'm wrong about something as fundamental as this, I want to know it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Why don't you play around with this online calculator using realistic scenarios to get a general idea of just how much of a difference cables tend to make?

https://www.electrovoice.com/cableloss.php?x=38.9820821&y=-77.4341559&geolocation=1

When discussing interconnects, such as a DAC to amp or source to DAC, the typical lengths required and electrical properties involved are mostly insignificant with regards to the cable material.   If an audible difference were to be heard, it would clearly be measurable and more than likely be the result of a defect.


----------



## bigshot

It's interesting that the people who beat the drum for "science doesn't know everything" are the same people who don't know much about what science *does* know. I guess ignorance begets ignorance. If you don't know what you're talking about, the rest of the world must not know too.


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka (Aug 29, 2018)

After reading a whole lot of these threads lately I would have to agree with you Bigshot. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I am certainly not educated in these areas and have never really fully submersed myself into the technical side of hi fi outside of these threads simply because it doesn't interest me. Music does.
Therefor I rely on people who quite obviously know what they're talking about to steer me through troubled waters...and make damn sure they're not selling anything.
A bit of common sense will also get you a long ways.

That's not enough though. No matter how much science and facts you throw in the audiophile direction it's still down to the individual to take the first step. A door needs to open somehow. I know because I was there myself not too long ago and nothing absolutely NOTHING I read anywhere could've pulled me out of my self-fuelled fantasia trip. I bought into the whole shenanigan.
What changed my mind then? Well I tried to put my money where my mouth is and ended up feeling like a schmo. Yeah well it wasn't exactly a bet as much as it was an attempt at being honest with myself and of course prove that I could hear all the stuff I did when I could see what I was listening to.
Then I found this subforum and it confirmed me of what I'd already experienced firsthand: people tend to be the weak link in the audio chain.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 29, 2018)

I don't think it's ever a good idea to depend on others to tell you what you should do unless it just doesn't matter. Depending on sales literature and internet forums is just plain dumb. Salesmen lie and there is absolutely no qualification to type words in an internet forum. Some people online know what they're talking about, but it's up to you to figure out who those people are. That takes a little research and fact checking.

I love music, but I'm interested in the ins and outs of sound reproduction too. It isn't an either / or thing. Since I'm interested in sound, it isn't a chore to do a little bit of thoughtful research into the basics of how digital audio works and what all those numbers on those charts and diagrams mean. Honestly, I can't imagine someone never bothering to figure out the basics and then having the gall to present themselves as an expert on the internet, but I guess self awareness is a rare commodity in some people.

I enjoy discussing how sound works, and I search out people who know more than I do who are willing to share. That's why I'm here. But I see people all the time who aren't interested in discussing facts about sound and would rather tear down the people who know more than they do. It makes no sense to me, but we have several stellar examples of anti-intellectualism around here that seem to turn up regularly, just like a bad penny.


----------



## JaeYoon (Aug 29, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I don't think it's ever a good idea to depend on others to tell you what you should do unless it just doesn't matter. Depending on sales literature and internet forums is just plain dumb. Salesmen lie and there is absolutely no qualification to type words in an internet forum. Some people online know what they're talking about, but it's up to you to figure out who those people are. That takes a little research and fact checking.
> 
> I love music, but I'm interested in the ins and outs of sound reproduction too. It isn't an either / or thing. Since I'm interested in sound, it isn't a chore to do a little bit of thoughtful research into the basics of how digital audio works and what all those numbers on those charts and diagrams mean. Honestly, I can't imagine someone never bothering to figure out the basics and then having the gall to present themselves as an expert on the internet, but I guess self awareness is a rare commodity in some people.
> 
> I enjoy discussing how sound works, and I search out people who know more than I do who are willing to share. That's why I'm here. But I see people all the time who aren't interested in discussing facts about sound and would rather tear down the people who know more than they do. It makes no sense to me, but we have several stellar examples of anti-intellectualism around here that seem to turn up regularly, just like a bad penny.


It makes sense to me though why so much people are highly supportive of audiophile equipment. We are on a website that is sponsored by companies that sell audio cables, headphones, earphones, AMPs, DAC/AMP. Each company had a goal to secure a fanbase and make money.

It would be big trouble to them if everyone made careful purchasing decisions in purchasing audio equipment.

Plus new toy syndrome is also what keeps these companies afloat, and the people who purchase their products naturally defend their purchase.

Added: just imagine being in the shoes of someone who just purchased $1999 audio cable. You join the club in a thread and hang out on that part of forum with your new friends who have same cable and like talking about how much it changes the sound in all of your audio equipment, laptops, phones, audio players.

Then someone comes along and says well you should get a microphone and some measuring equipment and measure them to see what they really are doing. That it probably isn't better than a high quality cable that can be bought for less.

Naturally, the club group will scoff at the guy and tell him/her that it is ridiculous to propose a $17 dollar cable can match what they invested. It's a natural element to protect their purchase, and to keep the standing that it is of a higher tier product than that clothhanger wire, etc.

That is why people who are big fans of their equipment tend to not like this section.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

sonitus mirus said:


> Why don't you play around with this online calculator using realistic scenarios to get a general idea of just how much of a difference cables tend to make?
> 
> https://www.electrovoice.com/cableloss.php?x=38.9820821&y=-77.4341559&geolocation=1
> 
> When discussing interconnects, such as a DAC to amp or source to DAC, the typical lengths required and electrical properties involved are mostly insignificant with regards to the cable material.   If an audible difference were to be heard, it would clearly be measurable and more than likely be the result of a defect.



The audiophiles will just tell you the same thing the 'engineers' on here tell you: "Screw the measurements - _use your ears_!!"

.....smh


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> The audiophiles will just tell you the same thing the 'engineers' on here tell you: "Screw the measurements - _use your ears_!!"



Do you think that if you repeat that lie often enough it becomes true? Even if you do, what place has that tactic here in the sound science forum?

G


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> The audiophiles will just tell you the same thing the 'engineers' on here tell you: "Screw the measurements - _use your ears_!!"
> 
> .....smh


the famous engineering motto: "screw the measurements". of course we've all heard it too many times, along with the military guys who keep shouting "let's make love, not war" while attacking. Mars Attack style.

despite that strange joke, you do bring up an obvious issue for this topic and many others. if the people we're talking to, have beforehand rejected measurements and blind testing, what alternative is left to demonstrate something to a community? I have yet to figure that out, how we're supposed to demonstrate a significant objective change in sound without measurements. and how we're supposed to demonstrate audibility without control implemented in the listening test. it's a mystery to me.


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> Some people online know what they're talking about, but it's up to you to figure out who those people are. That takes a little research and fact checking.


A good suggestion is to find members who have same preferences and hear similarly to you, then find what is their experience.



TheSonicTruth said:


> The audiophiles will just tell you the same thing the 'engineers' on here tell you: "Screw the measurements - _use your ears_!!"
> 
> .....smh


In my workings on tube amps, I find measurements are very critical in helping evaluating changes heard.
The two aspects must help each other.

I also I always use a frame of reference when evaluating, so I won't get used to a skewed sound.

Then you get to a point where the values of parts can be same but give different listening results, like capacitors.

So experience is vital in older designs that rely on parts quality.
 I have learned the importance to take all information especially measurements.
.
Before my amp & headphone journeys I admit I was more of hearing results without knowing why type.

I think technology is still progressing in many areas like in the USB arena where all was thought to be fine until we found out about jitter problems and low voktage PSU noise interfering with the isolation or stability of the jitter..
I am making a general statements there but feel technology can continue to refine.

I think the journey of the hobbiest is wide and we need to be patient with those that not want or able to have a grasp on the technicalities.


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> A good suggestion is to find members who have same preferences and hear similarly to you, then find what is their experience.



I find that I can learn as much from people with different tastes as those I share preferences with, but they have to be able to express why they prefer what they prefer. If all that mattered was preferences, then I wouldn't have to listen to anyone else at all. I would just "like" something because I "like" it.


----------



## PointyFox

For highly priced stuff that doesn't make a difference in sound quality like amps, DACs, and cables, I just buy what I like the look and feel of.


----------



## JaeYoon

PointyFox said:


> For highly priced stuff that doesn't make a difference in sound quality like amps, DACs, and cables, I just buy what I like the look and feel of.


TBH I also bought the Campfire Andromeda also because of it's awesome green paint. It looks really good in person when sun reflects off the anodizing.


----------



## bigshot

PointyFox said:


> For highly priced stuff that doesn't make a difference in sound quality like amps, DACs, and cables, I just buy what I like the look and feel of.



I focus on convenience and features. Generally, that doesn't require paying a lot.


----------



## PointyFox

JaeYoon said:


> TBH I also bought the Campfire Andromeda also because of it's awesome green paint. It looks really good in person when sun reflects off the anodizing.



"For highly priced stuff that doesn't make a difference in sound quality like amps, DACs, and cables".  Where did I mention that the transducers didn't make a difference in sound quality? They make the MOST difference in sound quality.


----------



## Maxx134

PointyFox said:


> For highly priced stuff that doesn't make a difference in sound quality like amps, DACs, and cables, I just buy what I like the look and feel of.


I had the Chord Mojo, and then the iFiMicroBL, and then settled for the way cheaper "xDuoo XD-5", which to me was truley just as good and way more practical.
Sometimes we learn the hard way at expense of our wallets...


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 31, 2018)

Can anyone point me to a test on headphone cable?

Of All the abx & blind tests I have seen, I haven't noticed any that involve headphone cable.

I believe this area is a reason where people still believe cables matter.

I am thinking the culprit may be the headphone impedance interaction to the amp..
For instance , the HD800 midrange changes with higher impedance amp.

Most dynamic headphones have driver motor being basically inductive coil would have impedance vary according to frequency and so amp damping factor come into play.

Planar headphones don't get away with issues as they may be constant impedance over frequency but always demanding and sounding better with more power so they tax the amp.

I see wire issues as actual component issues, but with headphone cable there may be more interaction at play.

I have opened expensive silver cable (silver dragon), that upon inspection was so severely thin wire (to get away with touting silver) that I was shocked and certain that a good gauge copper would been better.
It was such a thin strand that it looked thinner than IEM cable. Like one fourth thickness.
Sad.


----------



## ExpatinJapan

Gentlemen. If I may summarize the banter up to this point of the discussion.


 

Carry on chaps. God speed!


----------



## castleofargh (Aug 31, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> Can anyone point me to a test on headphone cable?
> 
> Of All the abx & blind tests I have seen, I haven't noticed any that involve headphone cable.
> 
> ...


it's complicated because you can hardly set up a condition that will be considered representative of using headphones in general.
when dealing with interconnect cables, the possible variables involved will tend to be constrained around a standard. so changing the DAC for another one is unlikely to create massive changes in stuff like impedance or voltage output. same thing for amplifiers' input. there are variations of course, but they tend to stay in the range of a few thousand ohm. 10kohm is a fairly common input value. nobody is going to complain if you use that to test the cable coming out of a DAC. it's much easier to set up a system, measure it and extrapolate that the results will probably align with most other gears while using those interconnect cables.
it's also much easier to determine that something is wrong with a cable as we already know what standard it's supposed to follow.

but with headphones and amplifier outputs, the range of specs can possibly span over several magnitudes. the output of a headphone amplifier can go from maybe a tenth of a ohm to more than a hundred ohm. a headphone can be 600ohm or super small. I remember the Momentum to be around 18ohm. and it goes as low as a handful of ohm for some IEMs.
so from a headphone cable's perspective, this is real close to total chaos. you can have anything and everything on each side and if you know anything about electrical circuits, you know they all interact.  which set up should we pick that could possibly count as a representative of standard headphone cable use? the very lose standard on this only suggests impedance bridging, so picking a low impedance amplifier and a relatively high headphone impedance. but that's the one situations where cables are really unlikely to affect sound significantly. because it's a stable situation where cable variations will stay small relatively to the headphone's own specs, minimizing the actual electrical impact.

but the IEM world gives zero frack about impedance bridging. and there are still amplifiers so unstable with low impedance loads that even 1ohm or 2 added or removed from a cable could end up having a noticeable impact with extreme IEMs. and with the renewed hatred for negative feedback without really understanding why, we're getting even some "modern" amplifiers with fairly high impedance.

that leaves us with cherry picking the setup we will measure and under such conditions, we can make the measurements at the output of the headphone/IEM say pretty much anything we like so long as we put enough care in picking them for that purpose. not super legit science. ^_^
we could also measure the cable alone, but as most possible impacts on sound will come from the interaction with the amp and headphone, it's not going to mean anything to audiophiles. having the gauge and material is probably going to tell you almost as much.


----------



## JaeYoon (Aug 31, 2018)

PointyFox said:


> "For highly priced stuff that doesn't make a difference in sound quality like amps, DACs, and cables".  Where did I mention that the transducers didn't make a difference in sound quality? They make the MOST difference in sound quality.


To make things clear I meant to quote the second half of your post. No way am I saying transducers do not make any difference.


----------



## castleofargh

ExpatinJapan said:


> Gentlemen. If I may summarize the banter up to this point of the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Carry on chaps. God speed!


no that only summarizes the strawman pushed all the time by extremists(on both sides, they're ultimately very similar people). they have no evidence or scientific knowledge to support their own claims, so they put their efforts in trying to discredit the opposite side and making it look as irrational and extreme as they are themselves.


----------



## JaeYoon

After a while, I no longer an axe to grind against cables. I'm probably going to end up joining both camps.

I've purchased some 3rd party audio cables for my earphones and they can have different changes in the source frequency, but that is due to the specs of the earphone that were designed, and the differences for the specs of the hardware that is connected. 

But for headphones that isn't as sensitive with low ohm/impedance and a good match to an amp that, any small differences between my 3.5mm aftermarket cables could probably exist but I cannot pick them up for certainty.

I think this debate is kinda silly now. There's too much stuff we need to know before we can make judgements on people's hardware.

When someone says audio cables do make a difference, we need to know what kind of headphones/earphones they have/
What loads are their amp pushing out, what are the specs of the audio cable that resistance, etc. There is just too many variables to say something like well they make no differences, I wouldn't even know until I make measurements on the audio cable itself and see if it really is similar to manufacturer's specifications.


----------



## PointyFox

It ultimately comes down to one side telling the other to prove that something DOESN'T exist, which is impossible. 

"According to what we know about physics and biology, there shouldn't be an audible difference except in the following cases:...”

"My case doesn't apply and I hear a clear  difference in the PRAT, dryness, and plankton. It might be due to magic, which science doesn't cover. Prove magic doesn't exist"


----------



## sonitus mirus

JaeYoon said:


> After a while, I no longer an axe to grind against cables. I'm probably going to end up joining both camps.
> 
> I've purchased some 3rd party audio cables for my earphones and they can have different changes in the source frequency, but that is due to the specs of the earphone that were designed, and the differences for the specs of the hardware that is connected.
> 
> ...



That is why it makes sense to claim that there is no difference unless the measurements would indicate it.  Show us the properties, and we can do the math and find the potential signal loss or cutoff frequency or any other characteristic that might impact that performance.   Since this data is rarely ever provided by those making such claims, I can only reply by stating that no difference should be heard unless something is defective or improper for the intended use.  We would need to know more details to find out what is inappropriate or inadequate.  

 If tiny transducers are impacted by using various cables, this can be measured and would not fall under the topic where we are mostly discussing outrageous claims where silver vs copper with a 1 meter interconnect from a source to DAC or DAC to amp lifts veils and widens the soundstage or makes things more peachy and musical.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> Can anyone point me to a test on headphone cable?



Have you checked the first post in the Testing Audiophiles Myths thread? A wire is a wire. I don't see how a headphone cable would have different physics than an interconnect. As long as you're using the type of wire that the equipment was designed to be used with, all cables should be equal and none can be any better than each other. It's kind of obvious that using a defective or improper cable can sound worse, but that goes without saying. Thankfully, all you have to do is go to Amazon or Monoprice and there's an abundance of different kinds of cables that can do the job for a few bucks apiece.



JaeYoon said:


> When someone says audio cables do make a difference, we need to know what kind of headphones/earphones they have



I think it would be pretty safe to generalize that as far as the conducting of electricity goes, the wire that came with the cans is probably as good as you can do. If you want fancy cloth coverings or gold plated hardware, that would be the only reason to choose a third party cable. I really don't care much about that jewelry stuff myself.


----------



## moriez (Aug 31, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> no difference should be heard unless something is defective or improper for the intended use.



Apologies if I'm really off from understanding the matter. It's that @bigshot responded earlier along those lines so I've become curious about if the above implies that you do not hear differences between whatever gear you're using. Or does it mean you do hear differences but it's unlogical to you because for example measurements or some type of research indicates there should be no differences?

@bigshot, please feel free to reply. Could have asked you the same.


----------



## JaeYoon (Aug 31, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> That is why it makes sense to claim that there is no difference unless the measurements would indicate it.  Show us the properties, and we can do the math and find the potential signal loss or cutoff frequency or any other characteristic that might impact that performance.   Since this data is rarely ever provided by those making such claims, I can only reply by stating that no difference should be heard unless something is defective or improper for the intended use.  We would need to know more details to find out what is inappropriate or inadequate.
> 
> If tiny transducers are impacted by using various cables, this can be measured and would not fall under the topic where we are mostly discussing outrageous claims where silver vs copper with a 1 meter interconnect from a source to DAC or DAC to amp lifts veils and widens the soundstage or makes things more peachy and musical.


I should've been more clear.
Yes, my statement is just for the various cables effects for tiny transducers, sensitive ones especially like Andromeda's graphs can cause it's measurements to change.
It has for instance
10Hz–28 kHz Frequency Response
112.8 dB SPL/mW Sensitivity
12.8 Ohms @ 1kHz Impedance
Most of my portable headphones do not even have anywhere near as low as 12.8 ohms.

But as you mentioned, about copper vs silver, I certainly do not uphold silver vs copper or gold purity anti-oxygen, or push that gold plated cables an such increase warmth and accuracy, makes treble sparkle without being too hot, increase soundstage and fresh breath of air, etc.


----------



## PointyFox (Aug 31, 2018)

I think the only change you'll find is due to different resistance.
I have Andromedas and I think higher resistance cables decrease the bass and make the treble response peaky.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 31, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Have you checked the first post in the Testing Audiophiles Myths thread? A wire is a wire. I don't see how a headphone cable would have different physics than an interconnect


Not yet,
But I did check the (AES Dam lies) link in your sig and found it VERY good and a vid all should check out.

The difference I believe with headphone cable is the long length of thin wire.
Sort of vulnerable to issues like microphone cable deals with, but solve with their winding and XLR format.
Unfortunately I can only mention that as speculation for possible reasons as to why.
Otherwise we would have to conclude insanity lol.



JaeYoon said:


> Yes, my statement is just for the various cables effects for tiny transducers


Tiny wire can introduce resistance.
I measured a super tiny wire that HD800 has between the interconnect and the driver, which had measurable resistance..



PointyFox said:


> think the only change you'll find is due to different resistance


No the video Big shot has in his sig points out aspects that are measurable in null testing and I believe crosstalk and noise may play a factor depending on length and how it braided or wound.
Since I not a cable manufacturer I cannot state any conclusion just point out possibilities.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 31, 2018)

moriez said:


> Apologies if I'm really off from understanding the matter. It's that @bigshot responded earlier along those lines so I've become curious about if the above implies that you do not hear differences between whatever gear you're using.



Yes, every cable, amp, DAC and player I own sounds the same. I have a carefully calibrated system. I am very picky about EQ. I need all of my equipment to be audibly transparent, otherwise I would need to have a different calibration for each unit in the system. Whenever I buy a new piece of gear, I do a comparison test with other equipment I already own. I've done this with a high end headphone amp all the way down to a $40 Walmart DVD player. If I buy anything that isn't audibly transparent and it sounds different, I will box it up and send it back as defective. It's been decades now and I've haven't had to do that yet. Midrange equipment is very consistent and dependable. I don't see any need to go to the extremes of the market. Super high end stuff is for people who view their equipment as status symbols. That isn't me.

Of course this doesn't apply to transducers. Speakers and headphones do sound audibly different, even from sample to sample of the same make and model. But transducers are the end of the chain. Everything upstream is calibrated to suit them. When I buy new speakers, I spend a week or two recalibrating.


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> I measured a super tiny wire that HD800 has between the interconnect and the driver, which had measurable resistance.



Measurable doesn't necessarily mean audible. We can measure far further than we can hear. To make sense of measurements, you need to relate them to the specs of human hearing. Very few audiophiles have any clue about the thresholds of perception in the areas that are measured in home audio. Just about every home audio electronics you can buy exceeds our ability to hear by an order of magnitude or more. People who worry about cables sounding different point to measurements that no human could detect.


----------



## sonitus mirus

moriez said:


> Apologies if I'm really off from understanding the matter. It's that @bigshot responded earlier along those lines so I've become curious about if the above implies that you do not hear differences between whatever gear you're using. Or does it mean you do hear differences but it's unlogical to you because for example measurements or some type of research indicates there should be no differences?
> 
> @bigshot, please feel free to reply. Could have asked you the same.



It means that any differences with audio between two non-defective cables that are well within the design specifications of the intended application are typically magnitudes below human hearing perception.  This can be validated through math if the device(s) and cable properties are available, and also by measuring the audio output when possible.  Where differences are being heard and verified through blind testing, the corresponding measurements or audio capture should also clearly indicate that a difference should be identifiable. 

When someone claims to hear differences but offers no method to validate their findings, it cannot be assumed any difference is actually being identified.  If the claim is extraordinary, and the choices are either a defective item or superhuman powers of perception that have never been validated in all of history, I'm going to assume something is broken, a mistake was made, or an item used was improper for the intended purpose.


----------



## 439598

Whitigir said:


> To answer your question.  I am convinced myself that Cables make the differences, because I can make it myself, and I can make it into whatever I want at prices I want which is much cheaper than expensive cables vendors.  Even the cheapest cables I make that is with quality materials, will still sound better than any stock cables can provide.
> 
> So...no, you can not convince people of something that is not real
> 
> Also, yes, Cables has different characteristics that can synergize with your systems in a positive or a negative results depend on personal preferences, which, not all 3rd expensive vendor can customize either


You're using a silver USB cable? see that's the problem on here, main audio cables difference are fairly obvious to you and me but at the end of the day its the quality of the signal passing through thats going to determine the significance of these differences. Convincing ''non-believers'' of the obvious things like speaker/headphone cable differences is very difficult for a few reasons. You are usually dealing with extremely stubborn narrow-minded mentalities, sometimes hearing abilities that arent at the same level as yourself which is unfortunate... but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables. 

How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components for them to go and hear what a proper system should sound like? none because it seems like if someone even mentions this idea to them they'll blacklist them and label them as delusional, the only opportunity they have is to test themselves but with all the other possible limitations in there system it would be easy for them to notice nothing and become even more hardened in the belief that cables dont matter.


----------



## PointyFox (Sep 2, 2018)

Acke said:


> You're using a silver USB cable? see that's the problem on here, main audio cables difference are fairly obvious to you and me but at the end of the day its the quality of the signal passing through thats going to determine the significance of these differences. Convincing ''non-believers'' of the obvious things like speaker/headphone cable differences is very difficult for a few reasons. You are usually dealing with extremely stubborn narrow-minded mentalities, sometimes hearing abilities that arent at the same level as yourself which is unfortunate... but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables.
> 
> How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components for them to go and hear what a proper system should sound like? none because it seems like if someone even mentions this idea to them they'll blacklist them and label them as delusional, the only opportunity they have is to test themselves but with all the other possible limitations in there system it would be easy for them to notice nothing and become even more hardened in the belief that cables dont matter.



You're using a standard USB cable? see that's the problem on here, main audio cables difference doesn't exist to you and me but at the end of the day its the price of the system that matters. Convincing ''believers'' of the obvious things like no speaker/headphone cable differences is very difficult for a few reasons. You are usually dealing with extremely stubborn narrow-minded mentalities, sometimes hearing abilities that arent at the same level as yourself which is unfortunate... but most important is how the cost of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised that audio cable quality doesn't matter.

How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components not making a difference for them to go and hear what a cost effective system sounds like? none because it seems like if someone even mentions this idea to them they'll blacklist them and label them as delusional, the only opportunity they have is to test themselves but with all the other highly priced junk in there system it would be easy for them to buy even more random crap and become even more hardened in the belief that cables matter.


----------



## moriez (Sep 2, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Yes, every cable, amp, DAC and player I own sounds the same. I have a carefully calibrated system. I am very picky about EQ. I need all of my equipment to be audibly transparent, otherwise I would need to have a different calibration for each unit in the system. Whenever I buy a new piece of gear, I do a comparison test with other equipment I already own. I've done this with a high end headphone amp all the way down to a $40 Walmart DVD player. *If I buy anything that isn't audibly transparent and it sounds different, I will box it up and send it back as defective. It's been decades now and I've haven't had to do that yet.* Midrange equipment is very consistent and dependable.



Thanks. Glad I asked. I've read your reply a dozen times to be as sure as possible it's as simple as it seems. My translation of what you're saying is that in the many years you're involved you have not been able to tell any difference between two pieces of the same type of equipment, transducers excluded. Am I right? Genuinely like to know because my personal experience is so radically different.


----------



## moriez (Sep 2, 2018)

sonitus mirus said:


> It means that any differences with audio between two non-defective cables that are well within the design specifications of the intended application are typically magnitudes below human hearing perception.  This can be validated through math if the device(s) and cable properties are available, and also by measuring the audio output when possible.  Where differences are being heard and verified through blind testing, the corresponding measurements or audio capture should also clearly indicate that a difference should be identifiable.
> 
> When someone claims to hear differences but offers no method to validate their findings, it cannot be assumed any difference is actually being identified.  If the claim is extraordinary, and the choices are either a defective item or superhuman powers of perception that have never been validated in all of history, I'm going to assume something is broken, a mistake was made, or an item used was improper for the intended purpose.



Thank you, I get an idea of what you're saying. One part that grabs my attention is what seems to be a main theme in the sound science forum. A default deny policy? Perceived differences between correctly build cables, maybe also amps and DACs in your case, can be ruled out as a cause of the equipment because these are typically below human hearing capability and two, people who claim they can hear differences will have a very hard time being taken seriously if unable to back up the claim with measurements, proper blind test or whatever other data. Correct me if I'm wrong. Trying to get an angle.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Acke said:


> You're using a silver USB cable? see that's the problem on here, main audio cables difference are fairly obvious to you and me but at the end of the day its the quality of the signal passing through thats going to determine the significance of these differences. Convincing ''non-believers'' of the obvious things like speaker/headphone cable differences is very difficult for a few reasons. You are usually dealing with extremely stubborn narrow-minded mentalities, sometimes hearing abilities that arent at the same level as yourself which is unfortunate... but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables.
> 
> How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components for them to go and hear what a proper system should sound like? none because it seems like if someone even mentions this idea to them they'll blacklist them and label them as delusional, the only opportunity they have is to test themselves but with all the other possible limitations in there system it would be easy for them to notice nothing and become even more hardened in the belief that cables dont matter.




You're forgetting something:  USBs transmit the sound in digital format.  Ones and Zeros do not care whether the conductor is copper, silver, gold, or imaginationum.


----------



## castleofargh

Acke said:


> You're using a silver USB cable? see that's the problem on here, main audio cables difference are fairly obvious to you and me but at the end of the day its the quality of the signal passing through thats going to determine the significance of these differences. Convincing ''non-believers'' of the obvious things like speaker/headphone cable differences is very difficult for a few reasons. You are usually dealing with extremely stubborn narrow-minded mentalities, sometimes hearing abilities that arent at the same level as yourself which is unfortunate... but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables.
> 
> How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components for them to go and hear what a proper system should sound like? none because it seems like if someone even mentions this idea to them they'll blacklist them and label them as delusional, the only opportunity they have is to test themselves but with all the other possible limitations in there system it would be easy for them to notice nothing and become even more hardened in the belief that cables dont matter.


what you say isn't completely irrelevant because indeed, we all tend to orbit around our own "tribes of beliefs". and of course when I already believe that cable shouldn't cost much and that they won't make big differences unless one is defective in some way, I will not go try an endless list of fancy cables. which in turn will inevitably give me fewer opportunities to stumble upon something with a big influence on sound. in all those respects, you're right. we seek different stuff and so we find different stuff. 

now what really causes that dichotomy in how we live, think and act on this hobby in your opinion? because to me it's absolutely obvious. you consider the anecdote of your sighted impressions as proof that cables make big changes. I experience the same anecdotes but I have higher standards as to what constitutes evidence. that's really it.
first I don't leave things to sighted impressions as I've had a great many opportunities to confirm that I'm very apt at fooling myself with sighted impressions. with controlled listening, I confirmed that the differences were usually smaller than what I thought they were. often times I wouldn't be able to tell anything at all once I got the ability to switch almost instantly between cables. and a few times, I did end up with audible differences, demonstrated, validated, proved thanks to those controlled listening. so when I say "I know there was an audible difference", it's not just me agreeing with my own ego about sighted impressions. my confidence comes from proper confirmation. 
so I move on to the next step, measuring stuff to find out what's going on now that I know the differences I'm left with aren't just placebo and garbage testing methods. 
measurements always got me to rapidly find some significant differences in such situations. maybe half of them were a slight change in loudness(meaning that once compensated I couldn't tell them apart anymore). a bunch were simply defective cables and even just a multimeter would have usually told me that much if I had started there. and a handful of times, circumstances made one cable with special characteristics better(objectively and/or subjectively) than the typical cheap standard cable. some matter of shielding with a particularly picky amp, some of the stuff I already mentioned with IEMs and crossovers. some USB cable that would really improve the measured signal because of some ferrite bead or whatever. all in all, I still only have a few such anecdotes where either the original cable was bad and a measurements would have confirmed it, or the circumstances created the particular demand for a special cable. this last situation brings us back to your remark. when I realized that some gear was overly sensitive to something(AKA unstable), unless it really cost too much money I systematically got rid of it. because to me, save for a few unavoidable circumstances, obvious changes in behavior is a sign of bad design. but to some audiophile on a quest for change, the same unstable gear will most likely be seen as great. the guy could perhaps think something along the lines of "it's so good and detailed, it even reveals the differences in cables". most likely the device is just not that well designed. but in such situation, we are very likely to see the same experience interpreted differently by different people.

for each of those confirmed anecdotes, I've had tens of cheap cables working to spec and letting me measure stuff to the limit of my measurement devices and probably beyond if I had a better ADC. so if in the vast majority of cases, the impact between cables is too small to be noticed by me, why would I run around telling people to believe that cables make a significant difference or that they should go buy special sorts or brands? that wouldn't be me depicting my understanding and experience. that would be me using weird anecdotes as if they were the norm. I don't like people saying that cables can't impact the sound, because that's false and I've had actual experience disproving such a universal claim. but I believe that making a big deal about special cables because of anecdotes is just as bad.


----------



## castleofargh

moriez said:


> Thanks. Glad I asked. I've read your reply a dozen times to be as sure as possible it's as simple as it seems. My translation of what you're saying is that in the many years you're involved you have not been able to tell any difference between two pieces of the same type of equipment, transducers excluded. Am I right? Genuinely like to know because my personal experience is so radically different.


perhaps a relevant addendum to this. @bigshot is the type to purchase things by following a few sets of specs, basic guidelines and habits. and like several people around here(me included), those prerequisites will significantly reduce the chance for big extraordinary stuff to happen.
there is also the mentality of course. if someone tries 5 cables and only one sounds different, maybe that person will get interested in the "unique" cable. I can't talk in bigshot's name, but most certainly I would by default consider that cable defective and go pick among the 4 others. I'd need to see objective measurements(my own or someone else's) suggesting superiority before believing that an ugly duckling is in fact the beautiful swan in that group. and I would use the same logic for most gears. 

but I admit that the end result has some air of self fulfilling prophesy for both view points.


----------



## 439598 (Sep 2, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> what you say isn't completely irrelevant because indeed, we all tend to orbit around our own "tribes of beliefs". and of course when I already believe that cable shouldn't cost much and that they won't make big differences unless one is defective in some way, I will not go try an endless list of fancy cables. which in turn will inevitably give me fewer opportunities to stumble upon something with a big influence on sound. in all those respects, you're right. we seek different stuff and so we find different stuff.
> 
> now what really causes that dichotomy in how we live, think and act on this hobby in your opinion? because to me it's absolutely obvious. you consider the anecdote of your sighted impressions as proof that cables make big changes. I experience the same anecdotes but I have higher standards as to what constitutes evidence. that's really it.
> first I don't leave things to sighted impressions as I've had a great many opportunities to confirm that I'm very apt at fooling myself with sighted impressions. with controlled listening, I confirmed that the differences were usually smaller than what I thought they were. often times I wouldn't be able to tell anything at all once I got the ability to switch almost instantly between cables. and a few times, I did end up with audible differences, demonstrated, validated, proved thanks to those controlled listening. so when I say "I know there was an audible difference", it's not just me agreeing with my own ego about sighted impressions. my confidence comes from proper confirmation.
> ...


I do appreciate the well written and civilised response but Id just like to correct you on one thing:''*you consider the anecdote of your sighted impressions as proof that cables make big changes*'' with the exception of power cables (due to specific reasons not worth getting into) I have successly blind tested all cables to confirm if the differences I thought I heard existed (I was in the same position as you less than year ago and had to prove to myself). it involved having a friend switch cables and then guessing which one, for headphone cables it wasnt even require to switch, after having spent time listening to both cables in a normal environment to particular tracks the character of each were already obvious to me so I could tell almost instantly. the same process with RCA and USB,  these were a bit more difficult but still easy after some practice.... To me these tests were easier than 320 kbps MP3 vs lossless.

I have no proof of course (not sure how you could provide proof of that) so this post is basically worthless to anyone who doesnt already ''believe'' in cables, It just doesnt seem right to not say this when I went to all that trouble to test in the first place.

I bet a lot of people who actually claim to hear the difference could pass a blind test *with their own cables that they have spent a while listening to on their own system with their own choice of tracks in a comfortable, pressure free environment*


----------



## 439598

castleofargh said:


> now what really causes that dichotomy in how we live, think and act on this hobby in your opinion? because to me it's absolutely obvious. you consider the anecdote of your sighted impressions as proof that cables make big changes. I experience the same anecdotes but I have higher standards as to what constitutes evidence. that's really it.


Also I never claimed the changes were big, the changes are in fact quite small, any of the inferior cables could deliver the signal with about 95% accuracy at worst (not easy to quantify so dont take that figure too seriously), My worst cable is the stock HD650 cable and this is still a great cable! Even though the differences are fairly small they are some of the most valuable and critical to truely realistic sound reproduction.


----------



## castleofargh

moriez said:


> Thank you, I get an idea of what you're saying. One part that grabs my attention is what seems to be a main theme in the sound science forum. A default deny policy? Perceived differences between correctly build cables, maybe also amps and DACs in your case, can be ruled out as a cause of the equipment because these are typically below human hearing capability and two, people who claim they can hear differences will have a very hard time being taken seriously if unable to back up the claim with measurements, proper blind test or whatever other data. Correct me if I'm wrong. Trying to get an angle.


that's mostly healthy skepticism and in some ways, what science would suggest to do. 
1/ we're on the web. so when someone says "trust me I heard a difference", I don't believe it's a lack of respect to have solid reservations. ^_^
2/ most people claim sound differences, but didn't get those impressions in a controlled experiment. often they could be right, and sometimes they could be wrong for various reasons such as bias, preconception, poorly set up test... again, it's just more practical to reject everything until some evidence of the event is provided. fact based interpretations can only start once we've confirmed that we're indeed in the presence of a fact. 
3/ we tend to approach an experiment with the null hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it or have someone attempt to disprove it(depending on who's doing the experiment). why? well, it can be very hard or often impossible to prove that we're right. but we can usually prove that we're wrong about a well set hypothesis. disproving the null hypothesis when 2 cables sound different is actually pretty easy to do. we just have to be able to tell them apart by ear. as the claim is about different sound, looking at them or knowing in advance obviously can't prove anything about sound. 

 we all get mad when we're treated like fools or liars. I take such accusations very very poorly. people don't like me when I'm told that I'm a liar. so I very much get the typical hatred for this section and our ready to reject attitude.
but calling people fools or liars is not what's going on here. it's really all about a practical way to sort things out. maybe people would get along better if they could just understand that with science no theory is final. and a theory is what we're most confident about.
when we reject something, we only reject it until new evidence makes us reconsider the fact and obviously the conclusion if the new facts challenges it. I wouldn't say that everybody acting all Sound Sciency will always be able to put his ego aside and retract his position when presented with legitimate reasons to do so. on each side of any argument, some people really care about winning, that just another bias in humans. but many here will reconsider because that's how we were taught to reason. that's how we go to bed a little less wrong than the day before, and many people care about that. it would be strange to care about objective reality and not want to know when we were wrong about it. at least that's how I feel.


----------



## moriez

castleofargh said:


> *obvious changes in behavior is a sign of bad design.* but to some audiophile on a quest for change, the same unstable gear will most likely be seen as great. the guy could perhaps think something along the lines of "it's so good and detailed, it even reveals the differences in cables". most likely the device is just not that well designed. *but in such situation, we are very likely to see the same experience interpreted differently by different people*.



Good read! I like how you make an effort to show the two sides of the story. Noteworthy is that most of us will not discover if gear is unstable on the condition it does not obviously fail. What you on any given day conclude to be badly designed audibly different equipment because of your much deeper interest in the technical background and throw out of the collection as a result, doesn't even come close to crossing most of Head-Fi's minds. I know better but let me speak for myself when I say I want changes, to search, to find, to tweak. Not caring the least for what measurements are like or if it's build within spec etc. 

For me this offers a clear new perspective which if I'm not being too incomplete about it brings me a step closer to understanding where some of you are coming from. On that note, would you say that ''_obvious changes in behavior is a sign of bad design_'' is a defining mindset in the sound science forum and/or objectivist spirit?


----------



## castleofargh

Acke said:


> I do appreciate the well written and civilised response but Id just like to correct you on one thing:''*you consider the anecdote of your sighted impressions as proof that cables make big changes*'' with the exception of power cables (due to specific reasons not worth getting into) I have successly blind tested all cables to confirm if the differences I thought I heard existed (I was in the same position as you less than year ago and had to prove to myself). it involved having a friend switch cables and then guessing which one, for headphone cables it wasnt even require to switch, after having spent time listening to both cables in a normal environment to particular tracks the character of each were already obvious to me so I could tell almost instantly. the same process with RCA and USB,  these were a bit more difficult but still easy after some practice.... To me these tests were easier than 320 kbps MP3 vs lossless.
> 
> I have no proof of course (not sure how you could provide proof of that) so this post is basically worthless to anyone who doesnt already ''believe'' in cables, It just doesnt seem right to not say this when I went to all that trouble to test in the first place.
> 
> I bet a lot of people who actually claim to hear the difference could pass a blind test *with their own cables that they have spent a while listening to on their own system with their own choice of tracks in a comfortable, pressure free environment*


if you tell me you heard something and specify nothing, I'll assume that it was a sighted test and as such that your impressions is irrelevant. not because it's always wrong, but because no control means no way to confirm anything. 
but if you tell me you heard a difference in a blind test, maybe that's really gullible of me, but I'll usually trust you.


----------



## castleofargh

Acke said:


> Also I never claimed the changes were big, the changes are in fact quite small, any of the inferior cables could deliver the signal with about 95% accuracy at worst (not easy to quantify so dont take that figure too seriously), My worst cable is the stock HD650 cable and this is still a great cable! Even though the differences are fairly small they are some of the most valuable and critical to truely realistic sound reproduction.


my bad on that one, I pushed you into the extremist box for no reason. and I appreciate anybody who will stay clear form bight and day declarations.

lol if I could just write a little faster, this page would be a chat instead of a forum ^_^.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> if you tell me you heard something and specify nothing, I'll assume that it was a sighted test and as such that your impressions is irrelevant. not because it's always wrong, but because no control means no way to confirm anything.
> but if you tell me you heard a difference in a blind test, maybe that's really gullible of me, but I'll usually trust you.



This has been my position all along.  I will add the caveat that if the circumstances appear to be unusual and outside of established science, I would attribute any difference being identified as to improper use, a defective device/cable, or the information provided was incorrect.

Clearly, a difference is more likely to arise between an amplifier and transducers and care should be taken to make certain the cable is within specifications with regards to the application.

I don't think many of the people that claim to hear differences with short interconnects truly understand the mathematics involved with the cable properties and how they interact with our hearing ability of an audio signal.


----------



## Arpiben

As a regular subway commuter I noticed that more and more users are having Bluetooth headphones, in other words wireless and no cables.
How long will it take until we start having threads dealing with 'air' quality or 'air' purifiers for Bluetooth waves propagate better and as such enhance the sound quality ?
How long will it take for sellers to develop sprays or special clothings ?
Well, just wondering....


----------



## sonitus mirus

Arpiben said:


> As a regular subway commuter I noticed that more and more users are having Bluetooth headphones, in other words wireless and no cables.
> How long will it take until we start having threads dealing with 'air' quality or 'air' purifiers for Bluetooth waves propagate better and as such enhance the sound quality ?
> How long will it take for sellers to develop sprays or special clothings ?
> Well, just wondering....


A dehumidifier or space heater might impact the sound more than a cable change, so you may be on to something.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Arpiben said:


> As a regular subway commuter I noticed that more and more users are having Bluetooth headphones, in other words wireless and no cables.
> How long will it take until we start having threads dealing with 'air' quality or 'air' purifiers for Bluetooth waves propagate better and as such enhance the sound quality ?
> How long will it take for sellers to develop sprays or special clothings ?
> Well, just wondering....




I for one will never know.  I will remain hardwire for as long as possible.


----------



## colonelkernel8

TheSonicTruth said:


> I for one will never know.  I will remain hardwire for as long as possible.


Why?


----------



## gregorio

Maxx134 said:


> [1] I think technology is still progressing in many areas like in the USB arena where all was thought to be fine until we found out about jitter problems and low voktage PSU noise interfering with the isolation or stability of the jitter..
> [2] I am making a general statements there but feel technology can continue to refine.



1. We didn't invent USB and thought all was well until we found out about jitter problems and PSU noise. We knew of jitter problems and PSU noise at least 20 years before USB was even invented!

2. True but that's no longer relevant and hasn't been for a number of years. Once technology refinement exceeds the limits of audibility, any further refinement is by definition, inaudible. For example, even cheap DACs achieve jitter rejection to at least 500 times below audibility. Modern technology refinements has in some cases "refined" jitter rejection to about 10,000 times below audibility but obviously that makes no audible difference whatsoever. The only real difference it makes is to marketing, where a better jitter spec can be used to justify a higher price (as long as you don't mention that it's utterly inaudible)! This is all even more irrelevant as far as cables are concerned because cables are a much older technology, have had more than a century of refinement and are incredibly well understood as virtually every facet of the modern world depends in some way upon them.



Maxx134 said:


> The difference I believe with headphone cable is the long length of thin wire. Sort of vulnerable to issues like microphone cable deals with, but solve with their winding and XLR format.



Nope, nothing at all like the issues a mic cable has to deal with. Relative to typical mic cables, a headphone cable is not a "long length", it's the opposite, a very short length, unless you happen to have a headphone cable 20m or more in length? Additionally, a mic signal is typically at least 100 times lower in level than the signal your headphone cable is transferring and it has to be massively amplified, which obviously amplifies any interference/distortion occurring at the mic or in the mic cable. So, the difference is vast and balanced XLR is essential for most mic cables but irrelevant for short (say 2m or 3m), high signal level, headphone cables. This has all been discussed not that many pages ago.

G


----------



## gregorio (Sep 3, 2018)

moriez said:


> [1] One part that grabs my attention is what seems to be a main theme in the sound science forum. A default deny policy?
> [2] ... people who claim they can hear differences will have a very hard time being taken seriously if unable to back up the claim with measurements, proper blind test or whatever other data. Correct me if I'm wrong.



1. That all depends on what we're talking about. This is the sound Science forum and therefore in those cases where we have an overwhelming amount of *reliable* evidence and none to the contrary, "a default deny policy" is the ONLY rational policy. For example, we have "a default deny policy" towards the earth being flat or gravity not existing. These two examples are easy to appreciate because everyone, with the exception of a small bunch of nutters, knows or accepts the scientific evidence. Furthermore, there's no financial incentive for anyone to challenge the "default deny policy" and therefore no marketing which attempts to fudge, confuse or question the "default deny policy". If there were, we would see a far larger number of people suckered by such marketing and questioning whether the Earth is flat and if gravity exists.

2. No need to correct you, it should be obvious that you are correct as this is the sound SCIENCE forum. This means that even with "measurements, proper blind tests or whatever other data" those people who claim audible differences would still have a fairly hard time being taken seriously! This is because we have many decades (in some areas much longer than a century) of measurements, proper blind tests and a wealth of other data carried out by numerous scientists, engineers and other professionals in the field/s. So an amateur who comes along, making claims which contradict the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence, IS going to have a hard time and not just because of all this overwhelming evidence but but also because there have been many amateurs who've made such claims during the last 3-4 decades and WITHOUT EXCEPTION, every single one of them has failed to demonstrate their claim when reliably tested!



Acke said:


> {1]... at the end of the day its the quality of the signal passing through thats going to determine the significance of these differences.
> [2] Convincing ''non-believers'' of the obvious things like speaker/headphone cable differences is very difficult for a few reasons. You are usually dealing with extremely stubborn narrow-minded mentalities,
> [3] sometimes hearing abilities that arent at the same level as yourself which is unfortunate ...
> [4] but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables.
> [5] How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components for them to go and hear what a proper system should sound like? none ...



1. Absolutely!

2. Again, absolutely! As you correctly stated in your previous sentence, it's all about the quality of the signal passing through the cable and we can very accurately measure the quality/fidelity of a signal. I am therefore extremely stubborn and narrow-minded when it comes to expensive audiophile cables, in exactly the same way that I'm extremely stubborn and narrow-minded when it comes to claims of the earth being flat, pigs flying and gravity not existing! Are you saying that you're not stubborn and narrow-minded about these things? *If not, how/why not?*

3. Yes, that is unfortunate. While I can't say for all individual cases, in general audiophiles tend to have differentiation hearing/perception abilities which are often at a LOWER LEVEL than even average members of the public and usually a significantly lower level than professional audio engineers. AFAIK, no one yet knows for sure exactly why this is, although it's been conjectured that some audiophiles' knowledge and acceptance of false audiophile marketing diminishes their ability to more objectively interpret their perception. As you say, this is "unfortunate" because if it wasn't the case then some of the audiophile myths would cease to exist and the vicious circle of outlandish audiophile marketing would be reduced or broken!

4. Who doesn't realise the importance of audio cables and who "completely overlooks other aspects of the system"?

5. Now you're just making up utter nonsense in a vain attempt to support your arguments/insults. That is an unwise tactic, it might work well in other sub-forums but NOT this one! I have acquaintances who believe in audiophile cables and ALL of them have/had the opportunity to hear what "a proper system should sound like". Your claim of "none" is therefore FALSE and in fact the exact opposite of true!!

Your post is just the same old audiophile nonsense which is rolled-out anytime an audiophile's biased perception is questioned and has been demonstrated time and again over decades to be false. The nonsense is effectively: "If you don't hear a difference it's because your equipment is too poor to resolve the difference or you are too deaf to hear it". In my (and many other) case/s, it's a safe bet that the equipment I'm used to is significantly better quality than yours and that my ability to identify and differentiate elements and differences in what I'm hearing/perceiving is substantially superior to yours. Your audiophile argument might sound reasonable to a newbie or other deluded audiophile/s but completely crumbles to dust when confronted by real high quality listening environments (such as high quality commercial recording studios) and the trained, experienced audio professionals who work in them!

G


----------



## 439598 (Sep 3, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 2. Again, absolutely! As you correctly stated in your previous sentence, it's all about the quality of the signal passing through the cable and we can very accurately measure the quality/fidelity of a signal. and I am therefore extremely stubborn and narrow-minded when it comes to expensive audiophile cables.
> 
> 3.  While I can't say for all individual cases, in general audiophiles tend to have differentiation hearing/perception abilities which are often at a LOWER LEVEL than even average members of the public and usually a significantly lower level than professional audio engineers.
> 
> ...


2. you may have missed my post about blind testing the cables but the 100% real differences between cables apparently arent measureable, so these very accurate measurements arent nearly accurate enough to detect the other, even more poorly understood, distortions in the original signal that me and many others are aware of,  distortions that are completely overlooked by you and others for this reason.
I havent spent a single penny on expensive cables, they are either stock cables or DIY cables made for a fraction of the cost of what some companies charge (you can build a cable that is good or even better than the most overpriced offerings for less than $100 in most cases with the right skills, knowledge and experience... please *do not* respond with the 'defective cable' nonsense, that is not the case here)

3. you are supposed to be the scientist here so dont bother with the weak generalisations to boost your argument, it looks desperate

4. you

5. ''*I have acquaintances who believe in audiophile cables and ALL of them have/had the opportunity to hear what "a proper system should sound like''*'' I think you misunderstood because your response doesnt make sense... the question was if *you *had the opportunity to hear the aquaintances system and if the answer is yes Id like the details of this system please... details of all the cables, the DAC, amp, source (for computer further details will be needed), any modifications.

it's ''a safe bet'' that im inferior to you in everyway that matters? again very scientific.... what is point in saying that? better to ignore and move on if that's what you have to resort to.
I feel like im being trolled here but I cant have my post broken down like that with such weak counterpoints from someone who seems to care more about being (or feeling) right than having meaningful discussion... and tbh I did not come here to argue anything, my OP was directed to another user to explain that even in the best scenario this argument is likely to lead nowhere or potentially backfire altogether, it was up to you ignore me or the very least spark some worthwhile discussion.


----------



## gregorio

Acke said:


> 2. you may have missed my post about blind testing the cables but the 100% real differences between cables apparently arent measureable, so these very accurate measurements arent nearly accurate enough to detect the other, even more poorly understood, distortions in the original signal that me and many others are aware of, distortions that are completely overlooked by you and others for this reason.
> 3. you are supposed to be the scientist here so dont bother with the weak generalisations to boost your argument, it looks desperate
> 4. you
> 5. I think you misunderstood because your response doesnt make sense... the question was if *you *had the opportunity to hear the aquaintances system ...



2. What poorly understood distortions? You're just making that up! It's easy to compare the exact same signal through two different cables and identify ANY and ALL the differences, to levels about 1,000 times below audibility. To be clear, there are NO signal distortions that are overlooked by me and others. You seem to think that your senses are somehow way beyond even the super-human. Can you see distant galaxies and individual bacteria with your naked eyes, hear distortions of a hundreth of a dB? Of course you can't, not anywhere even vaguely close!!

3. It's not desperate, it's science. In published controlled studies, audiophiles tend to do less well than members of the public, with musicians and audio engineers doing the best. Accusing someone else of being "desperate" is clearly just a cover for your own desperation.

4. You have some evidence that I don't think cables are important? No, of course you don't, you don't know anything about me, so you're just completely making up nonsense. More desperation?

5. That wasn't the question, the question was "_How many of them have friends or aquantainces who believe in not just audio cables but also digital cables, power cables and high quality components for them to go and hear what a proper system should sound like?_". If you're talking about what I've heard, then I've heard quite a few audiophile systems but audiophile systems rarely, if ever, qualify as "what a proper system should sound like", so your question doesn't make much sense. Certainly I've had the chance over the years to use and test some audiophile and many other types of cables. 



Acke said:


> [1] it's ''a safe bet'' that im inferior to you in everyway that matters?
> [2] again very scientific.... what is point in saying that?
> [2a] better to ignore and move on if that's what you have to resort to.



1. It's a safe bet that the equipment you're used to is inferior to the equipment and listening environments I'm used to. Do you have a multi-million dollar listening environment or routinely work in one? Have you been formally trained, educated and earned your living for 35 years based on your ability to analyse and identify what you're perceiving? 

2. Did you answer "yes" to both the questions in point 1? If not, then it was a "safe bet"!! On the other hand, your assertion that none of us have good enough equipment or ears to detect these differences was scientific was it? It wasn't even vaguely correct, let alone scientific!

2a. YOU'RE the one who brought it up and "resorted to" questioning to the quality of our equipment and ears and now you've been called out on it, your telling me that it's better to ignore and move on. Huh, how does that make sense to you? What would have made sense is if you'd not made up that nonsense in the first place!

G


----------



## 439598 (Sep 3, 2018)

gregorio said:


> 2. What poorly understood distortions? You're just making that up! It's easy to compare the exact same signal through two different cables and identify ANY and ALL the differences, to levels about 1,000 times below audibility. To be clear, there are NO signal distortions that are overlooked by me and others. You seem to think that your senses are somehow way beyond even the super-human. Can you see distant galaxies and individual bacteria with your naked eyes, hear distortions of a hundreth of a dB? Of course you can't, not anywhere even vaguely close!!
> 
> 3. It's not desperate, it's science. In published controlled studies, audiophiles tend to do less well than members of the public, with musicians and audio engineers doing the best. Accusing someone else of being "desperate" is clearly just a cover for your own desperation.
> 
> ...


2. the distortions that im hearing in blind tests and that many others can hear but cant back up

3. ''in general audiophiles tend to'' < based on your language it doesnt sound like this one mysterious study that conveniently works in your favour provides very solid evidence that audiophile have the worst hearing. studies can produce inaccurate findings of course, there is so much to question about that study but its totally irrelevant since I already mentioned the blind tests.

4. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other after all, to be clear what do you deem important when it comes to cables? conductor/plating, insulation, number of strands, solder, configuration (coax, zip, twisted pair etc.)? adequate wire gauge is already assumed.

5. maybe the question the was badly worded. can you just give provide some details of these systems youve listened to that contain very high quality (but not necessarily expensive) audio cables? did you compare with any of your own cables to confirm there was no difference? This discussion is about audio cables but more crazy examples of things like audiophile USB cable and power cords will also contribute to the quality of signal passing through the audio cable as I mentioned, you dont believe in this stuff but you telling that you listened to a system like this to confirm no difference in audio cables is what I'm expecting to hear.

section 2:
what is a listening environment and why does this matter for headphones? I listen through headphones in a very quiet location, all of my system is DIY or heavily modified, a lot of care and time has been put into to achieve the most realistic sound, this doesnt involve money.. it involves research, experimentation and dedication. even without DIY putting together a top level headphone system for a reasonable amount of money is possible for anyone today, 30 years ago this might not have been the case but its a different time now. from my perspective its not a safe bet.
I think your systems could be exceptionally good (better than mine even) in certain areas but lacking in other seemingly unimportant areas where as mine is consistently good in every single area. this is general statement but should apply to most, getting into specifics wouldnt be worth it.

_edit:fix error and typos due to rushed post earlier_


----------



## Whazzzup

how One convinces folks that audio cables dont matter by providing everyone only one cable so it won’t matter. Done and fixed


----------



## TheSonicTruth

colonelkernel8 said:


> Why?




Guaranteed the best sound possible, at all times.  Plus it's just common sense.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Acke said:


> 2. the distortions that im hearing in blind tests and that many others can hear but cant back up.



It might be worth considering that your DIY projects are not ideal if you really are able to hear differences between cables that are all well below any realistic ability for humans to identify.

What are the properties of some of the cables that you were able to identify differences between?  How about the equipment you were using?   What was the process that you used to conduct the blind testing?  If you were testing a 10,000-foot drum of 30 AWG twisted-pair phone wire and comparing it to a 3 foot 22 AWG stranded copper cable used to connect a pair of 600Ω headphones to an amp with a 75mW @600Ω rating, it would not be surprising.  Without providing more details, we can't continue this discussion in any meaningful manner.


----------



## Whazzzup

Again, one cable for all then, cables don’t matter cause they would be  all the same. Don’t matter 32 awg, 8 awg, type 2,4,6,8 Litz or no Litz. Silver, copper, cadmium, nickel, or plated, 2,4,6,8 braid, se or balanced, cryogenic or nitrogen based, bah. One cable for all..


----------



## sonitus mirus

Whazzzup said:


> Again, one cable for all then, cables don’t matter cause they would be  all the same. Don’t matter 32 awg, 8 awg, type 2,4,6,8 Litz or no Litz. Silver, copper, cadmium, nickel, or plated, 2,4,6,8 braid, se or balanced, cryogenic or nitrogen based, bah. One cable for all..



They are not all the same, you are simply conflating the potential issue with certain cable properties and any changes with an audio signal to a generalization that indicates all cables and equipment sound exactly the same.   That is a totally ignorant position and not a stance that many are taking.  

What is the cable being used for and what is the length required?   Some other questions about differences that could be important to ask might be: does it need to be flexible, is it used outdoors in extreme environments, does it need to be shielded from EMI, will there be high currents or voltages, how often will the cable need to be connected/disconnected, are aesthetics critical, is manufacturer reputation and build quality crucial, is cost a factor?


----------



## Whazzzup

So cables do matter ? Confused.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Whazzzup said:


> So cables do matter ? Confused.


It has been mentioned already that the topic name was considered mostly useless and would bring about equally nonsensical replies.  Yes, cables do matter, they are extremely important.


----------



## Whazzzup

Well then as I thought, carry on.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 3, 2018)

You can't listen to music without cables! Maybe someone should start a thread called "How do I convince my friends that electricity matters?"

I just use the cables from Amazon. They work the same as angel-kissed 14k gold woo woo wires. The stock lengths are fine. I find if I run cables three blocks away it takes me a long time to walk all the way back home to adjust the volume.


----------



## 439598

still no link to the ridiculous (and irrelevant) study, science school 101- cite your references. how does it even define audiophile? the definition of audiophile is: _a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction. 
_
how many people on head-*fi* dont consider themselves an audiophile within their own set of beliefs? if interested in low-fidelity sound reproduction than I suppose it makes sense.


----------



## gregorio

Acke said:


> 2. the distortions that im hearing in blind tests and that many others can hear but cant back up
> 3. ''in general audiophiles tend to'' < based on your language it doesnt sound like this one mysterious study that conveniently works in your favour provides very solid evidence that audiophile have the worst hearing. studies can produce inaccurate findings of course, there is so much to question about that study but its totally irrelevant since I already mentioned the blind tests.
> 4. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other after all, to be clear what do you deem important when it comes to cables?
> 5. maybe the question the was badly worded. can you just give provide some details of these systems youve listened to that contain very high quality (but not necessarily expensive) audio cables?
> ...



2. Again, what distortions? We can measure voltage and current variations in an electrical signal extremely accurately, far more accurately than anything we can hear when that electrical signal is converted into sound and, we've been able to do this for many decades. Furthermore, we can compare two electrical signals (say from two different cables) using a Null Test, which eliminates everything in common between the two signals, just leaving the difference and again, this standard test has been around many decades. Measured differences/distortions are in the range of hundredths or thousandths of a dB, way outside audibility. If you really could hear those distortions, then by definition you would be "way outside" being a member of the homo sapiens species. The ridiculousness of effectively making such a claim is enough by itself but we have even more compelling evidence: Firstly, the distortions which do exist are entirely within scientific/engineering predictions and secondly, in every single case of an audiophile claiming to hear these "distortions", when reliably tested they ALWAYS fail, without exception! In other words, what you and "many others" think you are hearing is NOT what you are actually hearing, you are perceiving a difference NOT hearing a difference. These "distortions that you're hearing" is simply a myth that's been invented by audiophiles because they are ignorant of, or simply cannot accept, the proven fact that what they think they're hearing is significantly different to what they're actually hearing. Obviously and demonstrably, this is the reason why audiophiles can NEVER "back up" the claim of these audible "distortions", because they are a myth which do not exist!

3. No, I am not referring to "one mysterious study". There have been countless studies during the last 40 years or so, not specifically testing audiophile vs. others' differentiation abilities but testing the audibility of various aspects of audio recording and reproduction. Many of these studies have used trained/professional listeners, general members of the public and audiophiles. In those studies which present their results broken down into these groups, audiophiles either perform the same as the two other groups or less well, depending on what the study is specifically testing. I know of no reliable, published studies where audiophiles out performed both of the other groups, do you?

4. That they can perform the role for which they were designed without any audible distortion, even in those cases where the signal (including any distortions/interference) they are transferring has to be amplified many times. I do not "deem important" the number of strands, what those strands are made of, the insulation or any other property of the cable, provided they perform as just described. The only addition to this, which is specific to my personal circumstances, is a higher level of physical robustness in certain of my cables than the typical consumer would need. This is because in a studio/professional situation some of the cables we use are subject to far more severe, long term physical abuse.

5. Not briefly or easily. I've worked in probably 200 commercial studios over a period of 35 years or so. All of them had high quality but not expensive cables, all of them had very good, excellent or world leading systems/listening environments. I've never encountered an audiophile system which could compare. The best I've heard I would categorise as "good" and several, even very expensive ones ($100k+) were really quite poor.
5a. Only a couple of times in other commercial studios but in my own, quite a few times. Stock OEM cables, standard pro audio cables and some audiophile cables. And, by "compare" I mean blind testing, measurements and null tests.
5b. Assuming you haven't got a faulty/extremely poorly designed unit, then the signal coming out of the unit will in no way be affected by an audiophile USB or power cable. Again, it's simple to test this for yourself, a quick loop-back recording using two different cables and some free software. ... This is the science forum, you cannot make claims/assertions like the one quoted which contradict the actual facts, without reliable evidence!
5c. No, that is NOT what I'm "telling you"! What I'm telling you is that having higher or even the highest quality system and very highly trained hearing does NOT somehow make distortions which are hundreds/thousands of times below audibility suddenly audible, for anyone (including audiophile cable believers). However, while it's obvious that you cannot hear something so far below the threshold of audibility, I do not know for certain what you are "expecting to hear" or how that is affecting your personal perception. All I can say with certainty is that as the distortions are way below audibility then the ONLY remaining, rational explanation for your perception of a difference is your perception itself!



Acke said:


> section 2:
> [1] what is a listening environment and why does this matter for headphones?
> [2] I listen through headphones in a very quiet location, all of my system is DIY or heavily modified, a lot of care and time has been put into to achieve the most realistic sound, this doesnt involve money..
> [3] I think your systems could be exceptionally good (better than mine even) in certain areas but lacking in other seemingly unimportant areas where as mine is consistently good in every single area. [3a] this is general statement but should apply to most, [3b] getting into specifics wouldnt be worth it.



1. Do you honestly not know?

2. Trying to "achieve the most realistic sound" is doomed to failure and futile, how did you manage to miss this fact with all your "research, experimentation and dedication"? As virtually all commercial music is produced primarily for speakers, you're never going to achieve "realistic sound" with headphones, no matter how good or expensive they are. If the goal is to "achieve the most realistic sound" then you need to be looking at a speaker based system, not headphones. This isn't to say of course that one can't have a very enjoyable experience listening with headphones but then we're talking about personal tastes and preferences, not accuracy/realism!

3. What do you mean "I think", don't you know? And, if you don't know, then why make such an assertion at all, let alone here in the science forum? In what "areas" are the world class systems I've used lacking? And, by virtue of the fact that you are using headphones, there are at least a couple of areas where your system MUST be severely lacking! Stereo imaging (width, separation,depth/positioning) and bass response for example.
3a. You just made-up the previous sentence, you have little or no actual experience or knowledge of world class commercial studio systems, you even admit that you only "think" rather than "know". So, how can you then say that your made-up sentence "should apply to most"?
3b. Why not? Is it because "getting into specifics" would clearly indicate that you're just making up nonsense? How do you arrive at the conclusion that your amateur DIY efforts are superior to nearly a century of commercial studio design innovation and the multi-million dollar budgets commercial studios spend to implement them? If you really had designed such a "consistently good in every single area" system for a few grand or even several tens of thousands, then what are you doing here? You'd be too swamped by demand from countless thousands of studios all over the globe!



Whazzzup said:


> So cables do matter ? Confused.



Huh? Of course cables matter, have you ever tried swapping a USB cable for a power cord? How did you get the connectors to fit or any signal from it? How can it not be obvious that when we're talking about no audible difference between cables, we're talking about no audible difference between cables designed for the same task?



Acke said:


> still no link to the ridiculous (and irrelevant) study, science school 101- cite your references.



You are the one making the claim that we can't hear differences due to poor equipment and/or hearing and that the supposed cable induced distortions are audible, where are YOUR references? Are you admitting you haven't yet reached the level of science school 101 or are you just being astonishingly hypocritical?

G


----------



## Whazzzup

so Im confused, so cables don't matter if they are the same connections. So now we are back to everyone gets one cable, the same cable so there is no difference in cables?


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

^There's a distinct difference between confused and willfully obtuse


----------



## Whazzzup

Sometimes obtuseness leads to a breakthrough in answering the question.  "how does one convince folks cables don't matter. Give them all the same cable...


----------



## 439598

gregorio said:


> even longer post



2. blind test. multiple cables including 2 good quality stock headphone cables. PASS... there is no way for you to explain that other than the anticipated claim of a flawed test.

3. How many studies ''prove'' there is no difference between cables? surely even more than the hearing studies. I take any studies with a grain of salt now. There is no argument against them which makes it very frustrating... The cables *shouldn't *be different and there is so much evidence to support this but I know for a fact they are!!! 

4.You are misinterpretating the first post. look back to my original sentence directed to another ''believer'': ''_but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables._'' obviously you realise they are important to some extent, but not the *true* importance, what this whole thread is based on.

5. so you tested multiple good cables and couldnt hear a difference? fair enough, right now the evidence we could put towards building our own study (assuming we believe each others reports) sits at 1 for any half-good cable sounding the same and 1 for multiple good cables exhibiting differences in resolution and presentation when there should be none... the only gripe I have about this study is that failing a test intentionally, even subconsciously, is possible but passing one intentionally is not. it would be embarassing to have spent years believing one thing for it proven wrong so it makes sense. 

5b. like my blind test?

5c. well then why are you telling me that? still havent read the part about blind tests? is it that you are so used to replying to people who only have reports based on sighted listening? 
....

1. its very quiet I suppose?  I have heard a lot of supposedly inaudible things in my fairly normal listening environment so it doesnt seem like a big deal here. 

2. the most realistic sound possible with headphones, that wasnt clear? we are on a headphone forum after all. headphones have drawbacks, cost isnt one of them. a great headphone system is much more accessible than a great speaker system, most arent as lucky as you. of course we already know why the drawbacks of headphones are irrelevant to the discussion of cable differences... I needn't say it again.

3. by ''your systems'' I meant ''non-believer'' systems, definitely not the studios you mentioned, I know nothing about them and I would have been interested to hear some details. the general statement should apply to most ''non-believers''. 
staying direct then, I dont know anything about your personal system to say ''I know'' their are areas overlooked. is it computer based? an ipod? any modification or DIY? 
I dont want to get into specifics because its a waste of my time, you will just type out a big reply telling me how each thing is nonsense, inaudible etc. I would rather share the info with someone who could appreciate it.

finally I have nothing to cite and nothing to prove even if it seems that way, I know the only people who will take me seriously have heard already the differences. Its just odd that you dont provide a single link, that's all


----------



## 71 dB

*Are you an audiophool?*

Hearing _inaudible_ things is called being a victim of placebo effect. Snake oil is known for making the symptoms worse. Treatment: Scientific studies, practise of critical thinking and in severe cases humbling double blind listening tests.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 5, 2018)

Acke said:


> 2. blind test. multiple cables including 2 good quality stock headphone cables. PASS... there is no way for you to explain that other than the anticipated claim of a flawed test.
> 3. How many studies ''prove'' there is no difference between cables? surely even more than the hearing studies. [3a] I take any studies with a grain of salt now. [3b] There is no argument against them which makes it very frustrating... [3c] The cables *shouldn't *be different and there is so much evidence to support this but I know for a fact they are!!!
> 4.You are misinterpretating the first post. look back to my original sentence directed to another ''believer'': ''_but most important is how many others aspects of the system would be completely overlooked when someone hasnt even realised the importance of audio cables._'' obviously you realise they are important to some extent, but not the *true* importance, what this whole thread is based on.
> 5. so you tested multiple good cables and couldnt hear a difference? fair enough, right now the evidence we could put towards building our own study (assuming we believe each others reports) sits at 1 for any half-good cable sounding the same and 1 for multiple good cables exhibiting differences in resolution and presentation when there should be none... [5a] the only gripe I have about this study is that failing a test intentionally, even subconsciously, is possible but passing one intentionally is not. it would be embarassing to have spent years believing one thing for it proven wrong so it makes sense.
> ...



2. There is no way for ANYONE to rationally explain it, other than the REPEATEDLY PROVEN claim of a flawed test!!

3. God knows, lots! And, not only lots of hearing studies but actual measurements AND many decades of scientific and engineering knowledge and predictions.
3a. So you don't believe in studies or apparently measurements or science in general. Do you reject all studies, take no medicine or medical treatments? Why are you using a computer to post messages, computers are based on science and engineering aren't they? And, why are you posting to this forum in particular, the forum which specifically exists for what you don't believe in?
3b. There's plenty or arguments, you've used some of them yourself. Of course, there are no rational arguments, just made-up nonsense arguments. Doesn't the fact that there are NO rational arguments tell you something?
3c. There's overwhelming reliable "evidence to support this" and NONE WHATSOEVER to counter it. So clearly, if you are sane/rational, then you CANNOT "know for a fact", you might believe wholeheartedly but this isn't the "What Acke Believes Wholeheartedly" forum, it's the Science forum!!! Again, you are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs but not your own facts!

4. Again, I realise the exact importance of cables, I've tested and measured them.

5. I couldn't hear a difference, ADDITIONALLY the measurable difference was way below audibility. Why are you going on about studies? There is NOT a single reliable study which demonstrates an audible difference and more importantly, there is NOT a single actual measurement which demonstrates there even could be something audible! If you can provide reliable evidence to support your unsupported claim then do so, science 101 remember!!
5a. So prove me wrong and as an added incentive, you'll win the $1million that's been on offer for about 20 years!!
5b. Exactly.
5c. If you can pass a controlled listening test, then why haven't you? Why haven't you changed the world of science and earned yourself an easy $1million in the process?



Acke said:


> 1. its very quiet I suppose?  I have heard a lot of supposedly inaudible things in my fairly normal listening environment so it doesnt seem like a big deal here.
> 3. by ''your systems'' I meant ''non-believer'' systems, definitely not the studios you mentioned ...
> [4] finally I have nothing to cite and nothing to prove even if it seems that way, ]4a] I know the only people who will take me seriously have heard already the differences.



1. Oh dear, you don't seem to know what the word "inaudible" means. Hint: It doesn't mean "very quiet" but still audible!

3. Why do you think commercial studio systems are "non-believer systems", do all commercial studios have poor equipment and all engineers, producers poor hearing? The reason is, that commercial studio owners and those who work in them are sane and rational. They believe the overwhelming reliable evidence and don't believe any claim to the contrary which has absolutely no supporting reliable evidence whatsoever!!

4. Finally, yes, you do have something to cite or prove. You are making claims, contrary to the science, in the science forum. You are the one who brought up science 101 and now you're pretending it doesn't apply to you, only everyone else!
4a. I have heard the differences and I still don't take you seriously! That's because I verified the differences I heard and through measurement and more controlled testing learned it was my perception playing tricks on me. A process that most/all engineers go through early in their education. This is the science forum, if you want to be your belief to be taken seriously, a belief which is unsupported, irrational and contrary to ALL the known science, then you couldn't have come to a worse place!! Why don't you go to the cables forum, which effectively bans science and the actual facts, while encouraging exactly the sort of irrational beliefs you want taken seriously?

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 5, 2018)

Acke said:


> still no link to the ridiculous (and irrelevant) study, science school 101- cite your references. how does it even define audiophile? the definition of audiophile is: _a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction._



No that is the definition of the "Hi-Fi Enthusiast". Audiophiles tend to add a whole layer of witchcraft, status symbol idolatry, and psychological mumbo jumbo to it. A Hi-Fi Enthusiast is a cut and dried thing. An audiophile comes in a million different candy colored flavors.



Whazzzup said:


> so Im confused, so cables don't matter if they are the same connections. So now we are back to everyone gets one cable, the same cable so there is no difference in cables?



If the cables are properly designed and manufactured, and you're using the right cable for the job, then any cable should work the same as far as human hearing is concerned. There's a wide range of cables that can do the job. You can get them at Amazon for a few bucks apiece. You'll be hard pressed to find any six foot interconnect that doesn't sound the same. Now if you plan to run your speaker wires under the Atlantic ocean like the trans-Atlantic cable, you might need something different. But for the purposes of listening to music in the home, there is no reason to spend much money at all on cables.

When you guys start doing partial sentence numbered replies, you're talking to yourselves and you might as well take it to PM. Nobody is going to make the effort to break down and cross reference your replies. I did that for a dozen posts a year or two ago, but since then, I've started ignoring blather that isn't presented clearly. No need for circular obfuscation... or obtuseness! Speak clearly or risk not being listened to.


----------



## Whazzzup

Sounds muffled, hard to make out what you are saying, but but I guess I’ll opt for door number two.


----------



## bigshot

OK. I'll make it simpler for you... If you are buying an interconnect to connect a DAP to a DAC or a player to an amp it really doesn't matter which one you buy at Amazon. They all sound the same. How's that?


----------



## Whazzzup

Wrong door, what’s behind #2


----------



## bigshot




----------



## castleofargh

Whazzzup said:


> so Im confused, so cables don't matter if they are the same connections. So now we are back to everyone gets one cable, the same cable so there is no difference in cables?


ideally that would pretty much be it. a given cable use would follow a standard, so all the cables you'd buy for that use would be about the same, within manufacturing margins. 
everybody is happy because then the audio gear designers don't have to worry about nonsense cables with weird electrical characteristics, and they can design their gears in a way fully optimized for the standard we all agreed upon. it is the best solution for everybody.

the exceptions to that are:
-bad cables sold as standard they don't follow, like you buy a certain gauge and material, but under the insulation is a tiny little crap(it does happen).
-and some weird audiophile cables, made very differently for the sole purpose of saying "look I'm different and worth a lot of money". which is likely to create more issues than to solve any, as once again, audio gears are designed expecting standard stuff plugged into them. 

if using a given cable consistently improves the output signal in a significant way compared to standard cables, were is the evidence and objective data? if you made a superior cable consistently providing higher fidelity, would you rely on BS marketing and positive subjective terms? I know I would have a page with "those guys measure like this, I completely pwn them with my cable. here is the objective evidence". what better advertising than actually proving we're doing better than the rest.
and yet go visit the webpages of fancy audiophile cable brands. all rhetoric and all the sort of objective arguments have no clear magnitude involved when describing the effects, and most arguments end up with a claim of subjective perception as "evidence" of the objective improvement. typical marketing that cannot get sued for making false objective claim, as the claims are ultimately subjective. 


for transmission cables, I go look at video products, never at audiophile products. video stuff often have data rates or such relevant specs. some certify them and that IMO can justify increased price. plus they're video stuff so if they can deal with those bandwidths, audio signal is likely to be a piece of cake. 
so I guess I do believe in special cables. I just don't believe in subjective impressions pretending to prove objective superiority. not from the sellers, not from audiophiles fans of their cables.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> some weird audiophile cables, made very differently for the sole purpose of saying "look I'm different and worth a lot of money".



Do you know of any specific examples of this?


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> Do you know of any specific examples of this?


Unfortunately, I cannot help to provide measurements on actual cable. But if you have close to 2 grand you can buy a cable that is advertised on the company's website as "Pushing the extremities and limitations of cable design works, *omitted name* was developed for the most discerning audiophile ears and is a perfect fit for professionals alike."

"perfection and redefined new standards for the best of it's class."

Contains advertising of ultra high strand count, ferrite guards, gold plated silver cable, etc.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2018)

I can buy a cable that is perfect for professional and audiophiles alike for $5. I'm interested in a cable that sounds different deliberately. My question would be, what design makes it sound different and how much different does it measure?

Actually, I don't think such a thing exists. I think it's another "common knowledge" thing that has no basis in fact like different sounding amps and DACs. I don't think many companies are dumb enough to make products that are defective by design. They'd get raked over the coals in audio reviews if they did.


----------



## 439598

gregorio said:


> 2. There is no way for ANYONE to rationally explain it, other than the REPEATEDLY PROVEN claim of a flawed test!!
> 
> 3. God knows, lots! And, not only lots of hearing studies but actual measurements AND many decades of scientific and engineering knowledge and predictions.
> 3a. So you don't believe in studies or apparently measurements or science in general. Do you reject all studies, take no medicine or medical treatments? Why are you using a computer to post messages, computers are based on science and engineering aren't they? And, why are you posting to this forum in particular, the forum which specifically exists for what you don't believe in?
> ...


mentioning measurements and ''ínaudibility'' over and over again I need to clarify , I am not claiming to hear the inaudible differences that the measurements detect, my hearing is average and I am not special , I am claiming to hear *very subtle* aspects of the sound that are apparently not measurable with current method/technology and pointing out this problem. your reliance on misleading studies and your stubborness is the reason you failed to discover this. Maybe you have poor hearing but Its more likely you have better/equal hearing to me based on what you're saying, if you spent more time experimenting with an open mind you may be able to detect these differences and pass a blind test

you seem to misintrepret/misread a lot of what I said which is pretty annoying, 3a for example I said I take studies '''with a grain of salt'', please research this phrase


5 a b c  so for the first time I delve it a bit deeper into all the things you're referencing, I dont know how long youve posting about this million dollar challenge that's been around for ''about *10* *years'' but as you can see it doesnt exist anymore https://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

if it did exist well then I have a couple issues with it, like that it would involve an expensive trip to america and completely goes against all the conditions mentioned in bottom of post 939.
out of those conditions the big one is the cables themselves, there is so little info on the details of test that we can never know but specifications of extremely expensive ''pear anjou'' does not strike as me special at all,  in fact from my perspective they are a scam, its a 14 awg stranded copper cable that you could build for a 1% of that money. If the cheap ''monster cables'' also used in the test are of identical construction then there wouldnt be any difference, Im never claimed magical differences between identical cables... the construction and material or the conductor is where the differences lie. 

as I said many many many times already I have passed my own blind tests, do you expect me to take part in some official test? how often do these happen? do I need to travel somewhere? there is nothing online about upcoming tests AFAICT. im a busy student and Ive only known about the differences for a few months so im fairly new to this, I would to take part in an oficial test if it was nearby, im 100% confident in what I hear.

Now here is an interesting little piece that was first result when searching 'blind speaker cable test' after you not providing a single link yourself: https://www.stereophile.com/content/minnesota-audio-society-conducts-cable-comparison-tests-0

this tests seems to provide fairly convincing evidence that these average people could detect a difference between cables, contrary to what youve been saying.
unsurprisingly the expensive cables did not get better results because as we both know expensive=/=better.

...

1. another misintrepretation, Oh dear, you don't seem to know what the word "supposedly" means. im implying they arent actually inaudible

3. another misintrepretation even though you quoted the exact line where I said 'definitely not the studios'. non-believers are the people in this thread, their personal systems including your personal system, I know nothing about professional studios and the equipment they use... so just you are clear NOT the studios but personal, consumer grade systems of non believers.

4. I literally have nothing to cite.. I have no proof (that was until the first study I found appears to prove you wrong)! and am I hear to discuss with other believers that is all. I see a lot of expensive and overpriced cables in the cable forum, which goes against what ive been saying, and no real interesting discussion. Perhaps the DIY forum would be a more appropiate place to discuss this, they would at least appreciate a practical approach on top of the theoretical.


----------



## 439598 (Sep 6, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I can buy a cable that is perfect for professional and audiophiles alike for $5. I'm interested in a cable that sounds different deliberately. My question would be, what design makes it sound different and how much different does it measure?
> 
> Actually, I don't think such a thing exists. I think it's another "common knowledge" thing that has no basis in fact like different sounding amps and DACs. I don't think many companies are dumb enough to make products that are defective by design. They'd get raked over the coals in audio reviews if they did.


build a solid core silver cable of equal gauge and length to your $5 cable, there will be an audible difference.

edit: not just different but the solid core silver will be superior. if this is because of the lower resistance silver well then you $5 cables are not fit for the task.

Here is some evidence from me, the non-scientist, that shows an audible difference between solid and stranded copper guitar cables:
http://www.evidenceaudio.com/library/mp3-demo


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2018)

Evidence? MP3 evidence? Can you do lossless so we aren’t wondering what is causing the difference?

Just Dropbox me the files and I’ll host them for you.


----------



## 439598

bigshot said:


> Evidence? MP3 evidence? Can you do lossless so we aren’t wondering what is causing the difference?
> 
> Just Dropbox me the files and I’ll host them for you.


*I didnt make this test and if you cant already hear the clear distinction between the cables you will not hear it over FLAC. *


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Sep 6, 2018)

Acke said:


> *I didnt make this test and if you cant already hear the clear distinction between the cables you will not hear it over FLAC. *


Again, more hair-splitting.  Differences in the CONTENT will far outweigh any *perceived* differences between cables.

Just the act of listening to something via cable set A, then changing to cable set B and listening again, can lead one to *perceive* a difference. 

Replacing the headphones on your ears slightly differently, or, sitting in your previous listening position HALF A CENTIMETER to one side of where you previously sat can make more of a difference than changing from $5/foot to $50/foot.


----------



## gregorio

Acke said:


> [1] I am claiming to hear *very subtle* aspects of the sound that are apparently not measurable with current method/technology and pointing out this problem.
> [2] your reliance on misleading studies and your stubborness [2a] is the reason you failed to discover this.
> [3] ... if you spent more time experimenting with an open mind you may be able to detect these differences and pass a blind test



1. We can only record and reproduce what we can measure, if we can't measure it then we can't record or reproduce it. There are only two properties of digital audio: time and amplitude, both of which we can measure at least 1,000+ times more accurately than you (or any human) can hear. If there were something else besides time and amplitude, that according to you is "apparently not measurable", is therefore NOT part of the sound that's either been recorded or can then be reproduced. This isn't even science school 101, the fundamental basics of audio are taught to 11 year old's (in the UK curriculum). The ONLY aspects of the entire audio chain (inc. the listener) we can't measure accurately or at all, are those aspects which ONLY exist in your perception!!

2. What, not satisfied with just making-up nonsense arguments, you're now going to try outright lying as a tactic, in this forum?? I have told you more than once that I am NOT relying on scientific studies, I'm ALSO using: Actual measurements, the very well established and understood science and engineering of cables, my own controlled listening tests and the controlled listening tests of countless other trained engineers. The reason I'm stubborn is because of the sheer amount and variety of reliable evidence and the complete lack of any reliable evidence to the contrary. It's exactly the same reason I'm stubborn about the Earth not being flat and gravity existing! Are you not stubborn about the Earth not being flat? *If not, why not? *
2a. And again, I have NOT "failed to discover this", most likely I discovered it long before you did. The difference between us is that (again!) I explain it with the demonstrated science, my own and my professional peers controlled tests and even the evidence of audiophile "cable believers" themselves (when reliably tested), While you explain it with some undiscovered, magical property of sound which cannot be measured, recorded, reproduced, reliably tested for or even explained by those arguing it exists! And you call me stubborn? How much more ridiculous is this going to get?!!!

3. I've spent decades experimenting and that's partly why I do no longer have "an open mind" about cables! Just how hypocritical are you trying to be? You want me to have "an open mind" towards some magical property which cannot exist but you refuse to have an open mind towards the actual demonstrated, reliable evidence/science.



Acke said:


> if it did exist well then I have a couple issues with it, like that it would involve an expensive trip to america



Huh? How expensive can a trip to America be? So expensive that winning $1million wouldn't be worth it? I didn't realise the challenge is now over, was a decade too short a time for any audiophile to win $1m? 



Acke said:


> as I said many many many times already I have passed my own blind tests, do you expect me to take part in some official test? how often do these happen?



And as I have said many, many times already, this is the science forum, if you're going to try to contradict such well established science then you'll need some reliable evidence to even stand a chance of not being ridiculed. And, you'll need some truly exceptional evidence to be taken seriously. Your own blind test doesn't even qualify as reliable evidence, let alone exceptional!



Acke said:


> [1] I would to take part in an oficial test if it was nearby,
> [2] im 100% confident in what I hear.



1. The science, engineering and pro audio communities don't run controlled cable listening tests any more, as far as I'm aware. Such tests cost time and money and there's no point when there's already been hundreds of controlled listening tests, all with the same result and all of which confirm the scientific and engineering predictions. The matter was settled many years ago and since then there's been no hint of reliable evidence to question it. Hence why James Randi was willing to put up $1m, he knew he couldn't loose it, and he didn't!

2. Then it can easily be demonstrated that your 100% deluded. BTW, flat earthers are 100% confident in what they see. Does that mean the earth is flat, do you at least have an open mind about it?

G


----------



## castleofargh

Acke said:


> build a solid core silver cable of equal gauge and length to your $5 cable, there will be an audible difference.
> 
> edit: not just different but the solid core silver will be superior. if this is because of the lower resistance silver well then you $5 cables are not fit for the task.
> 
> ...


and that type of demonstration is why this business has zero credibility. there isn't one thing that's not faked in this demo.

so here is what I experienced in order:
I downloaded the first 2 tracks and went straight to abx them in foobar like a curious little kitten. after a few secs I feel like there is a difference in loudness(not a surprise with analog cables of different impedance), and in pitch sometimes????? what the smurf?
so because I'm lazy I scan the tracks with replay gain as a first measure to match gain(as the abx comparator allows to apply replay gain I don't even have to get out of foobar, procrastinators unite!). replaygain suggests to make one almost exactly 0.5dB louder. so already I'm pissed because that webpage tried to take me for a turnip. while loudness variations are perfectly normal, there isn't a listening test that should be proposed without first properly matching levels so that we can focus on what else is changing instead of being fooled subjectively by the difference in gain.

  I go open the track in audacity to really look up the levels and the weird impressions of pitch change and whatever else I get, and boom! another obvious problem. the tracks aren't aligned in time. I'm not even surprised, it's the second oldest trick in the book for snake oil sellers. we record 2 tracks, we have to align them before testing, duh. not doing it only suggests dishonesty or utter ignorance(never a good sign for professionals trying to convince you of something).
man this is going great. I was going to align the starting point, but I notice that the end of the track doesn't show the same delay... those signals aren't even of same duration!!! lol, what is this Candid Camera? Just For Laugh? come on guys you can come out now, you got me good!

on some passages I can't tell the bass slap from the other track(once level matched!), but at other moments like around 7seconds, the guy basically hits a different note...  that test is the dishonest piece of crap that keeps on giving. Evidence audio, great name!


----------



## 439598

castleofargh said:


> and that type of demonstration is why this business has zero credibility. there isn't one thing that's not faked in this demo.
> 
> so here is what I experienced in order:
> I downloaded the first 2 tracks and went straight to abx them in foobar like a curious little kitten. after a few secs I feel like there is a difference in loudness(not a surprise with analog cables of different impedance), and in pitch sometimes????? what the smurf?
> ...


Im pretty sure it was two seperate recordings of someone playing the bass in real time. its not reliable at all just interesting to hear actual recordings, . The quality of recording and performance is pretty awful, I would be interesting in a good recording between measurably perfect stranded copper vs solid silver cable with good ADC using well recorded music , volume matched etc. it would certaintly be a useful tool for challenging people like me to provide ABX results, I dont understand why it hasnt been done before.


----------



## Speedskater

Acke said:


> edit: not just different but the solid core silver will be superior. if this is because of the lower resistance silver well then you $5 cables are not fit for the task.


Why would you think that the 'solid core silver wire' would have lower resistance than an ordinary copper wire? Unless the cross-section area of both wires and the lengths are exactly the same, then the copper wire could have a lower resistance.
And if any small resistance differences changed the sound, then a 10 foot and an 11 foot speaker cable (of the same construction) would sound different.


----------



## 439598

TheSonicTruth said:


> Again, more hair-splitting.  Differences in the CONTENT will far outweigh any *perceived* differences between cables.
> 
> Just the act of listening to something via cable set A, then changing to cable set B and listening again, can lead one to *perceive* a difference.
> 
> Replacing the headphones on your ears slightly differently, or, sitting in your previous listening position HALF A CENTIMETER to one side of where you previously sat can make more of a difference than changing from $5/foot to $50/foot.


it will outweigh them but not eliminate them. it's a terrible example, for sure.
 I agree all the things you mention can make huge differences,  your mood and hearing depending on the day can make the same system sound completely different.


----------



## Speedskater

castleofargh said:


> -bad cables sold as standard they don't follow, like you buy a certain gauge and material, but under the insulation is a tiny little crap(it does happen).


And it happens with some common hi-fi speaker cables as well.  A few years ago, a home theater magazine measured several 12AWG speaker cables.  The resistance values were all over the place.


----------



## 439598 (Sep 6, 2018)

Speedskater said:


> Why would you think that the 'solid core silver wire' would have lower resistance than an ordinary copper wire? Unless the cross-section area of both wires and the lengths are exactly the same, then the copper wire could have a lower resistance.
> And if any small resistance differences changed the sound, then a 10 foot and an 11 foot speaker cable (of the same construction) would sound different.


 You have 2 physically identical pieces of wire, copper and silver, silver is better conductor so resistance will be lower? Im not saying the differences are as simple as resistance (if it was it would be easily measurable, and using a thicker gauge copper would be as good as silver), I expected the response that the silver cable has lower resistance and that shouldnt matter if the 5$ one is already low enough in resistance to not make an audible difference.


----------



## bfreedma

Acke said:


> You have 2 physically identical pieces of wire, copper and silver, silver is better conductor so resistance will be lower? Im not saying the differences are as simple as resistance (if it was it would be easily measurable, and using a thicker gauge copper would be as good as silver), I expected the response that the silver cable has lower resistance and that shouldnt matter if the 5$ one is already low enough in resistance to not make an audible difference.




Assume less.  Read this section more.

None of the differences you describe are audible.  But they are measurable.  Exactly the opposite of what you believe the case to be.


----------



## 439598

bfreedma said:


> Assume less.  Read this section more.
> 
> None of the differences you describe are audible.  But they are measurable.  Exactly the opposite of what you believe the case to be.


I havent described any differences, differences in sound that is.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2018)

Acke said:


> *I didnt make this test and if you cant already hear the clear distinction between the cables you will not hear it over FLAC. *



So you're saying you don't personally know how these two samples were prepared and the difference isn't clearly audible?

Because in Sound Science, we ask for information about how tests are conducted, and we are looking for audible differences that can't be attributed to bias or perceptual error.

Have you read the first post in the Testing Audio Myths thread that is pinned at the top of the Sound Science forum? You probably should familiarize yourself with that before you go further with this topic.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Acke said:


> it will outweigh them but not eliminate them. it's a terrible example, for sure.
> I agree all the things you mention can make huge differences,  your mood and hearing depending on the day can make the same system sound completely different.





Acke said:


> it will outweigh them but not eliminate them. it's a terrible example, for sure.
> I agree all the things you mention can make huge differences,  your mood and hearing depending on the day can make the same system sound completely different.



1. "it will outweigh them but not eliminate them."   For sure, but what my examples outweigh may be measurable but not audible.  Purely psychological and maybe placebo.

2. "it's a terrible example, for sure."   Please specify said example.

3.  "I agree all the things you mention can make huge differences .... "   At least we agree on that.


----------



## Speedskater

Acke said:


> You have 2 physically identical pieces of wire, copper and silver, silver is better conductor so resistance will be lower?


But you will never have those two identical pieces.  It's hard to find two identical copper wires from different sources.  But the difference between copper and silver is trivial. It's less that the difference between a 10 foot and an 11 foot wire.


----------



## upstateguy

bigshot said:


> Eight years in suspended animation.... IT'S ALIVE!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL, I don't know why you bother....


----------



## gregorio

Acke said:


> I havent described any differences, differences in sound that is.



Correct, you've described differences in your perception ... but for some unfathomable reason you don't seem able or willing to comprehend that fact and prefer instead to believe in some inexplicable, magical property which can't be measured and doesn't exist in the sound recording or reproduction process.

G


----------



## 439598

gregorio said:


> Correct, you've described differences in your perception ... but for some unfathomable reason you don't seem able or willing to comprehend that fact and prefer instead to believe in some inexplicable, magical property which can't be measured and doesn't exist in the sound recording or reproduction process.
> 
> G


hey kid, I provided a link to a study that proves people can hear differences in cables so please stop talking to me, you are delusional or ignoring the plain fact that you are wrong.


----------



## bigshot

troll


----------



## LaughMoreDaily (Sep 13, 2018)

I recently wasted a ton of money on 3.5mm audio cables to connect a pair of headphones to a portable music player. Brand names like Ugreen, Robotsky, Raxfly, etc on Aliexpress. 

I've learned after spending/wasting $50+ dollars on 20+ cables that I should have just bought UGREEN AUDIO CABLES cause... they are the best! They can even be found on Amazon.

My favorite UGreen cable is their HI-FI model. My least favorite is their denim-look model.


----------



## bigshot

The denim cable works better with country music.


----------



## LaughMoreDaily

I would say 


bigshot said:


> The denim cable works better with country music.


I would say the Ugreen denim cable doesn't work well at all. However, every other cable I bought from them did. 

How does a cable sound good with one form of music but not with another? That sounds like a bad cable.


----------



## bigshot

I was joking. Interconnects should all sound the same. If they don’t, there is probably a manufacturing defect and all you have to do is return it and replace it with a six dollar Amazon basics or Monoprice cable


----------



## BlueFan

Don’t we all should close this thread? No winner or loser here.
It needs a very good system to hear the difference in cables, if your set up is under $2000,forget it and stop debating


----------



## sonitus mirus

BlueFan said:


> Don’t we all should close this thread? No winner or loser here.
> It needs a very good system to hear the difference in cables, if your set up is under $2000,forget it and stop debating



This isn't a contest, it is about learning and sharing information.  What type of cables are you comparing?  Are there measurable differences that are significant enough to potentially create an identifiable audible variation?   Cables can clearly make an audible difference, but without more information, we can't make any logical assessment about the situation.  

There are plenty of mind-numbingly illogical claims being made, but with very little detail provided to verify, so it is challenging to discuss further in any coherent manner.   Though, I believe most of the people making outrageous and unscientific claims are simply trolling the forum and not participating to gain any knowledge.


----------



## castleofargh

BlueFan said:


> Don’t we all should close this thread? No winner or loser here.
> It needs a very good system to hear the difference in cables, if your set up is under $2000,forget it and stop debating


and how do you back up that so very suspicious claim?
what electrical characteristics magically kicks in after 2000$? is 2000$ the threshold of audio fidelity getting above standard cable or something? I was under the impression that price correlated very poorly with fidelity and not at all with sound signatures, so I'm wondering if you have information I don't have. 

really it's such a silly correlation to make.


----------



## bigshot

BlueFan said:


> It needs a very good system to hear the difference in cables, if your set up is under $2000,forget it and stop debating



I have many thousands of dollars invested in my system and I've never found a cable that sounded different from another. But my system sounds great because I spend my money wisely on things that matter. Cables don't matter.


----------



## moriez

bigshot said:


> Cables don't matter.



To you, is the proper addition. Open-minded people, like for example certain newcomers may interpret expressions like that as the _only _truth.


----------



## 71 dB

moriez said:


> To you, is the proper addition. Open-minded people, like for example certain newcomers may interpret expressions like that as the _only _truth.



*Objectively* cables don't really matter as long as the electrical properties such as resistance are in the reasonable range considering the usage. Of course it matters if you try to use say 10 Ω cables with speakers. It will definitely affect the sound in a nasty way, but who does that? Snake oil doesn't lower the resistance, which is:

R = L / (σ*A),​
were L is the length of the cable (in meters), σ is conductivity (A/Vm) and A is the cross-sectional area (m²) of the cable. You don't see snake oil in this equation. Nor do you see snake oil in the equations for capacitance, inductance, skin effect etc. Audio cables don't even behave as transmission lines, because they are not kilometers/miles long and 20 kHz is the highest frequency we have to worry about. Audio cable are relatively short and operate at relativaly low frequencies. That's why audio cable are not that demanding except for mechanical durability perhaps.

*Subjectively* cables do matter to some people, but not for the reasons these people assume. The real reason is placebo effect running wild not restrained by the objective facts above, but instead amplified by the marketing speaches of snake oil sellers who take advantage of weak minded ignorant people.

Unless you are a very wealthy person (millionaire/billionaire), your resources are limited. Use the money wisely were it matters the most. One should invest tons of money into acoustics/speakers/headphones before even_ thinking_ about cables. After you have superb acoustics and superb speakers positioned optimally in your room is it time to think if you should upgrade your speaker wires because skin effect and resistance of your current wires perhaps causes 0.2 dB dip at 20 kHz. Maybe not, because you can't hear much anything above 16-17 kHz anyway. However if the same thin cable causes reduced damping factor, upgrading the cables (not snake oil, but thicker normal cables) might improve the bass.

The most expensive RCA cable I have ever bough was the cheapest Cambridge Audio cable (17 euros). It doesn't sound any different from cheapo RCA cables, but it is mechanically robust and reliable which the cheapo RCA cables are not. It has served me well for almost 2 decades between my CD player and amplifier. Most of my RCA cables are DIY cables which is a good way to get reliable relatively cheap (~5 euros) cables at correct (shorter) length.


----------



## Speedskater

bigshot said:


> I was joking. Interconnects should all sound the same. If they don’t, there is probably a manufacturing defect and all you have to do is return it and replace it with a six dollar Amazon basics or Monoprice cable


While all reasonable, well designed, well chosen and in good repair interconnect cables should sound the same, there are lots of cables that don't meet all those conditions.


----------



## bigshot

Can you link me to a cable at Amazon that isn’t audibly transparent?


----------



## Steve999

I just wanted to acknowledge a serious discussion of this matter after my two ridiculous posts. I truly am not feeling well and needed a laugh, even if at my own expense. Carry on.



71 dB said:


> *Objectively* cables don't really matter as long as the electrical properties such as resistance are in the reasonable range considering the usage. Of course it matters if you try to use say 10 Ω cables with speakers. It will definitely affect the sound in a nasty way, but who does that? Snake oil doesn't lower the resistance, which is:
> 
> R = L / (σ*A),​
> were L is the length of the cable (in meters), σ is conductivity (A/Vm) and A is the cross-sectional area (m²) of the cable. You don't see snake oil in this equation. Nor do you see snake oil in the equations for capacitance, inductance, skin effect etc. Audio cables don't even behave as transmission lines, because they are not kilometers/miles long and 20 kHz is the highest frequency we have to worry about. Audio cable are relatively short and operate at relativaly low frequencies. That's why audio cable are not that demanding except for mechanical durability perhaps.
> ...


----------



## Steve999

Great point. Carry on.



bigshot said:


> Can you link me to a cable at Amazon that isn’t audibly transparent?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Steve999 said:


> It really does not seem that hard to do. However, I am not feeling well today and I tire of these contentious threads and I put in some extra time and effort here so please be respectful. As always, I am happy to learn new things and would be pleased to be corrected where it is verifiable by objective data.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Marvel-Legen...ie=UTF8&qid=1536961420&sr=8-35&keywords=Cable
> 
> ...




Same links without the affiliate data included.  You only need to copy the link up to the ASIN.

https://www.amazon.com/Marvel-Legends-Series-6-inch-Cable/dp/B072QWP8KG

https://www.amazon.com/Lumintrail-Braided-Coated-Security-Luggage/dp/B01N2AQTQW

https://www.amazon.com/Galvanized-Steel-Aircraft-Cable-Wire/dp/B002X4DCQU

https://www.amazon.com/ChiaoGoo-Interchangeable-Knitting-Needle-7530-S/dp/B00C1QOAXO

https://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-4933DD3001B-6026050-Dishwasher/dp/B00AF7Q5CU


----------



## Steve999 (Sep 14, 2018)

[Deleted. That’s all I can do on my own. My apologies again. Maybe cut up to but not including @bigshot ‘s prior post at 1:09 P.M.]


----------



## bigshot

I'm not goofing around. I've never encountered an interconnect that sounds any different than any other. I am totally serious. Amazon allows me to buy things and try them out and return them for a full refund if I don't want to keep them. If someone can point me to an interconnect that sounds different, I will buy it and test it. I'm trying to find something out and thread crapping isn't helpful to me.


----------



## Steve999

My sincere apologies.



bigshot said:


> I'm not goofing around. I've never encountered an interconnect that sounds any different than any other. I am totally serious. Amazon allows me to buy things and try them out and return them for a full refund if I don't want to keep them. If someone can point me to an interconnect that sounds different, I will buy it and test it. I'm trying to find something out and thread crapping isn't helpful to me.


----------



## bigshot

no problem. thanks


----------



## gregorio (Sep 15, 2018)

Acke said:


> [1] hey kid, I provided a link to a study that proves people can hear differences in cables so please stop talking to me, [2] you are delusional or ignoring the plain fact that you are wrong.



1. You did not provide a link to a study and it did not prove people can hear differences. This is the science forum, don't you know the difference between a scientific study and just getting a bunch of people in a room and asking what sounds better? You are the one who brought up "Science 101" when it suited you but since then all you've done is contradict or pervert science 101.

2. What "Science 101" did you learn which indicates hypocrisy is a valid argument? Again, did you not notice this is the Sound Science forum? Just accusing others of EXACTLY what you are guilty of does not "cut it" here, it just makes you look foolish, a troll or both!



BlueFan said:


> [1] Don’t we all should close this thread? No winner or loser here.
> [2] It needs a very good system to hear the difference in cables, if your set up is under $2000,forget it and stop debating



1. Apparently we should not close this thread, if the conclusion you've arrived at is that there's "No winner or loser here"!

2. Maybe we should close the thread though, because we're just going round in circles: Some audiophile states they can clearly hear the difference between cables and those who can't have either a poor system, poor hearing or both. We then spend a few pages demonstrating how utterly ridiculous that argument is: Those with the best, most expensive systems and most finely tuned listening abilities (top commercial studios and the engineers who work in them) do NOT use audiophile cables because there is no audible difference PLUS, the actual measurements and science/engineering prove there is no audible difference. Against all the decades of evidence, said audiophile has absolutely no reliable evidence WHATSOEVER, just some nonsense theories based on magical properties inspired by marketing pseudo-science. Said audiophile eventually get's all stroppy, quotes even more marketing nonsense, makes-up outright lies, soaks everything in a thick dripping layer of hypocrisy, usually ends up insulting anyone who doesn't accept their nonsense and goes off in a huff. What happens next? .... Another audiophile comes along, posts that they can clearly hear the difference between cables and those who can't have either a poor system, poor hearing or both! I understand that many audiophiles are so suckered by the marketing pseudo-science and their own listening biases that they find it difficult/impossible to accept the actual facts, but does being an audiophile "cable believer" also mean that you can't go back a few pages in the thread and read the exact same argument you're wanting to post has already been posted (and shown to be ridiculous nonsense)?



moriez said:


> Open-minded people, like for example certain newcomers may interpret expressions like that as the _only _truth.



When you look out of your bedroom window, do you see the Earth as a sphere or does it look essentially flat? Why then do so few people actually believe that the Earth is flat? ... It's because; most people are aware of the decades of overwhelming evidence and accept the demonstrated science, even to the point of assuming those who believe the Earth is flat must be "nutters". So, two questions for you:
1. Are you open-minded that the Earth is flat?
2. If not why not?
Again, we are going round in circles. I've asked these two questions of audiophile "cable believers" in this thread before and they NEVER answer. My answers are:
1. No.
2. Because there's absolutely no reliable evidence to support the idea but overwhelming reliable evidence against it, plus the knowledge and predictions of science.

Same with "audiophile cables": 1. Are you open-minded that audiophile cables make an audible difference? 2 If not, why not? Here's my answers:
1. No.
2. Because there's absolutely no reliable evidence to support the idea but overwhelming reliable evidence against it, plus the knowledge and predictions of science.

Where's the difference? The only difference I can see, is that audiophile "cable believers" may not be aware of the "overwhelming reliable evidence, plus the knowledge and predictions of science". If they are aware of it, how are they different to those who believe the Earth is flat?

Finally, we return yet again, to the point about hypocrisy: Why are we supposed to be "open-minded" about something for which there is so much overwhelming evidence that it's not rational to be open-minded but audiophiles don't have to be open-minded to all the overwhelming reliable evidence?

G


----------



## bigshot

If we closed every thread that went around in circles, Sound Science would be a ghost town.


----------



## 71 dB

Steve999 said:


> I truly am not feeling well and needed a laugh, even if at my own expense.



Take care of yourself man. I hope you feel better.


----------



## Steve999

Thanks. I really appreciate it.



71 dB said:


> Take care of yourself man. I hope you feel better.


----------



## youngarthur

Expensive cables,cheap cables?. After 66 years of HiFi, I have had cables from £120,to £3, and I have never detected any differences, but, my ears are 78 years old. This is not to say there aren't differences, just my ears don't detect any.


----------



## 439598

BlueFan said:


> Don’t we all should close this thread? No winner or loser here.
> It needs a very good system to hear the difference in cables, if your set up is under $2000,forget it and stop debating


have you noticed there hasnt been a single study posted ? even after trying to coax someone to do it.
there is no proof to say the differences dont exist, the studies that suggest there is can be analysed and the broken down pretty easily to explain why. The deniers are narrow-minded, they take their own inability to hear (with ears and/or brain) as 'truth' and reinforce this idea with any weak evidence they can find. some mean well and I respect that, unfortunately they are perpetuated by measurements which are only a guide and not the final verdict on sound... measurements are used in so many different areas other than cables so you'd expect they'd have figured that out by now. 

there is no harm in someone building a HQ cable that will let them see if they can hear a difference, they will learn to build and repair cables from doing this, that is a valuable skill for anyone. The immediate response from either side should be ''build a cable and see for yourself'', and end this worthless discussion.

and yes price can be a factor, but obviously where you put $2000 is what matters, you need the experience/advice to know how to make the most of it.
 DIY is a slower process but can be cheaper with the right guidance, it is much more rewarding and changes are more flexible, resulting in a personalised system.


----------



## Arpiben

Acke said:


> have you noticed there hasnt been a single study posted ? even after trying to coax someone to do it.
> there is no proof to say the differences dont exist, the studies that suggest there is can be analysed and the broken down pretty easily to explain why. The deniers are narrow-minded, they take their own inability to hear (with ears and/or brain) as 'truth' and reinforce this idea with any weak evidence they can find. some mean well and I respect that, unfortunately they are perpetuated by measurements which are only a guide and not the final verdict on sound... measurements are used in so many different areas other than cables so you'd expect they'd have figured that out by now.
> 
> there is no harm in someone building a HQ cable that will let them see if they can hear a difference, they will learn to build and repair cables from doing this, that is a valuable skill for anyone. The immediate response from either side should be ''build a cable and see for yourself'', and end this worthless discussion.
> ...



It is much better,if one can add a bit of fundamental knowledge in their DIY cable experiences in order to converge and understand faster the quite obvious possible reasons.
Now it is also up to anyone to keep closed minded and keep refuting science.
I have mixed respectful and sad feelings for example when reading about ferrites experiments on top of cables for treating obvious EMC equipment issues...
Keep equalizing and/or injecting HF noise inside your DIY cables I don't care.


----------



## JaeYoon

Acke said:


> have you noticed there hasnt been a single study posted ? even after trying to coax someone to do it.
> there is no proof to say the differences dont exist, the studies that suggest there is can be analysed and the broken down pretty easily to explain why. The deniers are narrow-minded, they take their own inability to hear (with ears and/or brain) as 'truth' and reinforce this idea with any weak evidence they can find. some mean well and I respect that, unfortunately they are perpetuated by measurements which are only a guide and not the final verdict on sound... measurements are used in so many different areas other than cables so you'd expect they'd have figured that out by now.
> 
> there is no harm in someone building a HQ cable that will let them see if they can hear a difference, they will learn to build and repair cables from doing this, that is a valuable skill for anyone. The immediate response from either side should be ''build a cable and see for yourself'', and end this worthless discussion.
> ...


I'm curious though? Do you have any studies or peer reviewed research that shows that a multitude of audio cables tested and differences tested?

I'm curious as well about that measurements are not a valid test for testing audio cables. So for example, let's say you have completed two DIY cables with different materials of your choice. Someone buys them from you and measures them (uses same transducers and volume matches both) and records both into a microphone and creates measurements and sees they look very the same or extremely similar.
What are some sounds that can't be measured?

I'm not here to say audio cable differences don't exist. I also want to see your side of the story.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Acke said:


> have you noticed there hasnt been a single study posted ? even after trying to coax someone to do it.
> there is no proof to say the differences dont exist, the studies that suggest there is can be analysed and the broken down pretty easily to explain why. The deniers are narrow-minded, they take their own inability to hear (with ears and/or brain) as 'truth' and reinforce this idea with any weak evidence they can find. some mean well and I respect that, unfortunately they are perpetuated by measurements which are only a guide and not the final verdict on sound... measurements are used in so many different areas other than cables so you'd expect they'd have figured that out by now.
> 
> there is no harm in someone building a HQ cable that will let them see if they can hear a difference, they will learn to build and repair cables from doing this, that is a valuable skill for anyone. The immediate response from either side should be ''build a cable and see for yourself'', and end this worthless discussion.
> ...



Studies?  This is well-understood physics and mathematics.  Don't expect to find some thesis called _Principia Filum._

Here, knock your socks off!  Plug in some values on any applicable calculator and see how tiny the audible change might be with different types of cables and properties.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Calculations03.htm

The ridiculousness of your position is that you seem wholly ignorant with regards to any established science on the subject matter.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 15, 2018)

Acke said:


> have you noticed there hasnt been a single study posted ?



We have a pinned post for that. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

The difference between a great system and a mediocre system has nothing to do with money. It takes knowing how audio reproduction and perception works and optimizing the things that matter. Everything doesn't matter. A wire is a wire as long as it's the right wire for the job. If you have money to spend, spend it on transducers and your listening room and the music you listen to. You can spend it on wires and electronics, but you're going to be spending money without improving the sound quality any.

Too often people come to internet forums to debate, when they should be coming here to listen and learn. You've got folks here who can give you terrific advice if you ask the right questions. But the one you are stuck on here is the wrong one.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 16, 2018)

Acke said:


> [1] have you noticed there hasnt been a single study posted ? even after trying to coax someone to do it.
> [2] there is no proof to say the differences dont exist, the studies that suggest there is can be analysed and the broken down pretty easily to explain why.
> [3] The deniers are narrow-minded, [3a] they take their own inability to hear (with ears and/or brain) as 'truth' and reinforce this idea with any weak evidence they can find.



1. Of course we've noticed!! You've made the claim that differences are audible, differences way too small to be audible but where's your reliable evidence? Even after trying to coax you to do it, even after you yourself stated it was necessary according to "Science 101". After being accused of hypocrisy, your response is even more outrageous hypocrisy? This is the sound science forum, NOT the "Guinness world record for hypocrisy" forum!!!

2. That is a complete lie! There is tons of science and reliable evidence on exactly what differences exist and exactly why, and, there has been for decades, nearly a century in fact. As Sonitus mirus stated, this is very well understood mathematics and physics. Even if you can't be bothered to look any of it up or are incapable of understanding it, simple logic should tell you this is the case. The telecoms industry was worth many billions of dollar even before the second world war, without an excellent understanding of analogue signal transmission through cables this massive industry would simply not have existed.

3. The cable believers are astonishingly narrow-minded and, ignorant to boot! Too narrow-minded to accept the ridiculously overwhelming evidence, too ignorant to know or even try to understand the actual facts and science.
3a. They take their own gullibility, inability to eliminate biases and marketing pseudo-science "as truth and reinforce this idea" with absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER. The best they can offer is some vague notion involving magic/mystical properties which even they can't explain and which both demonstrably and logically can't and don't exist! Such a superlative example of hypocrisy really deserves some recognition from Guinness or the Oxford Dictionary!! 


Acke said:


> some mean well and I respect that, unfortunately they are perpetuated by measurements which are only a guide and not the final verdict on sound...



Not satisfied with your attempt at the world record for hypocrisy, you're also going for the world record in utter made-up nonsense, impressive! Again, even if you are incapable of understanding the basic facts, simple logic should indicate your statement is ridiculous nonsense. Measurements are obviously NOT "only a guide" because the very act of recording and reproducing sound IS the act of measuring (and converting) sound. So, measurements absolutely are and absolutely MUST be, by definition, the final verdict on recorded and reproduced sound. What's truly astonishing is not just that you don't seem to understand this simple, basic fact of recording and reproducing sound but that you continue to fail to understand it and lie/misrepresent it, even after it's been explained to you! How is that even possible? And, if that's not bad enough, you're then condescending/patronising about those who do have the intellectual ability to understand "simple, basic facts" and are apparently completely unaware of how incredibly foolish that makes you appear.

There are no published scientific studies I'm aware of specifically regarding the audibility of cable differences. There's no point, in all controlled tests no audible differences have been detected, even by the most vociferous of cable believers themselves but most importantly, the exceptionally well established science dictates there can't be. For the same reason, can you provide any scientific studies that the Earth is not flat? Does this mean that the Earth IS flat? Despite your refusal to answer the question, following your logic you must believe the Earth is flat or at the very least, be "open-minded" that it could be flat. You honestly think that a science/fact based forum is a good place to argue such an ignorant opinion, that you won't be viewed as some sort of "nutter"?

So OP, you can see there is simply no convincing some people. Logic, simple basic facts, well established, indisputable science, overwhelming evidence, none of it makes the slightest difference to those who are too narrow-minded, ignorant and/or incapable of rational/logical thought, for whom irrational belief trumps everything. There will always be some who cannot be convinced that the Earth is not flat.

G


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> A wire is a wire as long as it's the right wire for the job.



That's the only sentence this thread needs. You can't say it better than that.


----------



## Whazzzup

71 dB said:


> That's the only sentence this thread needs. You can't say it better than that.



Brilliant, on that note another wire for the job


----------



## moriez (Sep 16, 2018)

@gregorio , your brain is blessed. I'm starting to think you can be seen as a teacher. Take as a rare very hard to earn compliment. I much admire your and also a few others rational and knowledge. The reason is that it's on a whole different level and I mean lightyears away from mine. I struggle in here. With that said, you'll make a _great _teacher when you manage to exclude those moments of irritated emotion shining through in some of your phrases. In my opinion it takes away from being able to pick up the content like a signal jammer. Could be down to how I process what's to read. Heartfelt constructively meant feedback!

On topic I'm not sure what point is there to make. I definitely think science can't be messed with. I sure couldn't. Totally acceptant of psychological effects like placebo and expectation bias and the first to admit proper blind listening tests may result in any number of eye-opening surprises. This sums up one side of the story as I see it. And yet I can listen to three in perfect working order different brand headphone cables of mine and clearly positively identify a difference. Sharpness, hazyness such kind of things. Could be the result of a 'outside design specifications' build but I don't care about specs as long as it's known to be safe. If it sounds more up my alley it is better.

A question for the 'makes no difference' guys. Can those who back their claim honestly say they properly blind test every time or would they honestly be willing to participate? No, not trying to set a date but I'm stuck with the thought some are so firmly rooted clamping on to the scientific side it seems a perfect basis for being biased. Bias chooses no side no matter where you stand. That's by the way what I meant with being open-minded besides inexperienced newcomers who shall read statements like 'cables don't matter'. This makes me remember the bigger conclusion I like to draw which actually goes beyond the thread and beyond the forum: state your own point of view but do not give the impression it's universally accepted or even a few persons deep. I'm not talking about science because I don't have the weight to dispute any of it though I haven't seen a flat nor a round shaped earth with my own eyes. I'm talking let the ears do the math (pun intended) as objective as possible without the need for reasoning.


----------



## JaeYoon

@moriez
That would be cool to have a blind test. Though it can probably only be reliably done at home if someone really has mindset to do it. First they would need to actually spend money on a ABX switcher and money for perhaps $10 -$20+ cable off Amazon. Monoprice that @bigshot recommended could definitely do it.

But it's probably more better at a head-fi meet. So someone will have a table with a Monoprice HQ cable for around $17.

Anyone can bring their own cable whether it's a DIY cable or a purchased cable. First, they would need to be blindfolded. The reason for this is @gregorio mentioned something really important I learned a long time ago called the McGurk effect.

Basically, no matter what if someone sees their cable during testing. Their mind could be biased and say "nope like I said before on the thread, my cable makes the treble more sparkly with a punchy Bass, and timbre is much more realistic." McGurk effects explains that people can believe in things they want to hear and see. "There's just no way some basic wire can perform great." Hence it will sound bad to the person with their own wire.

However, if they couldn't see which cable is which, it would force them to be completely honest. We would also put a blanket on top of both cables and cut a hole so the Listener can flip the A/B switch. We will also need someone to test both cables to make sure both are at the correct level and properly volume matched.

@bigshot also mentioned salesmen promoting audio cables by increasing the volume on the system with the cable they want to sell. And lower the volume on other system to promote the sale and introduce differences.

Maybe some other recommendations others can give, but this is not an easy test. It will require the person submit to a test that they intend to learn and not be "winning".


----------



## castleofargh

I'm a little sick of having to play both sides. but here I go anyway:
first, those with arguments or anecdotes about cables sounding differently, be hyper specific about material and testing conditions! it's annoying and a waste of everybody's time to constantly have to argue electrical properties without even knowing if the cable is used for digital transfer, or is carrying 100V into a Stax, or 0.3V into an IEM of extreme electrical design. or if your cable is made of chicken bones. 
in the spirit of getting a little science involved, we need all the information we can get to make sense of what happens(whatever that is). obviously we have little hope of agreeing to a claim if we can't even know what's different between the 2 cables tested. expecting us to just tag along in total ignorance is wishful thinking. put yourself in our shoes. 
as several people have said, there is very little mystery left in the cable world that wouldn't fully follow the accepted knowledge about conductors and electrical signal. I'll go on a limb and assume nobody is using a new superconductors as audio cable while keeping it at -50°C. 
just saying that I tried 2 cables and they sounded different, will have people assume that I didn't test anything properly, and that I made up the differences in my head. or maybe there is a small difference in loudness and my brain drew all sorts of psychoacoustic conclusions about just a level change. or maybe one of the cables is just plain defective or really wrong for that specific use(like one chewed by a rabbit and hanging by a thread, using ethernet cable as a power cable, or other fun ideas like those). lack of proper information forces rational people not only to consider those options, but to consider them as the most likely answer. only when we can get as much data as possible, can people rule out various possibilities. don't blame us of being narrow minded when you guys bring empty anecdotes of "I heard a difference" as your only data and entire argument. let's not reverse the situation here, we're not demanding hard to get evidence to shut you up, we're demanding hard to get evidence because you're offering nothing to work with while making claims. if you don't want people to reject your claims and make unreasonable demands to an average audiophile, just don't come making empty claims. it's that easy! 

now the other side. a single wire is almost stupidly easy to characterize, but a cable has a bunch of them very close to each other, and most of all, it has plugs and they're not all born equal. I wouldn't go as far as saying that a different plug and butchered soldering will result in audible differences on their own, but measurable difference without a doubt. same with different braiding, different insulation thickness, having a shield or not. all those can and will affect the electrical characteristics of the cable. 
so getting measurable variations isn't impossible, that much is a properly established fact that nobody will deny. how would anybody go to prove that said variations will never reach a magnitude that is audible? or be placed between gears where that variations will become the difference between a stable circuit and a mess getting out of control? also all cables sound the same can't be proved. only disproved. let's avoid making anything resembling a claim on that subject. 

and so we're left with something different, sometimes, for some reasons, resulting in some magnitudes of change in the output signal of a playback chain. will it be audible? did you blind test properly and volume match before running outside to tell the world how sure you are of an audible difference? do you know what's different between the 2 specific cables you're using? what electrical spec is the main cause of change and if such a specs should reach those values in a cable for that given usage?  those are the questions we should care about. not dick measuring and people  offended and thinking "Y U NO TRUST ME???", when the answer is so damn obvious. zero evidence or relevant information from some random guy on the internet. indeed why wouldn't we take such testimonies at face value... again, and I say this to everybody, try putting yourself in the other guy's shoes. the one with electrical understanding being told ludicrous stuff like how silver lose fewer details than copper. the one with 2 cables making a clear and very real difference in his system, reading that it cannot happen in this reality. both will be dumbfounded to find someone confident about something that makes obviously no sense at all. 
now if the silver cable has a much lower impedance than the default cable and that somehow ends up increasing the trebles a little in an audible fashion on some weirdo IEM. that is something very specific that the laws of electricity can explain. but to properly explain it, we need enough data in the first place. not some dubious generalization based on logical shortcuts. 
and if a situation creates a clear difference and I wish to convince people that it's true. the way to do it is to bother testing things properly, maybe record the output signal using both cables and sharing that. the way not to do it, is argue in the only place on Headfi allowing discussions of blind testing and placebo, that a sighted test is conclusive about sound because you trust yourself and are an "experienced" listener. 





oh! and about measurements being only a small part of the equation. that as always can be interpreted as fair in the context where we're not measuring everything all the time with the best gears. or it can be interpreted as really ignorant in the context where someone truly believes his ears can notice something we don't know how to measure.  so "a frequency response graph doesn't tell if I will hear a difference", that is true. but "there is more to sound than what can be measured", that's just dumb and completely divorced from reality.





moriez said:


> you'll make a _great _teacher when you manage to exclude those moments of irritated emotion shining through in some of your phrases.


 I agree with you 100%. the difference I imagine is that when you're paid to tell people things, you're naturally more tolerant. money often has that healing effect where you can smile to people you wish to punch in the face if your paycheck relies on it. ^_^
but yes, @gregorio has a thing about antagonizing people instead of just sticking to discussing gears and facts about gears. which inevitably makes further dialogue tedious. I think we'd all like a more Care Bear Greg.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 16, 2018)

moriez said:


> A question for the 'makes no difference' guys. Can those who back their claim honestly say they properly blind test every time or would they honestly be willing to participate?



I'm not sure what you mean by "proper". I test for my own purposes... to determine if it makes a difference listening to music in my home. I'm not interested in adding any more decimal points to that because my tests tell me what I need to know. If that is good enough, I'm happy to participate. But I don't want to do a comparison randomly. I want someone to let me know of a cable that *doesn't* sound the same that I can compare. I've already been through hundreds that do sound the same. I have no interest digging through haystacks to find needles.

I've asked for examples of amps and cables that sound different. So far, I've only gotten one suggestion and it came along with measurements that showed that the difference was well below the threshold of audibility. I'm happy to know if there actually are out of spec things out there in the wild. Everyone should know so they can avoid them. I just haven't found any and no one seems to be able to point to one. Until then, I'm going to assume they don't exist and I'm going to double check by doing a listening test that suits my purposes on every piece of equipment I buy.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

The only scenario where I think one *might* hear a difference is upgrading from 22-24AWG to 14AWG in a stereo where the speakers are each at least twenty feet from the amp or receiver.


----------



## bigshot

If you knew you had a long run, you’d use the proper gauge in the first place though.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Sep 16, 2018)

bigshot said:


> If you knew you had a long run, you’d use the proper gauge in the first place though.



Uhmm, you and I know that, but we are probably exceptions, at least in the general consumer context.  You think a post-millennial teen would know how to wire speakers, period?  Let alone select a suitable gauge?  Having grown up on Blue Tooth buds and Beats, they probably think wired speakers(or wired headphones) are something Cro-Magnons used. lol!


----------



## bigshot

Well, I'm sure there are people who try to play PAL DVDs in their US player but it isn't the player's fault that it won't play it.


----------



## Steve999 (Sep 19, 2018)

Apology accepted (and I hope I speak for everyone else)! (This, of course, assumes that I too am not on your Ignore list.)

I’ve had to apologize for worse in this very thread. Although my sins tend toward making light of things in the middle of a serious point rather than engagement. Which, if you are bored one day and want a little insight into yours truly, can be part of my personality.

Seriously, I always enjoy and respect your posts, which is more than I can say for myself sometimes.

So I have a serious question. I bought a 15 foot mini to mini line level cable to run from a computer to a powered speaker. My selection process was to pick a cable that looked cool and got five stars on Amazon—not too sophisticated. It cost $10. Electricity seems like magic to me. I don’t hear any problems at all with the sound. Is there any reason under conventional maths and engineering that this length of a line level run would lead to any degradation in sound? I am just doing it for decorative and convenience reasons. I could use a shorter run or even go WiFi. I am not worried about anything over 15 or 16 kHz. I’ve got some kind of resistance meter around the house (it also tests batteries which is what I use it for)—would that help?

As to the stated topic of this thread, in my view once a person believes that there is a large impact of cables to be had on sound, the three paths to persuasion are to point to the questionable conduct of the cable pushers and ask the person if that fits into a narrative they want to “buy” into, to legitimately educate a person or point them to the resources to educate themselves, or to set up a double blind test.

I think it is important to keep in mind that it is not illogical or counterintuitive to think that what carries the signal will make a large difference. I have been wrong about many things and shown otherwise. Probably my most embarrassing thing was thinking these ultrasonic button noise makers would keep mosquitoes away. Then I read in the paper that someone took the time to test them and they don’t work. And I thought, yeah, it appears I was wrong on that and in retrospect it seems ridiculous for any number of reasons. Things just needed to snap into place to pull me to my senses. The point being we need to meet people realizing that they just wound up on a rational but unfortunate side of a belief system, with the full complement of human frailties most of us carry.

There is also the saying (to paraphrase) from Uptain Sinclair that if a person’s livelilihood depends on them not understanding something, it’s going to be tough to get them to understand it—and that can cut in any number of directions.

I would also like to point out that there is an actual sound science music thread if someone wants to take the music part of this to a more appropriate place. I’d like to see a wide range of perspectives in there. There’s a tough sheriff in that town though so please at least be ready to say something, anything, substantive that you like about the music, and in that thread the sheriff requests a relatively high standard of conduct.




bfreedma said:


> Another troll goes on Ignore.
> 
> Again, my apologies to the rest of the members reading this thread for engaging the troll.  For the record, since I won’t see his response, I’m not suggesting that cables make a difference as I’m sure that will be the next post from SonicTruth.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 19, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Apology accepted (and I hope I speak for everyone else)! (This, of course, assumes that I too am not on your Ignore list.)
> 
> I’ve had to apologize for worse in this very thread. Although my sins tend toward making light of things in the middle of a serious point rather than engagement. Which, if you are bored one day and want a little insight into yours truly, can be part of my personality.
> 
> ...




Thanks Steve.  I enjoy your posts as well and your injection of some personality into them.

I wouldn’t expect that cable to be an issue but would need to know it’s specifications to make a definitive statement.  At that point, we can run them through one of the various internet “cable calculators” to fully understand any impacts and confirm they are not audible.

I actually thought I was responding in the music thread at first, thus my apologies in this one for the OT.  Been planning on posting there and will shortly - I’m not afraid of the pseudo mod operating there


----------



## Whazzzup

you had me at cables


----------



## 71 dB

Steve999 said:


> Is there any reason under conventional maths and engineering that this length of a line level run would lead to any degradation in sound?


Not really. Theoretically the wire can pick up some interferencies which are amplified in the speaker, but if you don't hear any noise from the speakers when the music is not playing, you should be okay.


----------



## castleofargh

I asked nicely, it didn't work, so Thanos dealt with the extra off topic escalating posts. 
now back to cable stuff plz.


----------



## moriez (Sep 19, 2018)

@TheSonicTruth, lets get back on topic shall we.




bigshot said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "proper". I test for my own purposes... to determine if it makes a difference listening to music in my home. I'm not interested in adding any more decimal points to that because my tests tell me what I need to know. If that is good enough, I'm happy to participate. But I don't want to do a comparison randomly. I want someone to let me know of a cable that *doesn't* sound the same that I can compare. I've already been through hundreds that do sound the same. I have no interest digging through haystacks to find needles.
> 
> I've asked for examples of amps and cables that sound different. So far, I've only gotten one suggestion and it came along with measurements that showed that the difference was well below the threshold of audibility. I'm happy to know if there actually are out of spec things out there in the wild. Everyone should know so they can avoid them. I just haven't found any and no one seems to be able to point to one. Until then, I'm going to assume they don't exist and I'm going to double check by doing a listening test that suits my purposes on every piece of equipment I buy.




No idea what a proper test would be like! @JaeYoon said good things. To get to the heart of the matter I guess most could continue to enjoy discussing and learning bits of theory here and there as part of a daily routine but personally I'm now way more interested in just finding out if person A says so and person B says such, put it to the (group) test. The thing is, until someone crazy motivated applies to organise such meet it looks like more conversation ahead.

With regard to amps and cables that sound different.. not sure if I understand correctly to be honest but I'll give you examples anyway. Off the top of the head compare a Bottlehead SEX and a Bottlehead Crack if you have the chance. Or against a Gilmore Lite Mk2 which was my last solid state. RCA interconnects, try AudioQuest G-Snake versus Atlas Integra Equator III. For DAC's my current is a Soekris 1421 that I compared with the now sold Metrum Amethyst. All clearly different. Sighted ofcourse and individually tested.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 19, 2018)

Why do you need to put it to a group test? Just do the test yourself and find out for yourself. When you test stuff, it always is more useful if you test using your own circumstances and needs in mind. Then when you find out, it's information you can use. I have a few preamps and switch boxes and patch bays that I juggle around to get a quick comparison whenever I buy something new. It isn't hard to do a comparison test. The only people who are uncertain about things like this are people who just take other people's word at face value and don't make the effort for themselves. Everyone who's made the effort to do a controlled listening comparison of cables knows that they are all pretty much interchangeable.



moriez said:


> With regard to amps and cables that sound different.. not sure if I understand correctly to be honest but I'll give you examples anyway. Off the top of the head compare a Bottlehead SEX and a Bottlehead Crack if you have the chance. Or against a Gilmore Lite Mk2 which was my last solid state. RCA interconnects, try AudioQuest G-Snake versus Atlas Integra Equator III. For DAC's my current is a Soekris 1421 that I compared with the now sold Metrum Amethyst. All clearly different. Sighted ofcourse and individually tested.



OK. Now I get to point out the basics of a "proper" listening test... First of all, the switching needs to be directly A/B switchable with no time gap between samples. If you have longer than a second or two between similar sounding samples, you'll never be able to discern a difference accurately. Secondly, it has to be line level matched. Human ears hear "louder" as better. Even a difference as small as 1dB can throw off your results. Thirdly, if the differences are small, you absolutely have to do blind tests. It isn't hard, just get a friend to help you. The vast majority of the claims about differences we get around here dissolve when a blind test is done. Bias is real and it's impossible for a human being to exist without it.

That said, do you have any examples that you are confident would sound different under these three controls? Gather together a switch box and a preamps and do the test. You'll definitely learn something.

By the way, I tried to go to the Bottlehead site to get specs on the models you mentioned...

_The amplifier’s power output is approximately 2 watts RMS per channel at 10% THD at 500Hz, similar to a single ended 45 tube amplifier. Frequency response at 1V output is -3dB at 27Hz and 22kHz. The amplifier has an input sensitivity of .62V RMS and a gain of approximately 15 dB at 1 kHz and can be wired for 4,8,or 16 ohm speakers or 32 ohms for use with virtually any headphone. Input impedance is 100Kohms._

10% THD?! Who would want that?! I'll have to look closer when I get more time, but you might have found the perfect example of "defective by design". The specs page for the Crack doesn't list any specs.... just sales pitch. I would avoid those amps like the plague!


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Why do you need to put it to a group test? Just do the test yourself and find out for yourself. When you test stuff, it always is more useful if you test using your own circumstances and needs in mind. Then when you find out, it's information you can use. I have a few preamps and switch boxes and patch bays that I juggle around to get a quick comparison whenever I buy something new. It isn't hard to do a comparison test. The only people who are uncertain about things like this are people who just take other people's word at face value and don't make the effort for themselves. Everyone who's made the effort to do a controlled listening comparison of cables knows that they are all pretty much interchangeable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 those specs are for max output. we're still in the tube world and I wouldn't bet my life on complete audible transparency, but I doubt THD values would come remotely that high under normal use with headphones.


----------



## moriez

bigshot said:


> Why do you need to put it to a group test? Just do the test yourself and find out for yourself. When you test stuff, it always is more useful if you test using your own circumstances and needs in mind.



In the light of the discussion I think it would serve everybody best, on the condition we're truly open to real life verifiable results instead of talking from our homes about unverifiable individual experiences. Ultimately the subject cannot do without such a thing in my opinion. If I'm serious for a minute and take you and me as examples I find it pretty hard to imagine you haven't heard differences in the decades you're active and I'm pretty sure you have serious doubt about my conclusions. So as I see it, also due to my non-existing technical knowledge making it difficult to even try to engage on this level, ''proper'' group testing is the real deal.




> Everyone who's made the effort to do a controlled listening comparison of cables knows that they are all pretty much interchangeable.



This looks like a generalization so I have to ask, who is everyone?




> OK. Now I get to point out the basics of a "proper" listening test... First of all, the switching needs to be directly A/B switchable with no time gap between samples. If you have longer than a second or two between similar sounding samples, you'll never be able to discern a difference accurately. Secondly, it has to be line level matched. Human ears hear "louder" as better. Even a difference as small as 1dB can throw off your results. Thirdly, if the differences are small, you absolutely have to do blind tests. It isn't hard, just get a friend to help you. The vast majority of the claims about differences we get around here dissolve when a blind test is done. Bias is real and it's impossible for a human being to exist without it.
> 
> That said, do you have any examples that you are confident would sound different under these three controls? Gather together a switch box and a preamps and do the test. You'll definitely learn something.



Ok, good guide! Any cheap quality switchbox you can link to preferably in Europe?




> By the way, I tried to go to the Bottlehead site to get specs on the models you mentioned...
> 
> _The amplifier’s power output is approximately 2 watts RMS per channel at 10% THD at 500Hz, similar to a single ended 45 tube amplifier. Frequency response at 1V output is -3dB at 27Hz and 22kHz. The amplifier has an input sensitivity of .62V RMS and a gain of approximately 15 dB at 1 kHz and can be wired for 4,8,or 16 ohm speakers or 32 ohms for use with virtually any headphone. Input impedance is 100Kohms._
> 
> 10% THD?! Who would want that?! I'll have to look closer when I get more time, but you might have found the perfect example of "defective by design". The specs page for the Crack doesn't list any specs.... just sales pitch. I would avoid those amps like the plague!



You got me here. Colour me clueless. I am confident though that the BH HQ can shed light in case you're very interested. Whether they're willing is another matter.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 19, 2018)

Why would they post specs like that? It makes no sense to me. Wouldn't you want to post THD for normal use, not something representing extremes that push the distortion well into the audible range? Do their customers even know what 10% THD is?



moriez said:


> This looks like a generalization so I have to ask, who is everyone?



Have you read the first post in Testing Audiophile Myths yet? All this has been done before and it's in there. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Why would they post specs like that? It makes no sense to me. Wouldn't you want to post THD for normal use, not something representing extremes that push the distortion well into the audible range? Do their customers even know what 10% THD is?
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the first post in Testing Audiophile Myths yet? All this has been done before and it's in there. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/


it's not that rare for tube amps to give plain max power instead of max power at 1%THD. some will exceed the 1% value pretty rapidly, if not always. also keep in mind that it won't sound horrible like with SS amps where anything above 1% is usually closer to 100% distortion than it is to 1%. 
the fellows in the hd650 topic can't stop bringing those amps up when asked for a good pairing with the hd650, so I'm guessing that whatever they're doing, it doesn't sound horrible.


argh, cable topic, quick say something about cables.... I have some!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> it's not that rare for tube amps to give plain max power instead of max power at 1%THD. some will exceed the 1% value pretty rapidly, if not always. also keep in mind that it won't sound horrible like with SS amps where anything above 1% is usually closer to 100% distortion than it is to 1%.
> the fellows in the hd650 topic can't stop bringing those amps up when asked for a good pairing with the hd650, so I'm guessing that whatever they're doing, it doesn't sound horrible.
> 
> 
> argh, cable topic, quick say something about cables.... I have some!



It can't be helped that a thread about cables will inevitably drift off to some other topic - like content, which makes an infinitely greater difference than '$5 vs $500' cables.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 20, 2018)

bigshot said:


> 10% THD?! Who would want that?! I'll have to look closer when I get more time, but you might have found the perfect example of "defective by design". The specs page for the Crack doesn't list any specs.... just sales pitch. I would avoid those amps like the plague!



I believe 10 % THD is typical for tube amps. It doesn't sound that bad, because most of it is even harmonics (asymmetric distortion). On the contrary, some people like how such distortion makes the sound "warmer." It has NOTHING to do with high fidelity, but so what?


----------



## bigshot

I've never seen a solid state amp with distortion that high, have you? How would they jury rig a solid state amp to have tube distortion? Does it have some sort of built in tube emulator?


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I've never seen a solid state amp with distortion that high, have you? How would they jury rig a solid state amp to have tube distortion? Does it have some sort of built in tube emulator?



Solid state amps have very low distortion unless overdriven when the distortion can be more than 10 %. If you want distortion-free amplification you select a solid state amp. If you want "warm sound distortion", you select a tube amp. Simple as that.


----------



## Whazzzup

Warm=distortion.  Some folks like that.


----------



## bigshot

Isn’t warm a frequency response thing?


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Isn’t warm a frequency response thing?


That too (more bass, less treble). Tube amps generate even harmonics distortion because of asymmetry on negative and positive signals. For some reason human hearing finds even harmonic more pleasing than odd harmonics. Solid state amps clip very symmetrically negative and positive signals so when they produce a lot of distortion, it's mostly odd harmonics which sound harsher.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 21, 2018)

Yeah I would think distortion would be more of a harsh vs soft thing, kind of like soft focus in a movie. Warmth to me indicates a high and roll off. I'd like to be able to control those things myself and make them work perfectly with my room. I wouldn't want that hard wired into my amp with no way to adjust it. That's why I don't understand why people buy colored tube amps. It's a roll of the die what kind of sound you're going to get.

That specs page is so packed with obfuscation and sales pitch, it's exhausting for me to translate it. But I'm guessing that it's a solid state amp with some sort of tube emulator built in. Is the tube emulator adjustable? That might be useful if you could dial it in from clean solid state to max tube coloration.


----------



## sonitus mirus (Sep 21, 2018)

Technically speaking, distortion accounts for any deviation with an audio signal, good or bad, wanted or unwanted.

Edit:  Including distortion potentially introduced by using different cables!  (had to mention cables to keep on topic)


----------



## moriez

bigshot said:


> Why would they post specs like that? It makes no sense to me. Wouldn't you want to post THD for normal use, not something representing extremes that push the distortion well into the audible range? Do their customers even know what 10% THD is?



If you're really boggled and like to know there are willing and able admins on the Bottlehead forum of who I'm sure can explain your questions.

Try my G-Snake vs Integra cables suggestion instead. That you can actually do at some point




> Have you read the first post in Testing Audiophile Myths yet? All this has been done before and it's in there. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/



Impressive post. I shall read.[/QUOTE]


----------



## JRG1990

Cable measurements.

USB cables:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/measurements-usb-cables-for-dacs.html
S/PDIF Coaxial cables:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/04/guest-review-measurements-dr-franks.html
S/PDIF TosLink cables:
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-toslink-optical-audio.html
HDMI cables 
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/11/guest-review-measurements-quantum-hdmi.html

Nothing even close to audible differences.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> 1. Yeah I would think distortion would be more of a harsh vs soft thing, kind of like soft focus in a movie. Warmth to me indicates a high and roll off. I'd like to be able to control those things myself and make them work perfectly with my room. I wouldn't want that hard wired into my amp with no way to adjust it. That's why I don't understand why people buy colored tube amps. It's a roll of the die what kind of sound you're going to get.
> 
> 2. That specs page is so packed with obfuscation and sales pitch, it's exhausting for me to translate it. But I'm guessing that it's a solid state amp with some sort of tube emulator built in. Is the tube emulator adjustable? That might be useful if you could dial it in from clean solid state to max tube coloration.



1. Colourization makes everything sound more of the same so it's easier to get used to that sound signature. Some people want a world where everything is familiar and easy rather than controlled or precise. A solid state amp with 0.01 % THD makes things more challenging because cold recordings will sound cold and warm recordings warm instead of _everything_ sounding warm (the same). In fact I believe people like tube amps for the same reasons they like vinyl: Pleasing distortion.

2. Obfuscation and sales pitch? That has never happened before in the history of audio.


----------



## Maxx134 (Oct 9, 2018)

Hey guys just popped in here to see how's it going !

looks like a lot of pages went by..
Like to add some comments:


Whazzzup said:


> So cables do matter ? Confused.



In the manufacturing process of cable, we have noted that there has been advancements, with the introduction of OCC type cable, in trying to get a more pure conductivity..

 Also we have seen these wire & cable companies  come up with:
 different windings
 different materials different combinations of metals,
either silver plated
or silver with copper mixed or separately insulated,
Etc.
And they come up with all their reasonings in their websites.

 I've even been to a meet where there was a cable company comparing cables with the same amp & same headphones and people  were noting side by side differences ..

To me, the differences were not differences in frequency response per se, but instead in the type of interpretation of (Clarity or confusion) in the music.

So when we go into these websites of the wire manufacturers, they expound upon all sorts of designs and come with their explanations which has not been noted here ...

That is the one thing I wanted to point out..
Not that any of that it is valid, but I wanted to point out that we have not discussed those manufacturers explanations of these cable differences.

In basic electricity we know that the signal rides on the surface of a conductor, rather than the center.
 So more surface area more strands is better, right?
Better than a solid core?

But then they start talking about the strands reacting with the other strands and like how the electrons jumping and also creating  magnetic influence upon this wire because of the strands, so they make it a  concern.

So now to say wire sounds the same starts to seem like really oversimplifying the details...
 When you get into all these manufacturing details,  there starts to form a valid reason why these companies are using OCC cable and winding types and different insulation materials.

The fact that OCC copper or pure silver is more conductive and stated better because it has less impurities for the electrons to get go through is yet another rabbit hole.
How can we prove this make a difference to our application?
Maybe in transformers it should.

 So I know I've said too much and it will be hard to explain away this mess..  sorry in advance


----------



## bfreedma

All the manufacturers need to do is post hard evidence showing, via measurement or legitimate ABX testing, that a properly constructed cable makes an AUDIBLE difference and the debate is over.  Yet to date, not a single one has despite the reality that doing so would exponentially increase their sales.  

Now if you want to make the argument that cable companies can intentionally produce out of spec cables that changes the signal, sure.  But that doesn’t align well with the “audiophile” goal of passing the signal without alteration.


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> I've even been to a meet where there was a cable company comparing cables with the same amp & same headphones and people were noting side by side differences ..


I don't remember which brand was implicated in a fake cable test at a show not that long ago(maybe 2 years?). I often wonder if that even put a dent in their market share when they got caught doing that sort of crap? or if they just went "oh you got us! we pinky swear we won't do it again, *wink wink*". and resumed their daily lives like nothing happened.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> I don't remember which brand was implicated in a fake cable test at a show not that long ago(maybe 2 years?). I often wonder if that even put a dent in their market share when they got caught doing that sort of crap? or if they just went "oh you got us! we pinky swear we won't do it again, *wink wink*". and resumed their daily lives like nothing happened.



I’ll bet two strands of OCC copper on the latter.


----------



## old tech

castleofargh said:


> I don't remember which brand was implicated in a fake cable test at a show not that long ago(maybe 2 years?). I often wonder if that even put a dent in their market share when they got caught doing that sort of crap? or if they just went "oh you got us! we pinky swear we won't do it again, *wink wink*". and resumed their daily lives like nothing happened.


Audioquest.


----------



## Maxx134

castleofargh said:


> I don't remember which brand was implicated in a fake cable test at a show not that long ago(maybe 2 years?). I often wonder if that even put a dent in their market share when they got caught doing that sort of crap? or if they just went "oh you got us! we pinky swear we won't do it again, *wink wink*". and resumed their daily lives like nothing happened.


Omg wow I didn't think of that could have been fixed!


----------



## castleofargh

old tech said:


> Audioquest.


oh of course the audioquest video!!! I was thinking about something much more low key, but AQ got all the media attention it deserved with that vid.


----------



## Maxx134

Check out this partial post about depth perception because of the cable:

"_The difference when I used the Litz cable was so obvious. It did take away some of the brightness but added authority and even more detail in the mids. The bass remained natural but layering became clearer. To be honest I was somehow used to the brightness and slight resonance on the highs delivered by my solid silver cables so it dit take me some time to realize that both clarity and openness where still there but mostly projected in depth rather than being flat"


_


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Maxx134 said:


> Check out this partial post about depth perception because of the cable:
> 
> "_The difference when I used the Litz cable was so obvious. It did take away some of the brightness but added authority and even more detail in the mids. The bass remained natural but layering became clearer. To be honest I was somehow used to the brightness and slight resonance on the highs delivered by my solid silver cables so it dit take me some time to realize that both clarity and openness where still there but mostly projected in depth rather than being flat"
> 
> _



Sounds more like differences in the mastering!


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> Check out this partial post about depth perception because of the cable:
> 
> "_The difference when I used the Litz cable was so obvious. It did take away some of the brightness but added authority and even more detail in the mids. The bass remained natural but layering became clearer. To be honest I was somehow used to the brightness and slight resonance on the highs delivered by my solid silver cables so it dit take me some time to realize that both clarity and openness where still there but mostly projected in depth rather than being flat"
> 
> _


 reading the entire post and a few following responses you linked, I'd be tempted to disregard whatever they say because of a simple but crucial idea. they directly attribute sound characteristics to a metal or the way it's braided. anybody understanding half a thing about electricity would facepalm after reading that sort of concept. same ignorance demonstrated differently, the guy didn't find it relevant to mention what the cable was plugged into when he got his impressions.
that sort of post would fail to convince me that water is wet.


----------



## gregorio

Maxx134 said:


> Check out this partial post about depth perception because of the cable:



Yep, entirely typical stuff which is expected from cable believers. It's based on the principle that silver is a better conductor than copper and therefore the analogue/electrical signal will have higher fidelity at the end of a silver cable than a copper one. While this is true, the actual difference in conductivity is very roughly the same as the difference between a 9' copper cable and a 9'1" copper cable (if I remember correctly). I wonder if you played a recording to one of these audiophile cable believers on a 9'1" copper cable and then the same playback with a 9' copper cable, if they would come out with the same flowery descriptions of the differences? The most telling statement for me was:


> I am also not impressed by the idea that many bare silver wires are in constant contact with each other.


This statement completely sums up the whole audiophile cable market; it's all entirely based on being "impressed by the idea". The idea of silver being a more precious metal than copper, of it having better conductivity, of reduced skin effect, of various other effects that are actual, real effects but are either inaudible or ridiculously inaudible and, even some effects which don't exist, that someone has just made-up. If someone is "impressed by the idea" of one cable over another, there's a good chance their perception will be altered to include that fact and then we're into arguments like "I know what I'm hearing" and "I trust my ears", even though it's trivially easy to demonstrate that they don't know what they're hearing and that it's got nothing to do with one's ears anyway!

Audiophile cables have nothing relevant or nothing whatsoever to do with the cables' actual performance, just whether or not audiophiles can be "impressed by the idea" of them, which is why, as @bfreedma alludes, they never publish the actual performance of audiophile cables or relate their performance to standard, non-audiophile cables.

G


----------



## bigshot

TheSonicTruth said:


> Sounds more like differences in the mastering!



Sounds to me like a beautifully worded description of expectation bias.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Sounds to me like a beautifully worded description of expectation bias.



Just saying: what he described are effects easily achieved in mastering - though some engineers may not wish to admit.  Know any?


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> Just saying: what he described are effects easily achieved in mastering - though some engineers may not wish to admit.  Know any?


just click on the link, this has nothing to do with mastering.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> just click on the link, this has nothing to do with mastering.



I never said it did.  Just that such effects could be achieved with mastering.  But of course, that's supposed to be taboo on here.


----------



## bfreedma

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Department of Redundancy Department


----------



## Maxx134 (Oct 12, 2018)

I agree to many variables exist in the topic itself.

So today I visit a friend using a system I am not too familiar with and I swap out two good "headphone" cables on an HD800, and I immediately notice a  type difference, which I was "not" expecting...
I was expecting some difference, but not the type of difference I heard.

This leads me to believe that the headphone cable market would be the easiest area to pick, to find out what's going on.

Traditional tests of speaker or interconnect cables, used on various "electronic  systems", and in rooms of people really doesnt reduce the variables in testing.

I think headphones, (especially dynamics) are way more affected by cables than electronic  systems.

We know that dynamic headphones vary in impedance according to frequency, and so I am suggesting that all areas of sound would be affected, because all areas of sound are contained within that electrical signal, which is being affected by the dynamic interaction of the amp and headphone.

I am assuming that the amp ability to "not" be affected by the load, has same thing to do with stronger amps always perceived as sounding better than low power amps...


----------



## Maxx134

I just realized I went off topic into a component weakness variable, instead of actual wire difference...


----------



## Sterling2

I have had problems with only a handful of cables, RCA's, which were not properly terminated. These were noisy. This defect was easily heard and easily corrected by replacement with  higher quality cables. So, for sure, high quality cables better assure satisfaction. That's all I can  contribute to this thread.


----------



## bigshot

I've found that Amazon basic cables and mono price cables are high quality.


----------



## Laura80

Does anyone have experience with copper cables providing warmer more forgiving treble on Sennheiser hd 800’s?


----------



## bfreedma

Laura80 said:


> Does anyone have experience with copper cables providing warmer more forgiving treble on Sennheiser hd 800’s?



You're probably asking that in the wrong section.  I think you'll find most of those who post in Sound Science will tell you, based on actual measurements, that a properly constructed cable, whether silver or copper, is going to sound exactly the same.

A better (actual) solution would be to look at EQ solutions.


----------



## Matez

What a gem of a thread this one is and I write this with no sarcasm at all. Even though I'm on the other side of the fence than most folks here (it looks that way as my business is based on changes cables introduce), it was good to dive in this thread and read more than half of it thus far. Cool stuff.


----------



## bigshot

We used to have a high end cable maker in this group who was happy to admit that his cables made no audible difference, but his customers liked the fit and finish.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> We used to have a high end cable maker in this group who was happy to admit that his cables made no audible difference, but his customers liked the fit and finish.




I own one of his cables - the OOB cable wasn't long enough -  bought because it was the lightest and most flexible cable I could locate.  Also appreciated the lack of extraneous unicorn dust and unobtanium metals in the marketing materials.  Probably one of the longer ones he ever made, as my listening seat is across the room from the gear.  I still owe a beer to whomever had to twist it.

Quote from Steve when I asked if he would make it: "Is this for you or so that your next door neighbor can listen".  Or something to that effect.


----------



## Laura80

bigshot said:


> We used to have a high end cable maker in this group who was happy to admit that his cables made no audible difference, but his customers liked the fit and finish.



I’ve just watched a video review of a pair of headphones where you get an option of a cable which costs over £2000.

For that kind of cost, you’ve really got to appreciate the aesthetics I guess.


----------



## bfreedma

Laura80 said:


> I’ve just watched a video review of a pair of headphones where you get an option of a cable which costs over £2000.
> 
> For that kind of cost, you’ve really got to appreciate the aesthetics I guess.



As you spend more time here, you may be surprised by how many people spend as much or more on cables as they do on headphones.  And keep chasing the "perfect" cable, taking a loss on each purchase/resell.

For the amount of money invested, one could buy a lot of music...

That said, everyone is free to do what they wish with their money.  What frustrates me is that they then convince others they NEED to purchase outrageously priced cables based on easily debunked "science" quoted from the marketing materials from some of the cable vendors.


----------



## bigshot

Foolishness is a virus online. It spreads from person to person as "common knowledge". People come in here and hear us saying things and they're shocked, because that isn't what they hear in audiophile forums and from people who post audio equipment advertorial. They hear us say that audible differences are measurable and DACs are designed to all sound the same, and they think we must be wrong because so many people online say otherwise. "20,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong!"

I think internet forums attract a certain type of personality or perhaps particular cognitive conditions. They use the internet for validation and they soak up the myths and spout them like Rain Man. Just because you hear something all the time in internet forums, that doesn't mean that it is the truth, and it doesn't necessarily represent the majority opinion of the population either. Not everyone in audio forums are audiophools, but odds are the ones who parrot each other without checking for themselves are.


----------



## Maxx134 (Oct 22, 2018)

Laura80 said:


> Does anyone have experience with copper cables providing warmer more forgiving treble on Sennheiser hd 800’s?


 Nope.
I actually heard one copper headphone cable sound more dull/tame than the other (Draug2 cable), but this could be explained as the excessive winding leading to possible  capacitance interactions to the amp, rather than an actual cable thing.

One issue that I found about the headphone instead of the cable, but indirectly cable related, is that the HD800 is audibly  sensitive to changes.

I made the mistake of not choosing correctly the wire, when I re-wired the inside with a new mini-xlr connector.
I used some heavy silver plated solid core wich permanently made my HD800 sound darker.
The stock HD800 internal wire was extremely thin and also had measurable  resistance.
So now I am experimenting to use different wire and will update in my mod thread.
But this really boil down to a driver sensitivity issue.

Just want to point out these scenarios are typical when finding out the real reasons why you may think the wire has a sound.
In that, I am continually finding out that it is actually another reason altogether for the observation of audible changes, not the actual wire.

Regardless, its hard to stray from a general consesnus that there are differences which may or may not be audible, but depending more on application, such as use of microphone cable made for that application.
Or antenna wire made for that application.
Its usually for a performance application rather for any sonic traits.
Etc.


----------



## bigshot

If you're hearing differences between cables, you're using the wrong cables. Cables are supposed to pass a signal directly, not alter it. If they do alter the sound, they are either defective, poorly designed, or unsuitable for the purpose. Just go to Amazon and buy the Amazon Basics cables and you will get the best sound possible.


----------



## Voxata (Oct 22, 2018)

Cable builder here... I'd be happy to share my experience over the many years of cable building, listening and experimentation. I've listened to a LOT of different wires, connectors and build configurations.

- Buy a cable for the looks and feel. Using soft wire and the right weave a cable can be truly luxurious to handle and look at. There is a good amount of enjoyment to be hand thumbing a noodle soft sleeved cable that has no microphonics while zoning out and enjoying your tunes. Really nice wire and labor for this isn't cheap. The max a really highend cable should be is $150 (IMO). Cheaper one? Maybe $70..cheap chinese stuff? $15-25? It is the labor of making the cable you need to consider. Is it hand made, custom to order, colors, etc? Nice cables are something headphone hobbyists are willing to pay for and can be real hard on the hands if one builds too many.

- As far as the sound debate... A nice cable isn't going to revolutionize your listening experience. I've only ever heard a difference on certain open back thin diaphragm planar headphones. This difference isn't lifting a veil, it isn't some next level experience.. That said, in my opinion my HE-560 was definitely a bit brighter using a Nucleotide V3 wire compared to cheap Cardas core which for some reason has a duller characteristic. It didn't change my experience with the headphone enough to choose one over the other and who knows it may be a phenomenon.. Again, this is the only type of headphone that I've been able to tell a difference and this is the same headphone I have that exhibits the most benefit from chain changes.

I'll tell you what sucks though. Having a MrSpeakers headphone (Ether C 1.1 in this case) with the worst stock cable I've ever seen. It basically feels like stiff unraveled and unstraightened microphone cable wrapped in paracord. Sitting at your desk with a stiff microphonic cable that doesn't lay flat makes the admission price for a new cable pretty easy to justify.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2018)

If PM-1s qualify, mine came with a short cheap wire for portable use and a cloth covered fancy one for home. They both sound the same. Hard to do an A/B with headphones because there is a time lag as you swap cans. That is probably the reason people report differences. Auditory memory and expectation bias at work.


----------



## Voxata

Wait.. your signature.. you can't hear any differences between amplifiers?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2018)

Not if the impedance is matched correctly. I find that modern audio components are designed to be audibly transparent... inaudible levels of distortion, flat response, super low noise levels, etc. It isn't like it was when I was starting out in this hobby in the late 60s. That is nice, because you can focus on what really counts... the transducers.

People who hear differences between amps probably are using them with cans they weren't designed for.


----------



## Voxata

Wow.. not sure how many amps you've heard but there's some definite differences, especially when you start dabbling tubes but even in solid states I've heard significant signature changes. Lots of DAC/amp manufacturers alter or smear the sound a little bit to make it seem more realistic or to add euphonics. This leads to changes in sound and theres also lots of different topologies. It's far more than impedence matching. 

Transducers make the biggest difference yes but a good dac/amp pairing is important too. Jotunheim for instance has this 2d depth aggressive upper mid wall of sound thing going on that can fatigue over time. This was reported by a LOT of owners of this amp. This is a sonic characteristic that works with some headphones (HD650 as it's a very intimate headphone) and hinders others (one of the HE560's strengths is precise positioning) - point is the differences are there and depending on your setup it sure does matter.


----------



## bfreedma

Voxata said:


> Wow.. not sure how many amps you've heard but there's some definite differences, especially when you start dabbling tubes but even in solid states I've heard significant signature changes. Lots of DAC/amp manufacturers alter or smear the sound a little bit to make it seem more realistic or to add euphonics. This leads to changes in sound and theres also lots of different topologies. It's far more than impedence matching.
> 
> Transducers make the biggest difference yes but a good dac/amp pairing is important too. Jotunheim for instance has this 2d depth aggressive upper mid wall of sound thing going on that can fatigue over time. This was reported by a LOT of owners of this amp. This is a sonic characteristic that works with some headphones (HD650 as it's a very intimate headphone) and hinders others (one of the HE560's strengths is precise positioning) - point is the differences are there and depending on your setup it sure does matter.




Tubes - sure
Solid State - have anything beyond anecdotal evidence to offer?


----------



## Voxata

Sure, Google Jotunheim 2D or wall of sound etc to see the sea of reports.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 23, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Not if the impedance is matched correctly. I find that modern audio components are designed to be audibly transparent... inaudible levels of distortion, flat response, super low noise levels, etc. It isn't like it was when I was starting out in this hobby in the late 60s. That is nice, because you can focus on what really counts... the transducers.
> 
> People who hear differences between amps probably are using them with cans they weren't designed for.



Speaking of impedances - not to go too OT here - a few of my good old buddies(yeah, right!) over on Usenet rec.audio.pro said that those impedance numbers on the backs of consumer amps, receivers, and speakers don't matter, as long as you don't drive concert level volumes for hours. 

I replied in the context of, well, they're there for a reason, just like the recommended cold tire inflation pressures on the sticker on the door pillars of most cars nowadays.  They said, basically, your loss, as in limiting yourself to speakers that match only the impedances of your amp.  So I asked them, then  what are they there for?  "As a guide to showroom salesmen", they replied!

So according to them, with any home audio gear made in the last, say, thirty years, anything goes!  "Wanna drive 3-4ohm speakers on your 8-16ohm rated receiver?  Knock yourself out."   I stated my respectful disagreement with them on the subject, to which 'None' added that I was "too fu-king dumb to read numbers anyway, and to put my helmet on and get back on the short bus".   

Nice bunch a fellas, ehh?


----------



## bfreedma

Voxata said:


> Sure, Google Jotunheim 2D or wall of sound etc to see the sea of reports.



If I Google Bigfoot, I get a sea of reports...


----------



## Voxata

bfreedma said:


> If I Google Bigfoot, I get a sea of reports...



Good rebuttal. Look, there are examples across multiple forums and reviewers if you look you can easily see the trend.


----------



## bfreedma

Voxata said:


> Good rebuttal. Look, there are examples across multiple forums and reviewers if you look you can easily see the trend.



I understand there is a lot of anecdotal and subjective evidence.  What you need to make your case here are measurements or results of controlled testing that validate your claim.


----------



## Voxata (Oct 23, 2018)

My experience is from over a year of owning the amp alongside contrasting amps. Fatigue and noted characteristics that comes with the Jot reliably that doesn't occur with others using all of the same gear, just a different amp. This is my impression that oddly mirrors that of many others that have owned the amp for a considerable amount of time. If you want proof to justify your "every amp sounds the same" mentality you won't get it from me. On the flip side please, prove all solid state amps sound the same. Thanks in advance.

Here is a review scientifically and subjectively showing differences. You can measure certain things, you can't measure everything.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...g-a30-and-schiit-magni-3-headphone-amps.4024/


----------



## bfreedma

Voxata said:


> My experience is from over a year of owning the amp alongside contrasting amps. Fatigue and noted characteristics that comes with the Jot reliably that doesn't occur with others using all of the same gear, just a different amp. This is my impression that oddly mirrors that of many others that have owned the amp for a considerable amount of time. If you want proof to justify your "every amp sounds the same" mentality you won't get it from me. On the flip side please, prove all solid state amps sound the same. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Here is a review scientifically and subjectively showing differences.
> 
> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...g-a30-and-schiit-magni-3-headphone-amps.4024/



Measurements of properly constructed and operating solid state amplifiers have consistently shown that the differences are outside of the range of human hearing, thus the null hypothesis is that they will all sound the same.  If you want to prove otherwise, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

I wouldn't use that site as proof on this forum.  The individual taking the measurements has a long history of dishonesty (and that's being kind) which has been discussed in great detail here in the past.  That said, which measurements do you believe show an audible difference - within the human auditory spectrum?


----------



## Voxata

That's like saying you can't tell the difference between 60 and 144hz monitors.


----------



## bfreedma

Voxata said:


> That's like saying you can't tell the difference between 60 and 144hz monitors.



Analogies like that don't move the ball forward.  Rather than continuing the back and forth that's occurred many times on this subject, I'll bow out for now.

Happy to reengage if you have objective data or test results specific to the topic.


----------



## bigshot

I'll take the tag....

If an amp is designed to perform to specs that guarantee audible transparency, it will be audibly transparent. I don't know of any amps that aren't designed to be audibly transparent for the purposes of playing recorded music in the home. Do you, Voxata?


----------



## Voxata (Oct 23, 2018)

Are many amps not designed to sound good with measurement numbers as an afterthought? I'm trying to remember the gent who coined the phrase if it measures bad and sounds good you are measuring the wrong thing. I hear some differences between amps, is it always drastic? No.. between Jot and LCX? Two different presentations of music. My DX7s+LCX is simply more enjoyable than Bifrost+M3 to ME.. I must be insane!


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2018)

I've found amps that measure slightly different, but the differences aren't audible. I've never found an amp that is different enough to both measure and sound different.

When you say you have heard amps that sound different, what kind of comparison have you done to determine that? Or are you going by a general impression?


----------



## Voxata

I'll use an amp for weeks or months, switch it up. I've done A/B's as well using a sys volume matched. No upgrad'itis' stuff, just the experience I've had using more than just music. Certain FPS games reveal sonic characteristics very well. The Schiit Asgard for instance brings in and smears audible cues in game but adds a nice euphoric effect to music.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2018)

You did direct A/B switched / level matched? Was it a blind test? What did you use to switch between the amps? Have you done controlled listening tests on other pieces of your gear?


----------



## Voxata (Oct 23, 2018)

I said what I used, clearly. I also made sure only to eat eggs with salt and pepper for breakfast during critical listening sessions as to not sway my experience. I find that hot sauce will cause my amps to sound bright later on. Seriously though, its your opinion you can't hear any differences. It's my opinion and extensive experience that chain makes a difference on the same transducer. Your use case isn't the same as mine (I play PC FPS at a competitive level, knowing distance of shots is important) I use gear for different types of listening. What are you using to declare that everything solid state sounds the same? So you are saying an o2 amp sounds the same as an Auralic Taurus MKii? Maybe as Asgard 1 sounds the same as a 2? Similar, yeah.. the same? No..


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2018)

No need to get sparky. It's just that here in Sound Science, we are allowed to ask about testing procedure or verified proof. Just having an impression that there is a difference doesn't cut it here like it does in the rest of Head-Fi. You gave me the answer I was looking for- your testing procedure left your impression wide open for bias and perceptual error. That's noted now. I know where your opinion is coming from. No offense intended.

If you are interested in why I don't take you at your word on this, you might want to read the first post in this thread. There's great info on testing procedures there, and also a lot of carefully conducted tests that completely contradict your impressions. Expectation bias is real. Everyone is subject to it, myself included.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

And you might want to check out the videos in my sig file too. Lots to learn!


----------



## Sterling2

I don't know much about anything and I can prove it. I also don't believe I've learned much following this thread but it has been fun, so many words to persuade that cables do or do not affect sound quality. Looking at the headline from the first post, my question is why try to convince. After all it's not like trying to convince someone not to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. In other words, seems the luxury time folks have spent contributing to this thread might have been better spent doing something else or not doing anything unless you're a cable salesman.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2018)

I think the intent of the title is to express frustration about people who stick to incorrect beliefs like glue, even when they're presented with clear facts proving that they're wrong. That's a common trait among audiophiles. Many of them don't want to learn how things work for themselves. They just want to take the word of "experts" and trust in their word without question. The problem is that the people they are trusting aren't worthy of that trust. They're not experts- they're salesmen who would say anything to make a sale.

The other problem is that a lot of audiophiles invest their ego in their opinions. If they are questioned, they start feeling insulted and become snippy. If clear evidence that they are wrong is presented to them they get angry and start resorting to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks to defend their ego. You never learn anything that way. You can't learn without a certain amount of humility, openness to being told about something you didn't know before, and the intellectual honesty to not resort to semantic tricks. You have to want to learn to be able to learn.

We see gold plated examples of both of these things all the time here in Sound Science. This thread seems to attract them like moths to a flame. Maybe it has something to do with the attitude expressed in the title. I don't know.

By the way, Sterling... The reason I'm here is to pay back for all the help and advice that I've been given over the past 30 or 40 years that I've been interested in music and sound equipment. The whole point of participating in an internet forum should be to learn new things. Unfortunately, some people go into internet forums just to talk for their own benefit (and to act like bigshots!)


----------



## Sterling2 (Oct 23, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I think the intent of the title is to express frustration about people who stick to incorrect beliefs like glue, even when they're given facts to prove that they're wrong. That is a common trait among audiophiles. Many of them don't want to learn how things work for themselves. They just want to take the word of other people and trust in that without question. The problem is that the people they are trusting aren't worthy of that trust. They're salesmen who would say anything to make a sale.


I think I get it, you want to advise to help those in the hobby have a better experience with it all. Interestingly enough, I am a credentialed long range shooting instructor. I encounter folks on the range almost every day who are doing it wrong and while I am glad to offer advice, I only offer it to those who ask for it. Giving it to any others, whether stupid, ignorant, or uninformed is just casting pearls to swine. At any rate, only problem with cables I've ever had was a stray strand that crossed from positive to negative pole, not good. Also, since cables seem to not yield much bang for the buck, I save for upgrades  which  have more dramatic value.


----------



## sonitus mirus

"We are all ignorant, just about different things." ~Mark Twain

Some differences can be heard between various amps and DACs with many different transducers.  That is not a binary situation.  The people that commonly frequent this forum, and are often shunned by the rest of the site by occasional visitors, fully understand this concept.  What is suggested is that there should be no audible difference when well-understood measurements do not indicate that a human should be able to detect any.  If necessary data can be provided to establish whether any distinction should be detectable, and even basic steps are taken to ensure that significant biases have been removed when testing for such a difference, the discussion could be enlightening and constructive.


----------



## Jaywalk3r

Voxata said:


> It's my opinion and extensive experience that chain makes a difference on the same transducer.



And that's falsifiable. Funny how no one who claims to be able to detect a difference is willing to stand behind their claim and _demonstrate _that ability.

Fact: If you didn't carefully control the conditions of your comparison, you have no idea whether you heard claimed differences with your ears or with your imagination.


----------



## bigshot

Jaywalk3r said:


> Funny how no one who claims to be able to detect a difference is willing to stand behind their claim and _demonstrate _that ability.



I'll let you in on a little secret... one of the ways that I tell if someone is genuine or not is to see how they react to being politely contradicted with evidence. If they are confused or ask how that could be and explain why they think that way, then they are probably genuine. If they get mad or pissy and start dishing out passive aggressiveness, then I can tell that they KNOW they are wrong, they just don't want to admit it. The biggest obstacle to getting accurate info out there isn't snake oil salesmen, it's people's egos. If someone claims golden ears, that is a pretty good sign that their ego is at the steering wheel. It's tough to think on your feet if you're all wrapped in justifying your own superiority. Better to be confident in what you actually know, open to finding out new things and to be humble enough to accept that you are human and can be wrong about things sometimes.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I'll let you in on a little secret... one of the ways that I tell if someone is genuine or not is to see how they react to being politely contradicted with evidence. If they are confused or ask how that could be and explain why they think that way, then they are probably genuine. If they get mad or pissy and start dishing out passive aggressiveness, then I can tell that they KNOW they are wrong, they just don't want to admit it.


I get the idea and certainly, arguing with someone who turned ON his defense mechanism on you is a waste of time. now why they react that way could IMO have a all lot of reasons, not just because they know they are wrong. many people get passive aggressive because it's the only level of aggressiveness that won't get them spanked by moderation. so already what we get as a response could in fact be various degrees of anger forced into a mostly PC format.
also along with lying sacks of crap, and they certainly exist, we have all the people who are fundamentally insecure(and in a hobby drowned in ignorance and legends, how else could they be?). we have all the people who ran out of arguments if they had anything more than gut feeling to begin with. the moment someone feels cornered, whatever the reason, it's fight or flight response and many will try to bite. we also have passive aggressive responses from people who are beyond bored from reading the same stuff for years(reminds you of someone you know?   ). or maybe they just got a bad day and your demand for details just happen to poke a bear...


----------



## bigshot

I always like to let people know up front that they are being judged!


----------



## Tsukuyomi

I went to an audio equipment store looking for cables. i needed a 6.35mm to female mini 3pin xlr and the guy at the counter was trying to push on me cables that cost around 200$ - 1,000$. he was like "here try them with these headphones and see if you can tell the difference." as i put the headphones on, i could tell right away he started to adujst the sound settings on the amp. he put the 200$ cables in and put the gain to high so that it made terrible hissing noises when no audio played and made it sound kinda poop. then when he plugged in the 800$ cables he turned the gain to low and proceeded to tell me "see, doesnt it sound cleaner with no hissing, it "filters" the sound much better between the headphones and sound system." to his dismay im not an idiot so i asked if he could replug the 200$ cable again and turn the gain to low so i could hear it again. he then tried to say "oh but for these cables you need high gain otherwise it will sound terrible." . . .  :/ i know audio cables make very little to almost no difference in sound quality. if i would spend a lot of money on cables it would be either a) for durability and build quality to last between and including connectors. or b) length. high end quality audio cables are a bunch of bollocks and if you spend a lot on them thinking it will make your sound "more pure" then you deserve to get your money taken away from you because you're unwise with it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Tsukuyomi said:


> I went to an audio equipment store looking for cables. i needed a 6.35mm to female mini 3pin xlr and the guy at the counter was trying to push on me cables that cost around 200$ - 1,000$. he was like "here try them with these headphones and see if you can tell the difference." as i put the headphones on, i could tell right away he started to adujst the sound settings on the amp. he put the 200$ cables in and put the gain to high so that it made terrible hissing noises when no audio played and made it sound kinda poop. then when he plugged in the 800$ cables he turned the gain to low and proceeded to tell me "see, doesnt it sound cleaner with no hissing, it "filters" the sound much better between the headphones and sound system." to his dismay im not an idiot so i asked if he could replug the 200$ cable again and turn the gain to low so i could hear it again. he then tried to say "oh but for these cables you need high gain otherwise it will sound terrible." . . .  :/ i know audio cables make very little to almost no difference in sound quality. if i would spend a lot of money on cables it would be either a) for durability and build quality to last between and including connectors. or b) length. high end quality audio cables are a bunch of bollocks and if you spend a lot on them thinking it will make your sound "more pure" then you deserve to get your money taken away from you because you're unwise with it.




OMG!  You mean he was changing the settings right in front of you during the comparison?  What an IDIOT.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

TheSonicTruth said:


> OMG!  You mean he was changing the settings right in front of you during the comparison?  What an IDIOT.


I think he assumed because im "young" (31) that i didnt really know anything about audio and was a sucker and wanted to sell me over priced insulated copper wire. :/


----------



## Whazzzup

What bogus amp was that? High gain popped and hissed? I’m more concerned about the name of the amp then I’m concerned about the cables. Granted I have my own positive impressions of the cables I have tested but that’s just me...


----------



## Tsukuyomi

Whazzzup said:


> What bogus amp was that? High gain popped and hissed? I’m more concerned about the name of the amp then I’m concerned about the cables. Granted I have my own positive impressions of the cables I have tested but that’s just me...


was a Cayin iDAC-6 and iHA-6 combo.


----------



## Whazzzup

Tsukuyomi said:


> was a Cayin iDAC-6 and iHA-6 combo.


 avoid!


----------



## bigshot

Tsukuyomi said:


> to his dismay im not an idiot so i asked if he could replug the 200$ cable again and turn the gain to low so i could hear it again.



I was in the market for speakers and I went to a high end stereo store to audition some. I had a yellow pad with me and I was going through the various models and comparing and taking notes. I noticed that my notes were inconsistent across multiple comparisons, so I went back to the one that was inconsistent and asked the salesman to play it again. I kept and eye on him and I noticed that he stood with his back to the amp with both hands behind his back. His shoulders made a little movement and the sound changed. I stood up and said "excuse me" and motioned for him to step aside. The bass control was no longer at the detent. I told him that if he was going to keep readjusting the tone controls, it would take me all day to do my comparisons. He got all pissy and marched out of the room. I did my own switching from then on and no salesman came near me.


----------



## Tsukuyomi

bigshot said:


> I was in the market for speakers and I went to a high end stereo store to audition some. I had a yellow pad with me and I was going through the various models and comparing and taking notes. I noticed that my notes were inconsistent across multiple comparisons, so I went back to the one that was inconsistent and asked the salesman to play it again. I kept and eye on him and I noticed that he stood with his back to the amp with both hands behind his back. His shoulders made a little movement and the sound changed. I stood up and said "excuse me" and motioned for him to step aside. The bass control was no longer at the detent. I told him that if he was going to keep readjusting the tone controls, it would take me all day to do my comparisons. He got all pissy and marched out of the room. I did my own switching from then on and no salesman came near me.


Exactly, i hate it when salesmen/woman try to fiddle with devices thinking i wont notice. most people do research on products before going to the store as to gain some groundwork before looking at the product in person. i can understand they want to sell the best products they can as to get a larger cut from a sale. but common, we're ending up with the products in the long run, we wanna make sure its worth it.
i've yet to return to that store i've mentioned and since then i found a new store that might suit me better because the people are nicer and dont fiddle with stuff when im demoing them.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Tsukuyomi said:


> I think he assumed because im "young" (31) that i didnt really know anything about audio and was a sucker and wanted to sell me over priced insulated copper wire. :/



Whether I'm demoing or comparing gear - at work or at home - I'm up front and honest:  All EQ/tone controls, enhancers stay FLAT, enhancers switched OFF.  I wouldn't jive you the way that guy did!


----------



## Kyndcookie

Hmmm, 75 pages. Not going to read the whole thing, but I'm curious why the OP and cable naysayers feel the_ need_ to convince people of_ anything._ I did read the first couple of pages. This stuff is nothing new. People want what they want for myriad reasons, not all of which are scientific. I suggest moving on and not worrying about it. Me? I'm going to go listen to some music using a bunch of way overpriced, snake-oil dripping cables that look great, sound great and make me happy!


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 26, 2018)

Kyndcookie said:


> Hmmm, 75 pages. Not going to read the whole thing, but I'm curious why the OP and cable naysayers feel the_ need_ to convince people of_ anything._ I did read the first couple of pages. This stuff is nothing new. People want what they want for myriad reasons, not all of which are scientific. I suggest moving on and not worrying about it. Me? I'm going to go listen to some music using a bunch of way overpriced, snake-oil dripping cables that look great, sound great and make me happy!



It's your money - you are free to flush it down the toilet as you see fit!


----------



## sonitus mirus

Kyndcookie said:


> Hmmm, 75 pages. Not going to read the whole thing, but I'm curious why the OP and cable naysayers feel the_ need_ to convince people of_ anything._ I did read the first couple of pages. This stuff is nothing new. People want what they want for myriad reasons, not all of which are scientific. I suggest moving on and not worrying about it. Me? I'm going to go listen to some music using a bunch of way overpriced, snake-oil dripping cables that look great, sound great and make me happy!



I suggest moving on and stop worrying about it.


----------



## Kyndcookie

sonitus mirus said:


> I suggest moving on and stop worrying about it.



Exactly.


----------



## Kyndcookie

TheSonicTruth said:


> It's your money - you are free to flush it down the toilet as you see fit!



That’s why opinions are like ___holes! Everybody has one.


----------



## moriez (Oct 28, 2018)

Kyndcookie said:


> I'm curious why the OP and cable naysayers feel the_ need_ to convince people of_ anything._



Honestly, for me it's also still hard to see it differently but it's actually more the other way around. In this thread _believers _are invited to convince the naysayers by naming examples of different sounding cables, or by coming up with measurements or with documented properly carried out blind tests. So the story goes on and on. The what I call default deny mindset applied here is a strange one and takes getting used to. To me there's also genuine good to be extracted from this cold place :lol: The multi-posters are very knowledgeable and kind of confront you to be rational or objective, which works well not only in my audio situation but it also makes a useful appearance from time to time outside the hobby. True story


----------



## 71 dB

Kyndcookie said:


> 1. Hmmm, 75 pages.
> 2. Not going to read the whole thing, but I'm curious why the OP and cable naysayers feel the_ need_ to convince people of_ anything._
> 3. I did read the first couple of pages. This stuff is nothing new. People want what they want for myriad reasons, not all of which are scientific.
> 4. I suggest moving on and not worrying about it. Me? I'm going to go listen to some music using a bunch of way overpriced, snake-oil dripping cables that look great, sound great and make me happy!



1. That's nothing. That's commonplace. 
2. The more people believe in snakeoil the more there are snakeoil sellers. Unless you are very rich, you have better use for your money than snakeoil cables. The benefits of for example acoustic treatment are real and still people invest more money into snakeoil cables.
3. Well if you want snakeoil cables for whatever myriad reason and are willing to pay for them then be my guest, but don't tell others you got them for better sound. You got them for myriad reasons, period.
4. We naysayers are not debunking your happiness*. We are debunking the sonic superiority of snakeoil cables. That's the _scientific part_ of this all. The signal doesn't know the price of the cable. The signal doesn't care if the cable was sold by a snakeoil seller. All it cares about is the electromagnetic properties of the cable and proper affordable cables fulfill those requirements, and at audio frequencies 0-20 kHz those requirements aren't that challenging. That's why you can be happy using cheap (but technically proper) cables.

* This is off topic here, but since you mentioned happiness as a reason for owning snakeoil cables I say this: Materialism isn't generally the best way to reach happiness. It's a way to fool yourself into thinking you are happy, an easy way to have short happy periods in life. Real, continuous happiness is more difficult and comes from unexpected sources such as helping other people and intellectual enrichment.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 28, 2018)

Kyndcookie said:


> That’s why opinions are like ___holes! Everybody has one.




Just the very act of picking up those $500 cables, bringing them home and switching out those $5 Radio Shacks for them can convince you the more expensive ones sound 'better', or at least different.  I've experienced that, but have long since matured when it comes to the matter of audio interconnects, both analog and digital.  Oh!  I see you're from Texas!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

71 dB said:


> 1. That's nothing. That's commonplace.
> 2. The more people believe in snakeoil the more there are snakeoil sellers. Unless you are very rich, you have better use for your money than snakeoil cables. The benefits of for example acoustic treatment are real and still people invest more money into snakeoil cables.
> 3. Well if you want snakeoil cables for whatever myriad reason and are willing to pay for them then be my guest, but don't tell others you got them for better sound. You got them for myriad reasons, period.
> 4. We naysayers are not debunking your happiness*. We are debunking the sonic superiority of snakeoil cables. That's the _scientific part_ of this all. The signal doesn't know the price of the cable. The signal doesn't care if the cable was sold by a snakeoil seller. All it cares about is the electromagnetic properties of the cable and proper affordable cables fulfill those requirements, and at audio frequencies 0-20 kHz those requirements aren't that challenging. That's why you can be happy using cheap (but technically proper) cables.
> ...



I think people like Cookie need to read up on marketing psychology.  Both the product maker and the consumer play roles in how the product maker is able to convince the consumer that I.E. that $300 Beats headphone is somehow more beneficial to them, and the consumer, without doing any basic research, is is convinced by the hype and becomes willing to buy them, when superior sounding headphones can be had for $half - or less - that money and don't need batteries, even for the wired ones, to work properly.


----------



## Kyndcookie

TheSonicTruth said:


> Just the very act of picking up those $500 cables, bringing them home and switching out those $5 Radio Shacks for them can convince you the more expensive ones sound 'better', or at least different.  I've experienced that, but have long since matured when it comes to the matter of audio interconnects, both analog and digital.  Oh!  I see you're from Texas!



I love this. This is the typical response boiled down, isn’t it? I’m actually not arguing the technical points or the psychology. That’s not the purpose of my response to the OP. There was a flurry of response to to my post last night, and there’s no need to reply to them all. This one is sufficient. 

Everyone has been so eager to reinforce their position that no one even addressed my initial point, which was why is it necessary to to TRY to convince people about cables? These endless threads on the topic are like politics. So what if there is science behind naysayers? That’s not the point. And so what if people enjoy beautiful, well built cables which sound the same or worse than your $10 miracle wire? That’s not the point, either. I don’t personally care, one way or another. 

The most telling thing is that the above post goes from trying to mansplain the placebo effect to insulting my intelligence based on the state I live in. This is not surprising. People get so pissy when others don’t share not just their opinion, but share it in the exact same way. It’s an American tradition these days. Not once did I say the science wasn’t there. Just that I think it’s silly to try to convince people, when they clearly don’t want to be convinced. The myriad approaches to explaining to me how wrong I am above assumes I don’t agree, when in reality I do agree, but simply don’t care. I know I’m not the only one who sees things this way. Feel free to pity me not living in the same head space as you, but try not to be insulting about it. It doesn’t make the community look good.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 28, 2018)

Kyndcookie said:


> I love this. This is the typical response boiled down, isn’t it? I’m actually not arguing the technical points or the psychology. That’s not the purpose of my response to the OP. There was a flurry of response to to my post last night, and there’s no need to reply to them all. This one is sufficient.
> 
> Everyone has been so eager to reinforce their position that no one even addressed my initial point, which was why is it necessary to to TRY to convince people about cables? These endless threads on the topic are like politics. So what if there is science behind naysayers? That’s not the point. And so what if people enjoy beautiful, well built cables which sound the same or worse than your $10 miracle wire? That’s not the point, either. I don’t personally care, one way or another.
> 
> The most telling thing is that the above post goes from trying to mansplain the placebo effect to insulting my intelligence based on the state I live in. This is not surprising. People get so pissy when others don’t share not just their opinion, but share it in the exact same way. It’s an American tradition these days. Not once did I say the science wasn’t there. Just that I think it’s silly to try to convince people, when they clearly don’t want to be convinced. The myriad approaches to explaining to me how wrong I am above assumes I don’t agree, when in reality I do agree, but simply don’t care. I know I’m not the only one who sees things this way. Feel free to pity me not living in the same head space as you, but try not to be insulting about it. It doesn’t make the community look good.



Well, maybe not you but many Texans tend to be the rallying type:  "Denim cables rule!!, Denim cables rule!!" or, "Make Analog Great Again!"  lol!

From your reply:  "_I don’t personally care, one way or another._"

That's the problem right there!  "I"  "don't"  "care".  Three words most deadly in combination.

And not just with audio - but with everything going on lately in this country.  Don't care?  Then reap the consequences of 'not caring'.


----------



## 71 dB

Kyndcookie said:


> Just that I think it’s silly to try to convince people, when they clearly don’t want to be convinced.



Nobody is forced to read these posts or even come to this discussion board. I post what I want and you can choose to read it or ignore it. If you don't want to be educated that's your problem.


----------



## Kyndcookie

These threads aren’t about education any more. Sure, there is the occasional newbie looking for validation or even actual, hard science, but it’s not like it happens all
time, relative to threads like these, at least. They appear to be bully pulpits over pretty much inconsequential things. And, more importantly, I could certainly ignore the comments or thread entirely, but then why does the forum even exist, if not to spark conversation? It’s like people want to have an opinion, post it, and not expect some sort of response? And the dismissive nastiness, the condescension, the stubborn non-acceptance that people simply like what they like for reasons that need not be justified, proven or explained in any way? It’s embarrassing to the community, as I see it. 

These threads are not new, nor are they limited to Head Fi, obviously. I just wanted to break up the echo in here. I don’t disagree with the science, but once more, for the people in the back, it’s not just science.


----------



## Whazzzup




----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2018)

moriez said:


> Honestly, for me it's also still hard to see it differently but it's actually more the other way around. In this thread _believers _are invited to convince the naysayers by naming examples of different sounding cables, or by coming up with measurements or with documented properly carried out blind tests.



Both sides should be required to put up supporting evidence. The problem is that cable believers will go on and on citing their uncontrolled impressions and acting as if those are just as valid as the carefully controlled tests that the skeptics point to. Believing in cables doesn't involve supporting evidence. It involves propping up an indefensible argument.



Kyndcookie said:


> These threads aren’t about education any more. Sure, there is the occasional newbie looking for validation or even actual, hard science, but it’s not like it happens all the time, relative to threads like these, at least.



You have to realize how internet forums work. The audience reading the threads isn't the same as the people posting in it. Sound Science comes up in my google searches all the time (even my own posts!) I would bet that at least half of the page views here are from people googling up a question and never registering and never posting. The lurkers are the ones being addressed by those of us who have real information to share.

I find that I have trouble putting personalities or past history to anonymous usernames. But when someone pushes beyond a certain point, I realize that they are a lot cause because of willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, unconquerable bias, etc. I might be reply to their posts, but I'm no longer really speaking to them. I'm speaking past them to the audience of lurkers. They still listen even when the bulldozers of ignorance don't.


----------



## Laura80

Kyndcookie said:


> These threads aren’t about education any more. Sure, there is the occasional newbie looking for validation or even actual, hard science, but it’s not like it happens all
> time, relative to threads like these, at least. They appear to be bully pulpits over pretty much inconsequential things. And, more importantly, I could certainly ignore the comments or thread entirely, but then why does the forum even exist, if not to spark conversation? It’s like people want to have an opinion, post it, and not expect some sort of response? And the dismissive nastiness, the condescension, the stubborn non-acceptance that people simply like what they like for reasons that need not be justified, proven or explained in any way? It’s embarrassing to the community, as I see it.
> 
> These threads are not new, nor are they limited to Head Fi, obviously. I just wanted to break up the echo in here. I don’t disagree with the science, but once more, for the people in the back, it’s not just science.



I was recommended using a copper cable to improve treble  response for my hd800’s by a member on another thread with the caveat that he was a ‘believer’ [in cables making auditory changes].

Another member replied immediately with ‘no they dont’ (or words to similar effect).

I believe they both believe they are correct but in the meantime I’m playing around with EQ.


----------



## Henry Hua

I only care about how cable looks. LOL


----------



## castleofargh (Oct 29, 2018)

Laura80 said:


> I was recommended using a copper cable to improve treble  response for my hd800’s by a member on another thread with the caveat that he was a ‘believer’ [in cables making auditory changes].
> 
> Another member replied immediately with ‘no they dont’ (or words to similar effect).
> 
> I believe they both believe they are correct but in the meantime I’m playing around with EQ.


but that's the thing, believing shouldn't matter. the workings of a cable aren't spiritual. it's all about electrical signals running through it and how they might change and how much when we use a different cable. yet electrical measurements are the very last thing we see brought up to demonstrate a change (or lack of), or to justify purchasing special cables. to me it's already the sign that a lot of BS is going on.

I'm also a fan of EQ and love the versatility and control I have over sound with it. in fact the most expensive software I have on my computer is an EQ. and I wouldn't put as much money into a cable. not anymore(mistakes were made).



moriez said:


> Honestly, for me it's also still hard to see it differently but it's actually more the other way around. In this thread _believers _are invited to convince the naysayers by naming examples of different sounding cables, or by coming up with measurements or with documented properly carried out blind tests. So the story goes on and on. The what I call default deny mindset applied here is a strange one and takes getting used to. To me there's also genuine good to be extracted from this cold place :lol: The multi-posters are very knowledgeable and kind of confront you to be rational or objective, which works well not only in my audio situation but it also makes a useful appearance from time to time outside the hobby. True story


we don't ask for evidence of difference to create an unfair position of power. although I'm sure it's perceived that way by anybody who doesn't fully understand how to demonstrate audibility. we do it because it's the only thing that can be demonstrated. we can't demonstrate that no cable will ever sound different. it's not testable and is just a silly claim. we should pay it no mind.
it's a simple enough fact that failing a test will have a very limited range of conclusions. me failing one doesn't prove there is nothing to be heard or that nobody else will hear it. so it interests me personally, but doesn't interest us much as a community because there is very little we can get from the data.

on the other hand if someone passes one experiment that we can all consider rigorous. that's it, the question of someone noticing a change and claiming so has been answered. how cool is that?
I can't put an end to an argument between somebody who claims to perceive clear changes, and somebody who claims he's wrong. I don't even have the guy's cables or his playback gears. it's unavoidable that the one claiming to perceive changes is the one who has to demonstrate something.
and that's why we keep asking them to run a blind test and/or some measurements. to give us confidence that there is indeed something worth caring about and that they're not full of crap.



Henry Hua said:


> I only care about how cable looks. LOL


 quite often I pay a few more bucks if I like the look better. not a few hundred more, though^_^.


----------



## gregorio

Kyndcookie said:


> [1] I'm curious why the OP and cable naysayers feel the_ need_ to convince people of_ anything._
> [2] People want what they want for myriad reasons, not all of which are scientific



1. Really? It's not that we feel the need to convince cable believers of anything, more that we feel the need to un-convince them of a lie/falsehood they've already been convinced of.

2. Agreed and I personally have no problem with someone who wants to buy a cable because it looks better, for retail therapy or even because of brand name/bragging rights. However, how many of those who buy expensive audiophile cables do so under the delusion/misapprehension that they are at least partially buying an actual audible improvement/difference in cable performance? 



Kyndcookie said:


> Sure, there is the occasional newbie looking for validation or even actual, hard science, but it’s not like it happens all time ...



Yes it does happen all the time! How many times have you seen marketing materials, a review or opinions/impressions about an audiophile cable which doesn't assert audible differences? Higher fidelity, silver enhancing the highs, copper sounding warmer, an audiophile cable sounding more detailed, resolving or such like? Pretty much NEVER as far as I can recall!

G


----------



## oldmate

Laura80 said:


> I was recommended using a copper cable to improve treble response



Then you get those that say silver improves treble response. This argument is akin to an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

With the short cable runs we are discussing IMHO cables make no difference whatsoever. Just my 0.0000000254 BTC's worth!!

I have purchased after market cables but for purely aesthetic or ergonomic reasons.


----------



## Luke Thomas

Just bought a $70 balanced cable. Is a lesser priced cable not a good purchase? Could it sound as good as a big dollar one?


----------



## bigshot

yes and yes


----------



## Luke Thomas

bigshot said:


> yes and yes


Thanks, your thinking spending more than $70 on a balanced cable most likely will sound better


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2018)

No, I think all you need is a regular old Amazon basics cable unless you are running wire to listen to your music a half block away.

Sorry I missed the "not" in the first question you asked. I should have said no and yes.


----------



## Luke Thomas

bigshot said:


> No, I think all you need is a regular old Amazon basics cable unless you are running wire to listen to your music a half block away.
> 
> Sorry I missed the "not" in the first question you asked. I should have said no and yes.


Just received my $70 Amazon balanced cable for my hifiman hex. So far sounds great. Highly recommended.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 4, 2018)

How do you convince people that headphone or other audio cables generally do not make a difference (unless something's gone horribly wrong)? Make their jobs contingent upon their understanding this fact. : )

How do you make someone not understand this fact? Make their livelihood contingent upon them not understanding it.

The rest of us as consumers are caught up in the mess and left to figure things out the best we can.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Steve999 said:


> How do you convince people that headphone cables generally do not make a difference (unless something's gone horribly wrong)? Make their jobs contingent upon their understanding this fact. : )
> 
> How do you make someone not understand this fact? Make their livelihood contingent on them not understanding it.
> 
> The rest of us as consumers are caught up in the mess and left to figure things out the best we can.



Some folks just cannot be dissuaded from believing that thick orange cables will make music sound great again.


----------



## bigshot

Luke Thomas said:


> Just received my $70 Amazon balanced cable for my hifiman hex. So far sounds great. Highly recommended.



If you have extraordinary long runs, balanced cables are good. For normal lengths, they are pointless.


----------



## Luke Thomas

bigshot said:


> If you have extraordinary long runs, balanced cables are good. For normal lengths, they are pointless.


Wow not so sure. I’m thinking with my Violectric 280 amp. The balanced cable is a tad better.


----------



## Whazzzup

A tad? What’s a tad? Measure that tad, double blind that tad, graph that tad, then sound science will beleive that tad exists and is quantifiable. Otherwise the tad could be mistaken as a smidge if it exists at all.


----------



## Luke Thomas

Get your wallet out and buy a balanced amp and cable. You then will know what a tad is


Whazzzup said:


> A tad? What’s a tad? Measure that tad, double blind that tad, graph that tad, then sound science will beleive that tad exists and is quantifiable. Otherwise the tad could be mistaken as a smidge if it exists at all.


----------



## Whazzzup

Luke Thomas said:


> Get your wallet out and buy a balanced amp and cable. You then will know what a tad is



Already have read my sig, I guess humour was overlooked


----------



## bigshot (Nov 5, 2018)

Tad = Expectation Bias

The exception to that is when you have very long runs of cable where interference can occur.


----------



## Elecroestatico

LOL they think the question is "

How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?"     

When the real question is: How do I convince all these noobs that they simply don't have golden ears?

Differences are so obvious it's incredibly funny how some people trust their tiny calculator and quantifiable graphs but are not capable of knowing how to use their own ears, that or they simply cannot hear the differences, just because we are all just not born the same or because hearing damage.

Either way I understand those who claim there is no difference in cables. If I was not able to hear differences I would also be trolling those who claim they do and sure I would be thinking they are crazy and full of snake oil.

We can now close this threat and mark it as solved. 

Thank you! and happy listening


----------



## Luke Thomas

Whazzzup said:


> Already have read my sig, I guess humour was overlooked


Yes, it was early. Sorry for being a tad grumpy lol


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Tad = Expectation Bias
> 
> The exception to that is when you have very long runs of cable where interference can occur.


I thought that "night and day" was expectation bias. does that mean night and day different=a tad=0.07bananas?
the case of balanced cables is a little peculiar as it also involves a different output or even a different amp sometimes. so just dismissing the possibility of an audible difference without more information may be a little hasty. of course the most likely difference is loudness and whatever impact the change in impedance has on the headphone. so that much should be checked before drawing conclusions on what a balanced cable does to sound. but even if it's only that, the listener is indeed going to perceive a change in sound, so that much must be acknowledge. 



Elecroestatico said:


> LOL they think the question is "
> 
> How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?"
> 
> ...


of course having better hearing or simply being more able to notice specific variations thanks to experience, could explain why some people notice things that other do not.
just like having something looking different or having a significant difference in price, can be enough to force the brain into believing that the all experience is different, including sound even when there is nothing audibly different. we suck real bad at isolating our senses at will, and that's been confirmed so many times in so many ways that it's just irrational to dismiss the possibility.
or it could be that the main electrical change is a difference in loudness, as I mentioned above for balanced vs single ended experiences. then there is a clear and very real change in sound indeed^_^. it's simply not something worth paying for when we could get it by slightly turning the volume knob on the other gear. 
or...

there are several possibilities, so the important thing IMO is to be able to confirm which one concerns our own experience. and to do that, we need a properly controlled experiment. that way we hopefully get the truth. which IMO is better than cherry picking the answer that satisfies us, declare it truth, and then treat those who cherry picked something else as if they were silly puppies. unreliable experiences are unreliable no matter if the guy ends up agreeing with me or not.


----------



## PointyFox

"Graph that tad". "No, my ears are more golden than your tiny calculator".


----------



## gregorio

Elecroestatico said:


> [1] When the real question is: How do I convince all these noobs that they simply don't have golden ears?
> [2] Differences are so obvious it's incredibly funny how some people trust their tiny calculator and quantifiable graphs but are not capable of knowing how to use their own ears ...



1. What does having golden ears got to do with it? 
2. What's really "incredibly funny" is that audiophiles seem to think that they are the only ones who know how to use their ears, while those who've actually had their ears trained and use their ears for a living, don't. Just as "incredibly funny" is when you test how well those audiophiles really know how to use their ears!

If you actually had perfect human golden ears then you would be able to recognise that there is no difference. Therefore, if you are hearing differences which are "so obvious", then either your hearing/ears are seriously faulty or you are not a human being.

G


----------



## Elecroestatico

gregorio said:


> 1. What does having golden ears got to do with it?
> 2. What's really "incredibly funny" is that audiophiles seem to think that they are the only ones who know how to use their ears, while those who've actually had their ears trained and use their ears for a living, don't. Just as "incredibly funny" is when you test how well those audiophiles really know how to use their ears!
> 
> If you actually had perfect human golden ears then you would be able to recognise that there is no difference. Therefore, if you are hearing differences which are "so obvious", then either your hearing/ears are seriously faulty or you are not a human being.
> ...


1- It has to do a lot, if you dont believe me just look at how you contradict yourself in this number 1 question when at the end of your post you also claim that if I have perfect golden ears I would be able to perceive the truth. This is another incredibly funny thing you just did here.

2- Actually many many audiophiles are aware of differences in perception, ear shape, ear training, experience, age, room acoustics,  etc etc, the fact that you think audiophiles don't know this just shows how narrow minded you are in this hobby. This is also really really funny, maybe you should do comedy for audiophiles, then you will find a hobby that truly fullfill you.


And not to be rude but if everything sounds the same to you why bother with this forum, go get yourself a pair of beats and plug it in to your samsung phone and be happy for the rest of your life because you my friend don't have golden ears, you have DIAMOND EARS! look at it from the positive side, you cannot  tell quality so everything is top notch for your ears, and thats great!


----------



## Elecroestatico

PointyFox said:


> "Graph that tad". "No, my ears are more golden than your tiny calculator".


not only that, but my ears can perceive sounds that your tiny calculator cannot even represent


----------



## bigshot (Nov 6, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> And not to be rude but if everything sounds the same to you why bother with this forum, go get yourself a pair of beats and plug it in to your samsung phone and be happy for the rest of your life because you my friend don't have golden ears, you have DIAMOND EARS! look at it from the positive side, you cannot  tell quality so everything is top notch for your ears, and thats great!



Electrostatico, there are definitely things you can do to improve sound quality, but audiophiles often focus on all the wrong things. Headphones and speakers matter. Room acoustics matter. A balanced frequency response matters. Listening to well recorded and engineered music matters. Cables, amps and DACs don't generally matter, unless they are defective or you are using them in a way that isn't their intended use.

Human ears are 100% human. There are things that human ears just can't hear. The things that many audiophiles worry about and spend gobs of money on are often inaudible. It's better to focus on things that count. It's really good to do a little research to understand the basics of how sound reproduction works and where the thresholds of human hearing lie. That can help you sort out the BS from the useful stuff.


----------



## Elecroestatico

castleofargh said:


> I thought that "night and day" was expectation bias. does that mean night and day different=a tad=0.07bananas?
> the case of balanced cables is a little peculiar as it also involves a different output or even a different amp sometimes. so just dismissing the possibility of an audible difference without more information may be a little hasty. of course the most likely difference is loudness and whatever impact the change in impedance has on the headphone. so that much should be checked before drawing conclusions on what a balanced cable does to sound. but even if it's only that, the listener is indeed going to perceive a change in sound, so that much must be acknowledge.
> 
> 
> ...


I agree the eyes can play a big roll in the way we perceive sound, so closing eyes and applying experience of having to listen to a very familiar song since you had memory across several audio systems can help with the synthomps of false perceptions, BUT thats nothing compare to plain saying cables dont make a difference and that all amps sound the same hahahah what a great trolling subject, like I said its all so very funny to me but I wont laugh too hard because like I also said, I understand those who cant perceive differences, they truly must think the rest of us are crazy and full of snake oil


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> Electrostatico, there are definitely things you can do to improve sound quality, but audiophiles often focus on all the wrong things. Headphones and speakers matter. Room acoustics matter. A balanced frequency response matters. Listening to well recorded and engineered music matters. Cables, amps and DACs don't generally matter, unless they are defective or you are using them in a way that isn't their intended use.
> 
> Human ears are 100% human. There are things that human ears just can't hear. The things that many audiophiles worry about and spend gobs of money on are often inaudible. It's better to focus on things that count. It's really good to do a little research to understand the basics of how sound reproduction works and where the thresholds of human hearing lie. That can help you sort out the BS from the useful stuff.



hahaha thats not true at all! you guys are making me laugh really hard! please dont stop, a bigger troll has arrived! And I'm here to defend the truth and all those who have been bullied in this thread.
Audiophiles dont often focus on the things that dont matter, actually most audiophiles first focus on the most important things first such as the transducers and the source and then with time they start discovering the changes in cables and other components, so dont give me that BS you are trying to sort me out from  LOL


----------



## bigshot (Nov 6, 2018)

Cables and modern solid state amps are generally audibly transparent if they are used properly. If you know any specific models that are clearly different under controlled testing, I would like to know about them. If you can help us verify your findings, we would certainly appreciate it. No one who claims to hear differences has been able to do that yet.

You aren't making a very strong first impression though. I suspect that you've wandered into the wrong forum. What passes in the rest of Head-Fi doesn't necessarily fly here. We have a higher standard. You actually have to back up your claims here with testing and verification.


----------



## Elecroestatico

and the BIGGEST LOL of all until now goes to:

they guys who think all amps sound the same unless they are faulty HAHAHAHAHreally this is hilarious, just like those who refuse to use their eyes and believe that we all are born equally and with the same opportunities, education, and treatment in life hahaha lets keep up this humor, im really enjoying it!!


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> Cables and modern solid state amps are generally audibly transparent if they are used properly. If you know any specific models that are clearly different under controlled testing, I would like to know about them. If you can help us verify your findings, we would certainly appreciate it. No one who claims to hear differences has been able to do that yet.
> 
> You aren't making a very strong first impression though. I suspect that you've wandered into the wrong forum. What passes in the rest of Head-Fi doesn't necessarily fly here. We have a higher standard. You actually have to back up your claims here with testing and verification.


HAHAHAHA  sure im in the wrong forum where everybody swaps dacs and amps and the opinions of how they change the sound is the true fuel of what drives this website activity, sure I'm in the wrong place hahaha I hope I dont need to explain sarcasm to you but it wouldn't surprise me if I have to do so, since the impression you are leaving me about you.


----------



## Whazzzup

I see after 79 pages no ones convincing anyone about anything. The caveat is using a cable, a dac, or an amp "properly" is the key for them to all sound the same. LOL


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> Cables and modern solid state amps are generally audibly transparent if they are used properly. If you know any specific models that are clearly different under controlled testing, I would like to know about them. If you can help us verify your findings, we would certainly appreciate it. No one who claims to hear differences has been able to do that yet.
> 
> You aren't making a very strong first impression though. I suspect that you've wandered into the wrong forum. What passes in the rest of Head-Fi doesn't necessarily fly here. We have a higher standard. You actually have to back up your claims here with testing and verification.


HAHAHAH again with the comedy for audiophiles!! LOL  SO this guy wants me to show proof of amps that are different and sound different? hahaha I tell you what... Why don't you show us proof of amps that are different and sound the same hahaha I bet there are a few findings in the thousands and thousands of amps available in this PLANET  that sound "almost" the same. Now compare that to the millions of combinations I can give you of "X" amp vs "y" amp that sound different..... do you SEE whats happening here? a big LOL and im not even good at math nor I have a golden tiny calculator with quantifiable graphs !!!


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 6, 2018)

IU


Whazzzup said:


> I see after 79 pages no ones convincing anyone about anything. The caveat is using a cable, a dac, or an amp "properly" is the key for them to all sound the same. LOL


You are not seeing clear...I actually unofficially have closed this thread and marked it as solved in my very first post, thats why with zero success some here have tried to debunk my opinions . But the truth is out there son, and only a few pages back my friend 

edit: their calculators most be driving them crazy to those who cant perceive differences, and I don't blame them, I would be acting the same if I was an expert calculator/graph but my ears can't perceive otherwise, same thing son, they call us crazy and we call them crazy  but all we need to be thankful for what we have, some of us have better ears, others have better brains for numbers

edit #2 : after reading again I have to say sorry I didnt see you are in my side (the side of the real truth). so yeah how ridiculous for them to say using proper dac amp and whatever has no comparison to another system rig HAHAHA I bet they drive tiny SMART cars and believe they perform like a ferrari just because it also has 4 wheels and they are all properly attached to the rest of the car


----------



## Whazzzup

Come on if used properly, there is no difference in audio. You must be operating the components improperly


----------



## Elecroestatico

Whazzzup said:


> Come on if used properly, there is no difference in audio. You must be operating the components improperly


Yes, thats why I come here everyday and try to convince everyone that my properly attached 1st gen earpods properly connected to my iphone sound just as amazing as your hugo tt properly attached to some beyers or some focal headphones ULTRA BIG LOL


----------



## bigshot (Nov 6, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> I dont need to explain sarcasm to you but it wouldn't surprise me if I have to do so, since the impression you are leaving me about you.



Oh no. Don't feel that you are required to correspond with me. We both get to judge each other by our behavior. Rest assured you are being judged. You're making it easy in fact.



Whazzzup said:


> I see after 79 pages no ones convincing anyone about anything.



That's what you get when one side requires proof to back up statements, and the other side has none. As I've said before, this thread attracts audiophools like moths to a flame. They see the argument and the supporting evidence and just want to thread crap all over it.


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> Oh no. Don't feel that you are required to correspond with me. We both get to judge each other by our behavior. Rest assured you are being judged. You're making it easy in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you get when one side requires proof to back up statements, and the other side has none. As I've said before, this thread attracts audiophools like moths to a flame. They see the argument and the supporting evidence and just want to thread crap all over it.


Thank you I don't feel like I'm required to anything here but to tell everyone my truth, and unlike you, more importantly for me is the content of what we are discussing in this thread rather than what is each others behaviors, so rest assure you are being judge by me and by your still nonexistent proof of the content we are discussing here


----------



## bigshot (Nov 6, 2018)

That is great. As long as truth is something you've verified in a controlled way and not just a subjective opinion, we are on the same page.

By the way, you might want to read the first post in this thread and go through the links there. It will take several hours at least, but it will give you a good context on what we're discussing there. That post has all of the documentation available right now. You also might want to check out the links in my sig file. There are two good overview seminars from the Audio Engineering Society conducted by Ethan Winer, and an in depth article on high data rate audio.

This thread is about verifying audible differences through controlled listening tests. If you have any controlled listening tests to contribute, we'd be happy to discuss them.


----------



## PointyFox

Elecroestatico said:


> HAHAHAHA  sure im in the wrong forum where everybody swaps dacs and amps and the opinions of how they change the sound is the true fuel of what drives this website activity, sure I'm in the wrong place hahaha I hope I dont need to explain sarcasm to you but it wouldn't surprise me if I have to do so, since the impression you are leaving me about you.



Currently only about 7% of the world's population aren't under the effects of mass-delusion. It's interesting that being deluded varies directly with the inverse of average IQ of a region.


----------



## old tech (Nov 6, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> HAHAHAH again with the comedy for audiophiles!! LOL  SO this guy wants me to show proof of amps that are different and sound different? hahaha I tell you what... Why don't you show us proof of amps that are different and sound the same hahaha I bet there are a few findings in the thousands and thousands of amps available in this PLANET  that sound "almost" the same. Now compare that to the millions of combinations I can give you of "X" amp vs "y" amp that sound different..... do you SEE whats happening here? a big LOL and im not even good at math nor I have a golden tiny calculator with quantifiable graphs !!!


No one here is claiming that all amps sound the same (or DACs, or interconnects etc).

What is being claimed, and trivially supported by objective evidence, is that a transparent amp or DAC (or interconnects that meet minimum standards) do sound the same - transparent is transparent.  As far as amps go, this was proved by Carver back in the 1980s with his Carver challenge. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

The fact that technological and manufacturing advances mean that a fully transparent amp with well made components can be built for under $2k (including margins for middle-men), and a DAC for around $100 is a problem for the high end industry.  They often do make their products less transparent (which by definition means less fidelity) for a 'signature sound' to differentiate their products or rely on marketing to achieve subjective biases in their less informed customers (why do you think a hi res player requires a light or some other indicator to let the listener know it is a hi res track they are listening to?  It should not be needed if they could easily hear a difference).

This is well known (particularly in the pro world) and used by many to achieve a better high fidelity system based on the science and at a price that reflects the true cost of producing the equipment.


----------



## upstateguy

LOL, I don't know why you guys are bothering with the troll....


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 7, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> HAHAHAH again with the comedy for audiophiles!! LOL  SO this guy wants me to show proof of amps that are different and sound different? hahaha I tell you what... Why don't you show us proof of amps that are different and sound the same hahaha I bet there are a few findings in the thousands and thousands of amps available in this PLANET  that sound "almost" the same. Now compare that to the millions of combinations I can give you of "X" amp vs "y" amp that sound different..... do you SEE whats happening here? a big LOL and im not even good at math nor I have a golden tiny calculator with quantifiable graphs !!!


You sound like a mad scientist straight out of a horror film gone wrong.

Castleofargh and others here have already stated there can be differences between amps and other audio equipment but whether the differences should be audible is up for debate, basically solid state amps, audio cables excluding tube amps. (minus headphones/iems as they obviously can easily be shown proof that transducer sound measurements can fluctuate,etc). A good subject brought up long ago was that aftermarket audio cables with varying specs and incredibly sensitive IEMs with wacky impedence/ohms can change it's frequency response.

But that is just one realistic example of how an audio cable can change the sound.

But as I was told, the debate here is whether aftermarket audio cables and (why the heck not, just include solid state amps) really do realistically change for audiophile headphones that live up to the reviews that are put out. "Etc, this silver oxygen purity free cable sold for 2000 makes the punchy bass and the treble sparkle and mids smooth, oh man just listen to the timbre and it makes everything musical and warm".
Now again, this goes psychology and social grouping.

There are popular reviewers who make reviews for various audiophile products and inserts subjective terms such as above not taught by any musician certified with a masters at least where I currently study. Now for instance, take one reviewer who is reviewing audio cables and tells their viewers to buy this name brand over the others.
He/she suggests that this brand of cable has sweeping mids and sings musical with a non heated treble. But provides no recorded graphs or substantial evidence that it is much better than another name brands audio cable.

Naturally, if someone were to criticize that audio review, his fans/her fans will come to rescue due to their social group patting themselves on the back on the belief they have a superior audio cable based on what one person says.

You can actually do this test yourself, purchase some high quality audio cables you can buy on amazon for less than 30 usd. Gregorio and bigshot a long while ago gave some recommendations. Monoprice cable you can buy for affordable price about 17 a foot maybe? On amazon. Go to a headfi meet, find a table where you can hide the cables under a blanket and tell fellow members that it is "insert popular audio cable name" and tell them that the famous reviewers on headfi said so and so that these audio cables make your sound have sweeping mids and musical/warm and sparkly treble, high resolution and detail that snatches all the micro details you can imagine.

The people when they listen to it, the first thing that comes to their mind is that they are already convinced the sound is warm and musical and the treble is sparkly because a popular reviewer has told them this, it  spreads. Just don't let anyone see the actual cable underneath.

If you do have golden ears you may be the first into a world record that you have the hearing ability of a bat or a dog far beyond human limitation.

In another post you even went so far as to tell @gregorio that he should just listen to beats then. That makes no sense? What if he has headphones that is well within his means of affordability, well built electrical specs, and other features?


----------



## JaeYoon

Elecroestatico said:


> Yes, thats why I come here everyday and try to convince everyone that my properly attached 1st gen earpods properly connected to my iphone sound just as amazing as your hugo tt properly attached to some beyers or some focal headphones ULTRA BIG LOL


I know you are being sarcastic. But what if someone showed you that an iphone 6 showed measurements of circuit noise levels well below human hearing? That artifacts were well below human hearing and can perform the same task of audio reproduction as a Chord Hugo?

Now earpods, well that's a different story, and understandable but those are transducers.


----------



## gregorio

Elecroestatico said:


> 1- It has to do a lot, if you dont believe me just look at how you contradict yourself in this number 1 question when at the end of your post you also claim that if I have perfect golden ears I would be able to perceive the truth. This is another incredibly funny thing you just did here.
> 2- Actually many many audiophiles are aware of differences in perception, ear shape, ear training, experience, age, room acoustics,  etc etc,
> 2a. ... the fact that you think audiophiles don't know this just shows how narrow minded you are in this hobby.
> 3. And not to be rude but if everything sounds the same to you why bother with this forum ...



1. Why is it funny and why is it a contradiction? If there's some guy who's convinced he has perfect golden eyes which allows him to see fairies, pink elephants and individual molecules, while another guy can't see those things, which one has the better eyes and is better "able to perceive the truth"?
2. That's great! So the obvious questions are: *What formal ear training do you have? What experience, what room acoustics?*
2a. Your response demonstrates how narrow minded you are, because this isn't ONLY a hobby! Audio is science, technology, engineering and a profession, and has been for over a century for hundreds of thousands of people.
3. What do you mean "not to be rude"? Rude is the ONLY thing you are being! And, the only thing funny here is that you're apparently so desperate to defend your beliefs that you even revert to MAKING-UP COMPLETE NONSENSE! Where did I (or anyone else here) state that "everything sounds the same" to us?



Elecroestatico said:


> [1] not only that, but my ears can perceive sounds that your tiny calculator cannot even represent
> [2] please dont stop, a bigger troll has arrived!
> [2a] And I'm here to defend the truth ...



1. What tiny calculator? Don't you even know what sorts of equipment is used for measuring sound/audio, let alone how precisely we can do so? Do you also believe you can perceive things with your eyes that scientific and engineering equipment can't, do you have better eyes than the Hubble space telescope or an electron microscope?

2. Believe me, we've noticed!!
2a. And you do that by being rude, providing no reliable evidence whatsoever and just making-up complete nonsense? You've got an incredibly strange idea of what the "truth" is! BTW, this is not the "defend your belief" forum, this is the Sound Science forum.

G


----------



## castleofargh

because it always comes down to people discussing gears while having little understanding of how humans or experimentation work, here is a small recap of the previous episodes:
being deluded, ignoring stuff, oversimplifying to a fault, and often sticking with our opinions when faced with contradicting evidence, everybody does it. and here is the revolutionary part: everybody means you guys, and also me. bamboozled!
maybe some don't do all of the above as consistently. and obviously some people know more on a subject than others, and that will have consequences. but we all wrong many times a day. the biggest difference between individuals is when some are also deluded into believing it doesn't happen to them. but that too is completely normal as we are wired to think we're special, and we never really understand ourselves as well as we think we do. 


IMO the biggest failure of this hobby is to keep telling people to trust casual impressions. we are told that, because it's a hobby about enjoying stuff. some of those stuff will be sound, some won't. so of course our impressions are relevant in that context as that's how we'll decide if we enjoy something or not. 
but here is the logical fallacy: taking that advice as a validation that our casual impressions are reliable and accurately describing the objective behavior of sound, independently of everything else. that's a mistake so big, it's almost equivalent to denying reality. 
 an uncontrolled experience with unconfirmed impressions and free wheeling interpretation. this describes almost all the experiences audiophiles have with cables. having to waste time switching the cables is only the cherry on the failure cake. whoever decides to call those impressions conclusive about the sound of the gear is at least wrong twice. and that no matter what his impressions and opinions are.




*modo transformation, activate! *
@Elecroestatico please do something about your tone and the constant trolling. even if you consider that pulling the topic down this low is fun, I don't agree and I don't enjoy one bit having to moderate all those who fall for your taunting.
and to others, I'd like to remind you that insults are not allowed on this forum, no matter why. we don't have to love everybody, I certainly don't. the forum like the world will have cool people, and some not so cool, "but it's like that, and that's the way way it is".


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> No one here is claiming that all amps sound the same (or DACs, or interconnects etc).
> 
> What is being claimed, and trivially supported by objective evidence, is that a transparent amp or DAC (or interconnects that meet minimum standards) do sound the same - transparent is transparent.  As far as amps go, this was proved by Carver back in the 1980s with his Carver challenge.
> 
> ...


Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.


----------



## old tech

objectively.oneydawg, post: 14583853, member: 489563"]Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The point I was making there, perhaps obliquely, is that Carver proved that if amps measure the same they sound the same. Not all amps measure the same but on the same token, amps that measure to be audibly transparent will objectively sound the same as any other amp that is audibly transparent.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

old tech said:


> objectively.oneydawg, post: 14583853, member: 489563"]Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.


Agreed. The point I was making there, perhaps obliquely, is that Carver proved that if amps measure the same they sound the same. Not all amps measure the same but on the same token, amps that measure to be audibly transparent will objectively sound the same as any other amp that is audibly transparent.[/QUOTE]
fair enough....but Bob will sell you a 35thousand dollar tube amp if you check bobcarvercorp.com


----------



## bigshot

Most solid state amps are designed to be audibly transparent, aren't they? I can't seem to find one that isn't. Bob Carver proved that a transparent solid state amp could be modified to sound like a colored tube amp. Now we do that all the time with DSPs.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Most solid state amps are designed to be audibly transparent, aren't they? I can't seem to find one that isn't. Bob Carver proved that a transparent solid state amp could be modified to sound like a colored tube amp. Now we do that all the time with DSPs.


fully agreed....even modern tube amps


----------



## kukkurovaca

This is OT, sorry, but what DSP(s) do you guys use to emulate tube amp coloration?


----------



## bigshot

Here is a thread on DSPs...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-dsp-rolling-how-to-thread.867258/


----------



## Elecroestatico

JaeYoon said:


> I know you are being sarcastic. But what if someone showed you that an iphone 6 showed measurements of circuit noise levels well below human hearing? That artifacts were well below human hearing and can perform the same task of audio reproduction as a Chord Hugo?
> 
> Now earpods, well that's a different story, and understandable but those are transducers.


HAHAHA really you are going to show me that an iphone 6 performs the same as a chord hugo? LOL the noise levels and artifacts  is just a tiny part of all of the things that make one source different from another, sure they both can play the same song, so like you said they can both perform the same task of audio reproduction  lol just not with the same performance.


----------



## Maxx134 (Nov 9, 2018)

JaeYoon said:


> I know you are being sarcastic. But what if someone showed you that an iphone 6 showed measurements of circuit noise levels well below human hearing? That artifacts were well below human hearing and can perform the same task of audio reproduction as a Chord Hugo?
> 
> Now earpods, well that's a different story, and understandable but those are transducers.


There actually is no conflict.
Those parameters of noise are common to be low in today's electronics.
Its a great thing to have clean sound.
Whether is sounds "real" obviously lies on other parameters.
Even clean perfect signal doesn't mean the same signal.
Clean sounding dacs reproduce an overall signature that can be very different.
Just because we have great specs in one place, doesn't mean we solved the whole picture. Lots of steps along the way.



Glmoneydawg said:


> Agreed. The point I was making there, perhaps obliquely, is that Carver proved that if ampshe same they sound the same


 not exactly...


Glmoneydawg said:


> Bob Carvers point was that by changing the transfer function of his ss amps he could duplicate the sound of another amp....not that they all sound the same.


Agreed, and I think that genious was ahead of his time.


In a Stereofile challenge test, he was using some nulling circuit between both amps, so ANY parameter & any difference, even unknown at the time was made audible between the two.
Nice.


----------



## Elecroestatico

Glmoneydawg said:


> Agreed. The point I was making there, perhaps obliquely, is that Carver proved that if amps measure the same they sound the same. Not all amps measure the same but on the same token, amps that measure to be audibly transparent will objectively sound the same as any other amp that is audibly transparent.


fair enough....but Bob will sell you a 35thousand dollar tube amp if you check bobcarvercorp.com[/QUOTE]
I hope that at least they can understand this and stop saying that all amps sound the same LOL   Aand one more lol about transparency, simply becausethere is no such thing in audio, we aim at it and it's the goal set to achieve perfection in the reproduction of dynamics of analog signal (at least for amplifiers) but simply because there is no  perfect amp we can never use transparency as the measurment to label all amps sound the same, thats is totally ridiculous and like i said its a mix of not having good ears, revealing enough equipment and a wrong way to think about science, a mix  of these 3 things is what makes people continue to debate non sense. Amps have different transformers and caps and designs, different pcb boards others point to point wiring etc, even manufacturers use and experiment with different cables used inside the speaker box because it changes the sound, even pcb board trails are made wider longer and whatever to shape the sound. So you get why i have so many big LOLs when people say that 2 amps with different transpormers, components, designs inside will sound the same when they are like you "call it" "transparent".

But like I said, if my ears were unable to detect differences in sound I would probably be one of you guys claiming cables don't make an audible difference and it would drive me crazy people who would claim otherwise.


----------



## bfreedma

Elecroestatico said:


> fair enough....but Bob will sell you a 35thousand dollar tube amp if you check bobcarvercorp.com
> I hope that at least they can understand this and stop saying that all amps sound the same LOL   Aand one more lol about transparency, simply becausethere is no such thing in audio, we aim at it and it's the goal set to achieve perfection in the reproduction of dynamics of analog signal (at least for amplifiers) but simply because there is no  perfect amp we can never use transparency as the measurment to label all amps sound the same, thats is totally ridiculous and like i said its a mix of not having good ears, revealing enough equipment and a wrong way to think about science, a mix  of these 3 things is what makes people continue to debate non sense. Amps have different transformers and caps and designs, different pcb boards others point to point wiring etc, even manufacturers use and experiment with different cables used inside the speaker box because it changes the sound, even pcb board trails are made wider longer and whatever to shape the sound. So you get why i have so many big LOLs when people say that 2 amps with different transpormers, components, designs inside will sound the same when they are like you "call it" "transparent".
> 
> But like I said, if my ears were unable to detect differences in sound I would probably be one of you guys claiming cables don't make an audible difference and it would drive me crazy people who would claim otherwise.



So given that diatribe, can you identify two specific solid state amps that sound different when running within their operating parameters?  And by "sound different", I mean to humans.

Please include the measurements of those amps and indicate where the differences indicate audibility (again, to humans).  Note that I'm not asking for your subjective opinion, but rather hard evidence of two amps driving a load they were designed for that measure differently enough to be audible.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> Even clean perfect signal doesn't mean the same signal. Clean sounding dacs reproduce an overall signature that can be very different.



I am looking for a current DAC that sounds clearly different than other DACs so we can test it here and find out why. Do you have access to one? I have dozens and dozens of DAPs, DACs and players, from a $40 Wasmart DVD player all the way ip to an Oppo HA-1, and I have done listening tests on all of them and they all sound exactly the same. Can you help me locate one that doesn't? Thanks.


----------



## PointyFox

I'd like to hear how these perfectly converted signals can not only vary, but be "very different".


----------



## bigshot

Good point, fox! I think the idea is that no DAC is bad or performing out of spec, some just are more perfect than others. I don't see the sense of that. But I haven't even gotten to the point of asking how yet. I'm still looking for a clear example that I can plug into and hear the clear difference for myself. Every time I ask for that, it suddenly becomes an impossible task


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> I am looking for a current DAC that sounds clearly different than other DACs so we can test it here and find out why. Do you have access to one? I have dozens and dozens of DAPs, DACs and players, from a $40 Wasmart DVD player all the way ip to an Oppo HA-1, and I have done listening tests on all of them and they all sound exactly the same. Can you help me locate one that doesn't? Thanks.


Unfortunately I can't help you with that. You are just going to have to live with the fact that your ears can't perceive the difference. It's been like 3 pages or more and already solved this thread in my 1st of 2dn post, I even joke about unoficcialy mark this thread as solved and closed. Unlike you, I'm also fortunate to own about a dozen of dacs, daps and media players, and several internal sound cards and I can hear the differnce in each one of them, now I would be lying if I tell you I can spot what dac or x source is sounding in a test, simply because the way human memory works when it comes to audio and because our ears tend to adapt and fill in info that is not there but to certain extend I will be able to pick a few positives(source model)  in such test and many more positives in sorting a source from another, so yeah sorry to say but it's clear that all sound different simply because they are all materially made diferently, heck even the same model of an amp or source can sound different simply because the components inside the circuitry  have a % of tolerance  of their values. So like I said and this is for like the 100th time i said it, not all of us have the same ears and revealing aquipment, or the understanding of this science and the knowledge of electronics, so I get why all these post must be driving you crazy, the real question is how much you can understand yourself.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> Unfortunately I can't help you with that..



No problem. I'm used to hearing that from people who say they hear "clear differences". I think it's just fallible subjective impressions that have been promoted to being common knowledge that no one questions. I'll wait for someone who can back up what they say with some sort of evidence.

I can tell you that I carefully check every piece of equipment I buy before putting it in my system, and if I ever ran across a DAC or amp that wasn't audibly transparent, I would pack it back up and request a refund. My system is carefully calibrated. I don't want coloration in the middle of the chain. I have enough to deal with balancing my transducers. If every step in the chain was colored differently, it would be chaos trying to achieve a balanced output. I'd need a different calibration for each source or DAC.


----------



## Maxx134

Elecroestatico said:


> even pcb board trails are made wider longer and whatever to shape the sound


I've heard of changes in board design, but mainly for other reasons like interference and oscillation problems..



bigshot said:


> I am looking for a current DAC that sounds clearly different than other DACs so we can test it here and find out why. Do you have access to one? I have dozens and dozens of DAPs, DACs and players, from a $40 Wasmart DVD player all the way ip to an Oppo HA-1, and I have done listening tests on all of them and they all sound exactly the same. Can you help me locate one that doesn't? Thanks.


Actually I have great suggestions.
Try a yggy or a Holo spring dac as your reference for a week or so, then try to switch back to a shity consumer dac  and you will see.


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 9, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Good point, fox! I think the idea is that no DAC is bad or performing out of spec, some just are more perfect than others. I don't see the sense of that. But I haven't even gotten to the point of asking how yet. I'm still looking for a clear example that I can plug into and hear the clear difference for myself. Every time I ask for that, it suddenly becomes an impossible task


It should not be an impossible task, specially when you are in the possibly busiest forum in the internet that talks about how one headphone amp sounds different that another or how a dac sounds different than another, it's actually the most possible task you can think of, just visit any other thread about an specific dac and you'll see how people talk about the sound caracteristics and even the best sounding pairings with certain models for headphones with certain models of dacs.  This forum is mostly filled of such examples and opinions, you are swimming in a sea of what you call impossible task


----------



## Maxx134

I'm pretty sure it has not to do with the quality of the output but instead in the beginning stage how it perceives picks up and translates the digital


----------



## Elecroestatico

Maxx134 said:


> I'm pretty sure it has not to do with the quality of the output but instead in the beginning stage how it perceives picks up and translates the digital


don't be too sure on that one, it has to do a lot with the implementation yes, but the internal processing of the chip used will also give you a different analog signal


----------



## oldmate (Nov 9, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> now I would be lying if I tell you I can spot what dac or x source is sounding in a test,



So by your own admission you could not spot oops, sorry, hear the difference between a sound card and your Chord. Perhaps you are just going to have to live with the fact your ears can't perceive the difference.



Elecroestatico said:


> or the understanding of this science and the knowledge of electronics,



You have certainly proven this!!

In a proper blind test you would not be able to tell the difference between coat hanger wire and a 1K interconnect.


----------



## PointyFox

> You are just going to have to live with the fact that your ears can't perceive the difference.



It was never established that there IS a difference. Maybe there isn't and you'd have to "live with the fact that your ears CAN perceive a difference".



> I even joke about unoficcialy mark this thread as solved and closed



You such a funny guy! Ho ho!



> Unlike you, I'm also fortunate to own about a dozen of dacs



Just because someone has money doesn't mean they need a dozen of something. That's a sign of mental illness.



> I would be lying if I tell you I can spot what dac or x source is sounding in a test



So you're lying?



> it's clear that all sound different simply because they are all materially made diferently



No, that's not clear and shouldn't be assumed.



> even the same model of an amp or source can sound different simply because the components inside the circuitry have a % of tolerance of their values



That's not true. The differences can be so small that they couldn't possibly be detected by humans. You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions.



> not all of us have ... the understanding of this science and the knowledge of electronics, so I get why all these post must be driving you crazy



If you have such understanding, maybe you can use some of your knowledge of science and electronics to explain how DACs can sound different besides just saying it's due to the use of different materials?


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> Try a yggy or a Holo spring dac



Great! A suggestion. Do you own one of these DACs that we could get access to for testing? When you say that they are different than consumer DACs, do you mean that all consumer DACs sound the same and just these sound different? That would make more sense to me.


----------



## Maxx134

I'm pretty sure I'm not being clear . 
I don't mean different sound ..
I mean like more sounds..
Missing sounds like details, ambient's cues and soundstage are not really considered a different sound..


----------



## Elecroestatico

Maxx134 said:


> I've heard of changes in board design, but mainly for other reasons like interference and oscillation problems..
> 
> 
> Actually I have great suggestions.
> Try a yggy or a Holo spring dac as your reference for a week or so, then try to switch back to a ****y consumer dac  and you will see.


when I was a noob and I got my first e10k fiio dac I thought I had it all and the perfect sound signal, until I went to a headphone expo and pluged my phones to other sources and also was exposed to the signal of a quest amp dac or when I heard the focal utopia pluged into a chord dave, thats when I realize how silly my perfecty flat and linear analog fiio signal it was and how little I knew about this hobby. Oh well live and learn. Im sure many here will no longer believe this no sense of all amps and dacs sound the same or that cables are all the same as they mature in this hobby


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 9, 2018)

bigshot said:


> Great! A suggestion. Do you own one of these DACs that we could get access to for testing? When you say that they are different than consumer DACs, do you mean that all consumer DACs sound the same and just these sound different? That would make more sense to me.


I'm pretty sure that what he means is that it will totally destroy any of those tiny consumer dacs and you will be blown away.... of course if your ears-brain are capable of detecting the difference, but in my experience almost anybody can when exposed to something like that after being used to play iphones and relativly cheap dacs

think of this as most dacs under lets say 500 will only give you 1080p now spend more and yes like he said more details, more control, better attacks, better separation of instruments, a more coherent soundstage, etc etc etc, like form 1080p to 4k sort of but you get the idea


----------



## PointyFox

Elecroestatico said:


> when I was a noob and I got my first e10k fiio dac I thought I had it all and the perfect sound signal, until I went to a headphone expo and pluged my phones to other sources and also was exposed to the signal of a quest amp dac or when I heard the focal utopia pluged into a chord dave, thats when I realize how silly my perfecty flat and linear analog fiio signal it was and how little I knew about this hobby. Oh well live and learn. Im sure many here will no longer believe this no sense of all amps and dacs sound the same or that cables are all the same as they mature in this hobby



I've owned and heard a lot of top of the line equipment, and have never heard a difference in sound quality between amps, dacs, and cables (excluding really cheap amps and DACs) except when amps were under-powered or effects due to cable resistance on extremely sensitive low impedance IEMs. I've compared many things, such as the Z1R with a $40 cable and $200 worth of DAC/amp vs a $800 cable with $5000 worth of DAC/amp and heard no difference. Even with a $3 sound card vs. a $800 amplifier, the only difference was the slightest bit of increase in the volume of the low end due to the sound card being slightly under-powered.  If cables make such a difference in terms of how electricity flow through them, people wouldn't be using any old cheap cable for electronics hookups or testing leads for even the most sensitive measurement devices like they do.


----------



## Elecroestatico

oldmate said:


> So by your own admission you could not spot oops, sorry, hear the difference between a sound card and your Chord. Perhaps you are just going to have to live with the fact your ears can't perceive the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what i mean is that from a dozen of dacs in a bling test I wont be able to pick what model im listening to, but I can easily tell that you have change the source, and since im familiar with my sources (dacs daps etc)  I will be actually able to correctly tell what sorce you are playing me wiith a less ratio of success but still. Dont you undertand this? 
Also not because I can have a few errors on a test means I connot detect differences, I pointed everything myself the good and bad and you try to turn it all against me in a super cheap way? BIG LOL to you, but still you don't win the first prize


----------



## oldmate

Elecroestatico said:


> when I was a noob



Still a "noob" pal as it's only noobs and audiofools who sprout your nonsense.


----------



## oldmate

Elecroestatico said:


> what i mean is that from a dozen of dacs in a bling test I wont be able to pick what model im listening to, but I can easily tell that you have change the source, and since im familiar with my sources (dacs daps etc) I will be actually able to correctly tell what sorce you are playing me wiith a less ratio of success but still. Dont you undertand this?



You have just contradicted yourself. Don't you understand this??


----------



## Elecroestatico

+


PointyFox said:


> I've owned and heard a lot of top of the line equipment, and have never heard a difference in sound quality between amps, dacs, and cables (excluding really cheap amps and DACs) except when amps were under-powered or effects due to cable resistance on extremely sensitive low impedance IEMs. I've compared many things, such as the Z1R with a $40 cable and $200 worth of DAC/amp vs a $800 cable with $5000 worth of DAC/amp and heard no difference. Even with a $3 sound card vs. a $800 amplifier, the only difference was the slightest bit of increase in the volume of the low end due to the sound card being slightly under-powered.  If cables make such a difference in terms of how electricity flow through them, people wouldn't be using any old cheap cable for electronics hookups or testing leads for even the most sensitive measurement devices like they do.


HAHAha lol  please tell me what is the $200 dac model that performed like the $5000 dollar one? I will rush into buying right away. Tell us what the 5k was so I can also recommend that one to my worst enemy


----------



## Elecroestatico

oldmate said:


> You have just contradicted yourself. Don't you understand this??


no i dont


----------



## oldmate

Elecroestatico said:


> what i mean is that from a dozen of dacs in a bling test I wont be able to pick what model im listening to,



So just to be clear you are saying you would not be able to tell the difference between equipment you are not familiar with?? Say a Realtek DAC and a  SABRE ES9028PRO.


----------



## oldmate

Anyway, I'm done amusing myself this morning with you. Thanks for the "LOL's".


----------



## Elecroestatico

bigshot said:


> Great! A suggestion. Do you own one of these DACs that we could get access to for testing? When you say that they are different than consumer DACs, do you mean that all consumer DACs sound the same and just these sound different? That would make more sense to me.


Absolutly not... even among cheap dacs you can easily spot differences. At least I'm able to easily tell lets say the difference between a fiio e10k and a fiio 07 about same price ans same brand, totally different sound


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> I'm pretty sure I'm not being clear . I don't mean different sound .. I mean like more sounds.. Missing sounds like details, ambient's cues and soundstage are not really considered a different sound..



But if we racked up two DACs... this one and say an iPod Classic right next to each other... playing the same file, level matched, A/B switched, blind... we would be able to hear a clear difference between them, right? That is what I'm looking for.

Do you have access to a DAC that you think sounds clearly different? Would you help us figure out what the difference is?



Elecroestatico said:


> think of this as most dacs under lets say 500 will only give you 1080p now spend more and yes like he said more details, more control, better attacks, better separation of instruments, a more coherent soundstage, etc etc etc, like form 1080p to 4k sort of but you get the idea



I have this DAC/headphone amp...
https://www.oppodigital.com/headphone-amplifier-ha-1/

It sells for about $1400 used on eBay. It has a Sabre Reference ES9018 DAC in it. Does this qualify as having more detail, control, attacks, separation, soundstage, etc? I've already tested this one and it doesn't sound any different than any of my other sources. I'm looking for a DAC that sounds different.



Elecroestatico said:


> what i mean is that from a dozen of dacs in a bling test I wont be able to pick what model im listening to, but I can easily tell that you have change the source, and since im familiar with my sources (dacs daps etc)  I will be actually able to correctly tell what sorce you are playing me wiith a less ratio of success but still.



You've done this test? Great! Please tell me in detail about how you conducted it and what your specific results were. Do you have access to any DACs that sound clearly different that we could test?


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 9, 2018)

oldmate said:


> So just to be clear you are saying you would not be able to tell the difference between equipment you are not familiar with?? Say a Realtek DAC and a  SABRE ES9028PRO.


I'm saying that from a dozen sources of my own if you randomly play them to me in a blind test I cannot always sort what source you are playing me with as much ratio of success as successfully detecting that a different source has been changed during the listening test.

from unfamiliar sources I can still tell the differenc and believe me thats nothing special to own as human, many can, thats the reason this forum exist


----------



## bigshot

I'm very interested in hearing all about your blind test where you could tell the difference. What was your success ratio? How many trials did you do. What controls did you have in place? Which DAC was the easiest to discern was different?


----------



## oldmate

Elecroestatico said:


> I'm saying that from a dozen sources of my own if you randomly play them to me in a blind test I cannot always sort what source you are playing me with as much ratio of success as successfully detecting that a different source has been changed during the listening test.



That sentence just does not make any sense at all.

Have you ever been subjected to or carried out a blind test??


----------



## bigshot

He says he knows he can do it, so he must have conducted a test like this.


----------



## oldmate (Nov 9, 2018)

This guy is full of it. No way has he done a proper blind test. Happy to be proven wrong though but he cannot just say he has. He should post pictures of his test setup and then he is off the hook.

A blind test with different cables also as after all this thread is about cables no??


----------



## Laura80

Elecroestatico said:


> when I was a noob and I got my first e10k fiio dac I thought I had it all and the perfect sound signal, until I went to a headphone expo and pluged my phones to other sources and also was exposed to the signal of a quest amp dac or when I heard the focal utopia pluged into a chord dave, thats when I realize how silly my perfecty flat and linear analog fiio signal it was and how little I knew about this hobby. Oh well live and learn. Im sure many here will no longer believe this no sense of all amps and dacs sound the same or that cables are all the same as they mature in this hobby



I just googled the chord dave you mentioned and am surprised at how expensive it is.

I’m very inexperienced in this hobby but for that kind of cost I’d expect to be able to hear a significant sonic performance?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

oldmate said:


> This guy is full of it. No way has he done a proper blind test.



How could he be so sure of his ability to pass a test like that if he's never taken one?

Apparently he owns these $5000 DACs too, because he is familiar with how they sound. If that is the case, we can get him to help us test and measure these clear differences.


----------



## PointyFox

Elecroestatico said:


> +
> 
> HAHAha lol  please tell me what is the $200 dac model that performed like the $5000 dollar one? I will rush into buying right away. Tell us what the 5k was so I can also recommend that one to my worst enemy



You will "rush into buying it" even after claiming to have "dozens of sources"? With the amount of laughing and nonsense you're posting I can only assume I'm talking to non other than the Joker.


----------



## bfreedma

Elecroestatico said:


> It should not be an impossible task, specially when you are in the possibly busiest forum in the internet that talks about how one headphone amp sounds different that another or how a dac sounds different than another, it's actually the most possible task you can think of, just visit any other thread about an specific dac and you'll see how people talk about the sound caracteristics and even the best sounding pairings with certain models for headphones with certain models of dacs.  This forum is mostly filled of such examples and opinions, you are swimming in a sea of what you call impossible task




If it’s as trivially easy as you belive, why do you repeatedly fail to post objective evidence when asked?  In this subforum, subjective opinions are simply not sufficient, and referencing group think as “proof” isn’t going to convince anyone.  You’re just another set of “golden ears” who can’t support their claims and haven’t even produced evidence that your hearing is anything special.  If you don’t have gear measurements, how about an audiologist report showing your superior auditory ability.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 9, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> If it’s as trivially easy as you belive, why do you repeatedly fail to post objective evidence when asked?  In this subforum, subjective opinions are simply not sufficient, and referencing group think as “proof” isn’t going to convince anyone.  You’re just another set of “golden ears” who can’t support their claims and haven’t even produced evidence that your hearing is anything special.  If you don’t have gear measurements, how about an audiologist report showing your superior auditory ability.



*The Hornet *strikes again!!!!!

Scientific reference:

https://www.tripsavvy.com/lethal-asian-giant-hornets-3499028

"Part of the reason Asian Giant Hornets are so deadly, even if you don't encounter a swarm of them, is that they don't die when they sting you. In fact, they don't even lose their stingers, as most other bee and wasps species do, so they can sting you multiple times if they're especially agitated. *And they usually are*!"


----------



## bfreedma

Steve999 said:


> *The Hornet *strikes again!!!!!
> 
> Scientific reference:
> 
> ...




Clicked the link.  It’s like I’m looking in a mirror.


----------



## Maxx134 (Nov 9, 2018)

Guys, first of all, you can only convince novices with blind tests, maybe because they are inherently open-minded.
Member Electroestatico seems very well advanced in going thru much gear, and in doing so has formed his own opinions.

Personally, I feel that blind testing is the only method that used to discount golden ear types, because it is so narrow in scope.

There needs to be newer better testing in headfi type situations, with headphones, which I don't see we have.

This would greatly reduce variables such as room positioning and whole gear variables.

Most all blind testing does not involve headphones or headfi associated gear, except dacs.
I beleive we can narrow the variables greatly with headphones and with more comfortable, less ambiguous settings or variables which compromise the minset and introduce doubt.
Doubt is like an eraser to the mind.
It destroys the decision making process.




Elecroestatico said:


> when I was a noob and I got my first e10k fiio dac I thought I had it all and the perfect sound signal, until I went to a headphone expo and pluged my phones to other sources and also was exposed to the signal of a quest amp dac or when I heard the focal utopia pluged into a chord dave, thats when I realize how silly my perfecty flat and linear analog fiio signal it was and how little I knew about this hobby. Oh well live and learn. Im sure many here will no longer believe this no sense of all amps and dacs sound the same or that cables are all the same as they mature in this hobby


Actually you sound like your in a place I been long ago, and you don't realize you cannot really argue subjective points in a forum/thread that needs actual data.
Regardless how many may agree with you in other forums.

I myself have my own experience and viewpoints but I am at a point that I do not actually see any conflict,
Because you have to apply the data properly.
 Most data covers specific scenarios which may or may not be sufficient for whatever the person is investigating.




bigshot said:


> I have this DAC/headphone amp...
> https://www.oppodigital.com/headphone-amplifier-ha-1/


I owned and really liked that unit when I had it, and felt it can compete with many high end units.

Yet I also felt it had its own signature, being wide , airy and sweet.
The problem is that my impression was subjective to me, and could vary to another.

Anyways, I do have a "proposition/solution" for this thread.
Place two dacs in some type of "summing" where we do the "null" experiment like carver did..

Actually it could be easy.
Measure and adjust output volume.
Then place the positives of both dac outputs (of same side-channel) across a headphone driver.
You could easily wire a headphone cable for both channels to play the difference of two sources.
Any difference at all, if any, would be produce an audible signal.
Yet that result would also need to be explained.

I am guessing a tonality difference could be a filter difference.

That would be a suggestion for this thread instead of back and forth arguments..


----------



## PointyFox (Nov 9, 2018)

At a minimum, anyone claiming to have "golden ears" should take this test and pass with a 16 correct out of 16 with no repeats. (My score in a fairly loud environment was 13 out of 16 for reference and I don't claim to have "golden ears").

http://mattmontag.com/audio-listening-test/


----------



## bfreedma

Maxx134 said:


> Guys, first of all, you can only convince novices with blind tests, maybe because they are inherently open-minded.
> Member Electroestatico seems very well advanced in going thru much gear, and in doing so has formed his own opinions.
> 
> Personally, I feel that blind testing is the only method that used to discount golden ear types, because it is so narrow in scope.
> ...




Odd that the profile of the member in question lists none of that high end gear and nowhere near the volume of gear he claims.  Of course, that proves nothing but to be kind, I have my doubts about his claims.

I’m also going to disagree with your narrative of the utility of blind testing - one of the benefits is to eliminate existing biases, not to simply appeal to open minded novices.  Though blind testing certainly works just fine on the open minded.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> I owned and really liked that unit when I had it, and felt it can compete with many high end units. Yet I also felt it had its own signature, being wide , airy and sweet.
> The problem is that my impression was subjective to me, and could vary to another.



I did a controlled listening test where I compared it to an iPod Classic in a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison playing the exact same WAV file. Neither I nor a sound mixer friend who was helping me evaluate it could tell any difference at all. If I did a careful listening test, and you are just depending on a subjective impression, I would say that you most likely are wrong. I've also compared a $40 Walmart DVD player to the iPod. It sounded exactly the same too. So did my iPhones, my Sony blu-ray player, my Pioneer blu-ray player, my Oppo blu-ray player. Everything that I compare using careful controls sounds the same.

I'm looking for someone who has been careful in their listening comparisons like I have who have found a DAC that sounds different. It really isn't worth my time to try to verify the impressions of people who can't be bothered to do a good test themselves. I'm sure you understand that.

If you know anyone who cares enough about the performance of their equipment to go to the bother of testing it, please point them my way. So far, everyone who claims to hear differences only hear them when they are doing sloppy, uncontrolled comparisons. I'm trying my darnedest to not assume that the sloppy testing and the impression that DACs sound different from each other are correlated, but I'm striving to remain open to the possibility that there might be one out there somewhere.

I'm Diogenes looking for the last honest man.

As for your suggestion of a null test...

I'm curious... How would you do a null test with two DACs? You'd have to take the analogue output and redigitize it to get it into a sound editing program to synchronize and sum the two. Wouldn't you then say that the capture device might be affect the signals more than the difference between DACs?

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong and your suggestion of just crossing the wires would work. But how would you synchronize the two DACs perfectly? If you fed a digital audio signal through a splitter, into two DACs, would it come out the analogue end without a time shift? I've never done that. The buffers would have to work exactly the same. But I suspect that the difference is likely to be at a very low level. It would be hard to hear it if you couldn't adjust it in a sound editing program. Doing that wouldn't give you any idea if the difference made an audible difference or not.


----------



## PointyFox

I did three blind level-matched tests between a Schiit Modi 2 and a Schiit Bifrost Multibit and no one was able to tell a difference. People usually had a preference, but they were all over the place and often contradicted themselves, often preferring one thing to itself when the same DAC was used twice in a row.


----------



## Maxx134

bfreedma said:


> I’m also going to disagree with your narrative of the utilization of blind testing - one of the benefits is to eliminate existing biases, not to simply appeal to open minded novices. Though blind testing certainly works just fine on the open minded


Yeah was speaking in general so probably off.
I do feel all the data we have so far from blind testing is very valuable.

I just whish in some cases it would limit or weed out any doubtful or "stressed" testers.



bigshot said:


> Everything that I compare using careful controls sounds the same.


Ok so may I ask did you use same headphones? Speakers?

It could be that any "common denominator" can be an influence to your outcome.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 9, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> Ok so may I ask did you use same headphones? Speakers? It could be that any "common denominator" can be an influence to your outcome.



I don't want to introduce all the transducer error and room effects with my speaker system, so I use headphones for my careful comparisons. I use Oppo PM-1s.

I'm looking for clear differences, but I can't find any. I look at the specs and measurements and compare them to the thresholds of audibility and I can't see any reason why they should sound different. I'm just looking for something that verifies an actual clear audible difference and no one seems to be able to provide me with it. Only subjective impressions with no control over bias.

To be honest, sound reproduction seems to be more of a religion to people who claim to hear differences than a science.


----------



## Maxx134

PointyFox said:


> I did three blind level-matched tests between a Schiit Modi 2 and a Schiit Bifrost Multibit and no one was able to tell a difference. People usually had a preference, but they were all over the place and often contradicted themselves, often preferring one thing to itself when the same DAC was used twice in a row.



I would suggest a new approach.
Instead of having them guess randomly at anything.

Switch Tell them a change of dac has been made.
This eliminates the initial doubt in their minds, and allows for the brain to work on what the change is.

The object of this proposition, is to eliminate the variable of doubt in their minds.
So that they can focus on the change, and then ask them which dac they think it is.

To me, just randomly telling them to guess if there was any change at all, will defeat the challenge as dead in its tracks from the outset, as it allows the minds imagination to go wild.

But thats only my opinion.


----------



## PointyFox

Maxx134 said:


> I would suggest a new approach.
> Instead of having them guess randomly at anything.
> 
> Switch Tell them a change of dac has been made.
> ...



That's exactly what I did. I even faked switching cables during the tests. Most of the times I actually switched DACs but sometimes I just pretended to. I didn't inform them of any results until after the testing was complete.  They thought I was just switching from one to the other each time, but didn't know which I was switching to since I randomized it. So they thought I was doing A then B, or B then A.


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> I use Oppo PM-1s.


I owned PM1 , then PM2.
Really great cans.
The construction quality alone far exceeds most cans.
Have you heard of the "Audio Zenith PMx2"?
A bit more expensive but you may like them.
I heard them and preferred them over the stock versions.
Anyways I sidetracked.

Maybe in the future someone will find a way to bridge the subjective and objective.
I find it most necessary to use measurements especially in modding headphones.


----------



## bfreedma

Maxx134 said:


> I would suggest a new approach.
> Instead of having them guess randomly at anything.
> 
> Switch Tell them a change of dac has been made.
> ...



Nothing wrong with a different approach, but what you’re suggesting would produce a different data set than what the blind test in discussion would develop.  The goal of the blind test protocol isn’t for the subject to identify a preference, but to simply identify that a change has been made and to see if that change can consistently be demonstrated to be identifiable.  Removing the variability of the test by always changing (in this case) the DAC wouldn’t develop accurate data.

If the controlled testing as described above indicates subjects can identify a change in DACs in a statistically significant way, then a preference identification consistency test would be an interesting follow on.


----------



## PointyFox

bfreedma said:


> Nothing wrong with a different approach, but what you’re suggesting would produce a different data set than what the blind test in discussion would develop.  The goal of the blind test protocol isn’t for the subject to identify a preference, but to simply identify that a change has been made and to see if that change can consistently be demonstrated to be identifiable.  Removing the variability of the test by always changing (in this case) the DAC wouldn’t develop accurate data.
> 
> If the controlled testing as described above indicates subjects can identify a change in DACs in a statistically significant way, then a preference identification consistency test would be an interesting follow on.



I tried killing two birds with one stone and asked them their preference each time. Sometimes they were different DACs, sometimes the same. The only thing that was statistically significant was that they couldn't identify differences between DACs and didn't favor one over the other consistently. There was about a 54% preference for the much cheaper DAC, but this wasn't significant.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 10, 2018)

Maxx134 said:


> I owned PM1 , then PM2. Really great cans. The construction quality alone far exceeds most cans.
> Have you heard of the "Audio Zenith PMx2"?
> 
> Maybe in the future someone will find a way to bridge the subjective and objective.
> I find it most necessary to use measurements especially in modding headphones.



I was asked by Oppo to be part of a group to evaluate the PM-1 and HA-1 before they went to market. I corresponded with the designer of the PM-1s and asked him a lot of questions and did some tests and let him know what I thought. At the end of the testing period they liked my input so they gave them to me. I don't think my evaluation of the HA-1 went over quite so well, but they let me keep that too. I would normally not invest that much money in headphones. My normal listening is done on speakers. But I'm very satisfied with the Oppo. They only deviated from my ideal response curve by a couple of dB in only one small range. Best cans I've ever heard. Never heard the AZPMx2. Are they as comfortable as the PM-1s? Most of the testers I worked with were satisfied with the sound and focused on the comfort. I was the opposite. I thought they were very comfortable and focused on the response.

I find that measurements are very useful. But it's also important to establish a threshold of audibility with controlled listening tests. We can measure a lot of things we can never hear. It's important to keep measurements in the context of the specs of human ears.


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 10, 2018)

the oxygen masks will drop automatically in case of a depressurization of the cabin, the emergency exits are; 2 on the front, 2 on the wings and 2 in the back. if you look at the top of the page, you'll notice the topic is about cables.


@Elecroestatico if I may use a made up story(any similarity to somebody in this topic would be totally not surprising ^_^):
so there are those problems to solve for a job interview. some clearly have a hard time doing so and give up saying most are impossible to solve. I come and declare "lol! I solved them, it's really obvious. but it's ok, we're not all born with the same brain and knowledge. so if it's impossible for some, then that's just how it is. perfectly natural and expected". so far I seem pretty legit and reasonable. somewhat cocky but hey if I did solve the all stuff maybe I deserve to brag a little.
but then, at the end when the employee comes to get the work done, my copy is empty and I tell him that it's all in my head, all solved accurately. he can trust me 130%, I'm the guy for the job. what do you expect that dude to think of me?
later in the hallway, when asked how I solved the problems by fellow examinees, I answer that I went with my guts like I did for decades because I believe it's just as reliable, if not, more reliable than following the accepted method. again, what do you expect those guys to think of me?

 if you don't want to properly demonstrate the claims you make. there is a very effective ancestral technique involving not making claims with absolute confidence in the first place. it works wonders.
in here where we play pretend to care about facts more than the size of our own penis. we really don't enjoy reading empty claims. so we ask people to "put up or shut up", hoping that it was just a misunderstanding where the guy making the claim will correct his sentence into an opinion or an impression. or that he will stick to his claim and back it up with reasonable evidence that can be shared with us.

now if you wish to troll all the guys who claim there are no differences between DACs in general or cables in general, I'm with you. because of course nobody can prove that, so nobody should claim it. simple enough. logic doesn't apply only to people we disagree with.


a _listening_ test proving _audible_ differences between gears, has to be an actual test(captain obvious), not something where we know at all time what's going on, where an impression magically morphs into a fact. also it has to be an experience testing hearing and hearing alone. again, duh! but somehow most audiophiles fail to qualify for those so very obvious requirements of a listening test.
if I see 2 different products, obviously I feel a difference, I know there are some, I see some. it would be weird not to get the impression that they are indeed different. but that's not a listening test.
and deciding to willingly focus on sound does not effectively isolate sound from everything going on in our head. if you're not convinced, there are so many experiments demonstrating as much, most can be done to trick friends and family while making my point.
a favorite of this section is the McGurk effect because it's so self explanatory:


it should be pretty obvious that a blind testing, given how annoying it is to set up and run properly, wouldn't be systematically used by scientists when testing impressions if there was an easy effective alternative. like telling the subjects "ok now you only concentrate on the stuff we test, and just tell me if you pass the test, I'll take your word for it because you know what you heard". "oh and BTW, if you somehow were to believe you passed, you could consider yourself special and belonging to the elite. it would also reassure you about all the money you spent. just think about that, no risk to be biased into making stuff up just to get the result you really want to get so very much. and certainly we have no reason to set up a test that would identify when people happen to think they perceive differences but really don't. we can fully trust them to know better than being biased like newbies".
in any domain, this is a lame sarcastic joke. in audio forums, the majority argues very seriously that it's exactly how a listening test must be done. ignorance and group thinking can really achieve impressive results.



so to summarize:
- a test should involve actual testing, not be me asking to myself how much I agree with what I think I feel.
- if we have X independent variables in a test about audio, and most aren't audio variables, we're not testing audio! in fact we're probably not getting any meaningful data.
- if you can't set up a proper listening test by yourself, that's perfectly understandable. and if you can but don't want to, again, we all very much understand. that shiit is hard and boring at the same time. no shame, no judgement, I often don't properly test stuff myself ^_^. but then, let's agree that we're not qualified to pass judgements on the results of those tests we didn't do. pretty simple request IMO.




*no it's not a long post! *


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 10, 2018)

So my takeaway is you interrupted me listening to Duke Ellington for me to hear someone go “ba ba ba” over and over again. Thanks!  

Seriously, that is a freaked out illusion. Is that posted in the top stickie thread (that thread is about the weather, so your post would be a little OT, but I think that video should be the first thing in the top sticky anyway). It looks like it was nice weather out there. And the illusion makes a very major point in a much different way than a lot of dry reading or arguing or diligent Q&A or tedious a/b/x testing will. I think it would make a great introduction to this sub-forum if people wonder what we’re about here.



castleofargh said:


> the oxygen masks will drop automatically in case of a depressurization of the cabin, the emergency exits are; 2 on the front, 2 on the wings and 2 in the back. if you look at the top of the page, you'll notice the topic is about cables.
> 
> 
> @Elecroestatico if I may use a made up story(any similarity to somebody in this topic would be totally not surprising ^_^):
> ...


----------



## Glmoneydawg

castleofargh said:


> the oxygen masks will drop automatically in case of a depressurization of the cabin, the emergency exits are; 2 on the front, 2 on the wings and 2 in the back. if you look at the top of the page, you'll notice the topic is about cables.
> 
> 
> @Elecroestatico if I may use a made up story(any similarity to somebody in this topic would be totally not surprising ^_^):
> ...



mcgurk makes me wonder if we are too quick to stick a placebo label on things?It is placebo....but the effect is very real.


----------



## Steve999

Glmoneydawg said:


> mcgurk makes me wonder if we are too quick to stick a placebo label on things?It is placebo....but the effect is very real.



You are making me think on a lazy Saturday morning. Stop it. I think we are really using the term placebo in audio by analogy only, and in this case the analogy of placebo is stretched to the breaking point. I would classify it more as illusion than placebo. And I do think we are too quick to use the placebo analogy too quickly, and perjoratively at that.


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> So my takeaway is you interrupted me listening to Duke Ellington for me to hear someone go “ba ba ba” over and over again. Thanks!
> 
> Seriously, that is a freaked out illusion. Is that posted in the top stickie thread (the thread about the weather, so your post would be a little OT, but I think that video should be in the top sticky anyway. It looks like it was nice weather out there. And the illusion makes a very major point in a much different way than a lot of dry reading or tedious a/b/x testing will. I think it would make a great introduction to this sub-forum if people wonder what we’re about here.


admit that the dude has mad flow.

off topic:
I don't know what should be made as a sticky or not, before recently we had nothing at all, and some suggestions got me to try 2 topics. I honestly don't know if that was a good thing or not. sure testing claims and myth got many more posts, but almost none about actual tests, so...
if you're talking about the "Useful and Important links" in intro to the sub section, I have to confess that I can't edit those myself and had nothing to do with them. I can ask an admin daddy to put the vid in a link, but I'm not sure that it really has meaning on its own. maybe someone should make a nice little topic about it with some brainstorming ideas related to the general phenomenon and why we're so annoying with our removal of extra variables in tests? but I suck at that, I'm the guy who turns a simple idea into 100000 boring words. even in French I tend to do that. 



Glmoneydawg said:


> mcgurk makes me wonder if we are too quick to stick a placebo label on things?It is placebo....but the effect is very real.


of course it's very real, and it's the same as placebo. we perceive a different sound because we see something different, but what really causes the change in perceived sound is how our brain has assumed that a given mouth and tong movement equates to a certain sound. we believe that if we see that movement, we will hear that sound, and even when we don't, we get somehow the placebo effect. in this case it has a lot to do with speech recognition and patterns, but the 3 big ideas are still there:
1/ expecting something can be enough to make us feel like it's happening.
2/ our impressions are a giant mix of all sorts of senses, ideas, beliefs, habits... so when we decide that those same impressions entirely and accurately correlate to hearing alone, we're fooling ourselves.
3/ knowing there is the possibility of bias doesn't reduce the impact of that bias. I hate that one so very much, but it just cannot be ignored.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 10, 2018)

I’m not really seeing the definition of or analogy to placebo holding up here with the McGurk guy. So I double-checked myself. I suppose the point is arguable though. I am actually even more convinced we way over-use the concept of placebo here in general. The more you research, the more strained the analogy looks.

*Placebo*

For other uses, see Placebo (disambiguation).



Placebos are typically inert tablets, such as sugar pills
A *placebo* (/pləˈsiːboʊ/ plə-SEE-boh) is a substance or treatment of no intended therapeutic value.[1]Common placebos include inert tablets (like sugar pills), inert injections (like saline), sham surgery,[2]and other procedures.[3]

In drug testing and medical research, a placebo can be made to resemble an active medication or therapy so that it functions as a control; this is to prevent the recipient(s) or others from knowing (with their consent) whether a treatment is active or inactive, as expectations about efficacy can influence results.[4][5] In a clinical trial any change in the placebo arm is known as the *placebo response*, and the difference between this and the result of no treatment is the *placebo effect*.[6]

A placebo may be given to a person in a clinical context in order to deceive the recipient into thinking that it is an active treatment. The use of placebos as treatment in clinical medicine is ethically problematic as it introduces deception and dishonesty into the doctor–patient relationship.[7] Placebos have no impact on disease itself; they can only affect the person's perception of their own condition.[8]

Historically, an influential 1955 study entitled The Powerful Placebo established the idea that placebo effects were clinically important,[9]and were a result of the brain's role in physical health, but a 1997 review of the study found "no evidence [...] of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited".[10] Subsequent research has found that placebos are not a useful means of therapy.[11]


----------



## Elecroestatico

PointyFox said:


> You are just going to have to live with the fact that your ears can't perceive the difference.
> It was never established that there IS a difference. Maybe there isn't and you'd have to "live with the fact that your ears CAN perceive a difference".
> 
> I even joke about unoficcialy mark this thread as solved and closed
> ...



you so cheaply cut my sentences to your own convenience that I have decided you are not worth my attencion anymore, I thought you were curious and wanted to learn but if you don't want to accept your reality, no matter how much I tell you about the topic or my findings, you won't be able to agree ever with me simply because you cannot detect differences

here is the not cut to your convenience original version of what I said and as you can see I don't argue I have money, I just point out that like you im also fortunate to own more than a dozen devices and unlike you i hear differences among all my devices: 
"Unlike you, I'm also fortunate to own about a dozen of dacs, daps and media players, and several internal sound cards and I can hear the difference in each one of them, now I would be lying if I tell you I can spot what dac or x source is sounding in a test, simply because the way human memory works when it comes to audio and because our ears tend to adapt and fill in info that is not there but to certain extend I will be able to pick a few positives(source model) in such test and many more positives in sorting a source from another"

anyways you will be ignored from now on for not addressing any of my points I made to you in the past pages and insted trying to discredit me with cheap and pointless moves. Trying to call me a liar because I admit I wont be able to spot the exact model of a device sound signature from a dozen in a blind test?  really I can't even tell if you are cheaply making this moves or you simply have dificulties understanding english but one thing is for sure, exposing all this will help others determin who gets discredited by their honesty here, you or me.


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 10, 2018)

bigshot said:


> But if we racked up two DACs... this one and say an iPod Classic right next to each other... playing the same file, level matched, A/B switched, blind... we would be able to hear a clear difference between them, right? That is what I'm looking for.
> 
> Do you have access to a DAC that you think sounds clearly different? Would you help us figure out what the difference is?
> 
> ...


 
dam a 1400 dollar dac amp that sounds the same than all other sources you have? why you haven't sell it? BIG ULTRA LOL but hey Thank you so much I will make sure I nerver buy that model. Now if you can read (and really not too far, just the previous post right next to yours) you will notice I gave a very simple example of 2 dacs on the same price range from the same company that completely sound different.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> 3/ knowing there is the possibility of bias doesn't reduce the impact of that bias. I hate that one so very much, but it just cannot be ignored.



I on the other hand love it, if it wasn't for that I'd be out of a job. In fact my job and many others related to it wouldn't exist because without those biases and our inability to eliminate them, there wouldn't be any music and the argument over who is the greatest musician who ever existed would have been incontrovertibly settled 20 or so years ago (because the answer would be; a computer).

G


----------



## Elecroestatico

castleofargh said:


> the oxygen masks will drop automatically in case of a depressurization of the cabin, the emergency exits are; 2 on the front, 2 on the wings and 2 in the back. if you look at the top of the page, you'll notice the topic is about cables.
> 
> 
> @Elecroestatico if I may use a made up story(any similarity to somebody in this topic would be totally not surprising ^_^):
> ...



Thank you I know you are all the way with me, not only about making fun of those claiming cables amps and dacs sound the same (LOL sorry but everytime I writte this it makes me laugh very hard all over again, never gets old).  

When I said I unofficially marked as solved and closed this thread I was clearly joking, I even pointed out this a few pages back  

Can't really convince anybody that something is sounding different if they are not perceiving it, for them it's like if you try to force me to look at the sky and agree with you that is green, so I understand them.


----------



## Elecroestatico

gregorio said:


> I on the other hand love it, if it wasn't for that I'd be out of a job. In fact my job and many others related to it wouldn't exist because without those biases and our inability to eliminate them, there wouldn't be any music and the argument over who is the greatest musician who ever existed would have been incontrovertibly settled 20 or so years ago (because the answer would be; a computer).
> 
> G


about the greatest musician, that was actually settled about 20 years ago...Freddie Mercury


----------



## bfreedma

Elecroestatico said:


> Thank you I know you are all the way with me, not only about making fun of those claiming cables amps and dacs sound the same (LOL sorry but everytime I writte this it makes me laugh very hard all over again, never gets old).
> 
> When I said I unofficially marked as solved and closed this thread I was clearly joking, I even pointed out this a few pages back
> 
> Can't really convince anybody that something is sounding different if they are not perceiving it, for them it's like if you try to force me to look at the sky and agree with you that is green, so I understand them.




You have an amazing ability to ignore the points that were made in that and other posts.

Again, do you have anything beyond your own sighted observation to support your claims, or are we simply expected to abandon essentially all current knowledge of audio reproduction and believe you simply because you made a few snarky posts on the internet?  As Castle suggested and you conveniently ignored, its “put up or shut up” time.


----------



## PointyFox

Related:


----------



## PointyFox

Elecroestatico said:


> you so cheaply cut my sentences to your own convenience that I have decided you are not worth my attencion anymore, I thought you were curious and wanted to learn but if you don't want to accept your reality, no matter how much I tell you about the topic or my findings, you won't be able to agree ever with me simply because you cannot detect differences
> 
> here is the not cut to your convenience original version of what I said and as you can see I don't argue I have money, I just point out that like you im also fortunate to own more than a dozen devices and unlike you i hear differences among all my devices:
> "Unlike you, I'm also fortunate to own about a dozen of dacs, daps and media players, and several internal sound cards and I can hear the difference in each one of them, now I would be lying if I tell you I can spot what dac or x source is sounding in a test, simply because the way human memory works when it comes to audio and because our ears tend to adapt and fill in info that is not there but to certain extend I will be able to pick a few positives(source model) in such test and many more positives in sorting a source from another"
> ...



Hey, you're the one who said you were lying. Maybe I have "dificulties(sic) understanding english(sic)" because you're not actually typing in it. E. g. : "the not cut to your convenience", "I can't even tell if you are cheaply making this moves", etc.


----------



## gregorio (Nov 10, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> [1] and one more lol about transparency, simply because there is no such thing in audio, we aim at it and
> [2] it's the goal set to achieve perfection in the reproduction of dynamics of analog signal (at least for amplifiers) but simply because there is no perfect amp we can never use transparency as the measurment to label all amps sound the same, thats is totally ridiculous and
> [3] like i said its a mix of not having good ears, [3a] revealing enough equipment and [3b] a wrong way to think about science



1. Clearly you don't understand the use of the term "transparent". Audibly transparent does not mean "perfect", it means any imperfections are below the threshold of human hearing and therefore the reproduction MUST sound transparent.
2. No, that is NOT the goal! It is impossible to perfectly reproduce the dynamics of a signal in either the analogue or acoustic domains. To do so would require breaking the laws of physics. However, that's irrelevant because that level of perfection is not required because OBVIOUSLY audible transparency is reached long before we get near to breaking the laws of physics.
3. Correct, we don't have good enough ears, I don't, bigshot doesn't, you don't and neither does any other human being!
3a. Yep, I've heard that nonsense many times from ignorant audiophiles. Or, maybe you're not an ignorant audiophile, maybe you know what equipment I have and how revealing it is? That can't be true either though, because if you know what equipment I have you wouldn't have said that, as it's a good bet that your system is less revealing than mine!
3b. And what's a right way to think about science, that you can hear the inaudible, that you can hear better than equipment can measure? You didn't answer a single question put to you (in this post), why is that? To recap one of them, do you also believe you can see further than the Hubble space telescope or an Electron microscope? You know that neither the Hubble nor electron microscopes are perfect right? Does that mean you don't have good eyes because you can't see better than they can?


Elecroestatico said:


> [1] HAHAHA really you are going to show me that an iphone 6 performs the same as a chord hugo?
> [2] LOL the noise levels and artifacts is just a tiny part of all of the things that make one source different from another, sure they both can play the same song, so like you said they can both perform the same task of audio reproduction lol just not with the same performance.


1. NO, no one is saying that an iPhone 6 performs the same as a Chord Hugo, there are easily measurable differences. What we are saying is that those differences exist but are inaudible, they are below the threshold of human hearing and therefore, as we are all human beings, we can't hear them. Likewise, we can easily measure differences between a few molecules of water and a few molecules of salt but we can't tell any difference just by looking at them, because they are very tiny and well below the threshold of human vision. To human eyes, they look completely transparent!

2. A DAC has just one task, to convert digital data into an electrical current, that's it, NOTHING MORE and nothing less. That electrical current and any "artefacts" (imperfections) in it, therefore COMPLETELY define the performance/fidelity of a DAC. And, modern DACs, even cheap ones, can accomplish that task with a level of artefacts (imperfections) that are below the threshold of human hearing. ...


Elecroestatico said:


> But like I said, if my ears were unable to detect differences in sound I would probably be one of you guys claiming cables don't make an audible difference and it would drive me crazy people who would claim otherwise.


That's the whole point, YOU ARE one of us "guys" whose ears are unable to detect the differences in sound between cables, unless you do not have human ears and are therefore not a human, so is that what you are claiming??

Assuming that you are a human being and as the differences between cables are so far below what human hearing can detect, the ONLY explanation for you perceiving differences between cables, is that something MUST be occurring within your perception itself! There is NO other (rational) explanation.

G


----------



## Steve999

To Whom It May Concern:

Changes in knowledge after a course can be very complex and each type of change may require a specific educational effort. Thus for knowledge that is correct both before and after a course it may be enough to preserve it with periodic meetings. On the other hand, knowledge that is wrong before and after a course should require a stronger educational effort, especially if it is held with a high degree of certainty. In this case, the traditional educational approach might not be sufficient and patients could need to be addressed on an individual basis. Finally, wrong knowledge that becomes correct or correct knowledge that becomes wrong, both with a low degree of certainty, could be managed with recurrent meetings. Along this way of reasoning, patients that after a course persist in giving a wrong answer, but do so with a lower degree of confidence, should be told that the quality of their knowledge has improved.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/664d/82df213e2a82f43ebf0a630f7ff3d384f1a8.pdf


----------



## bigshot

Can I get bleu cheese dressing on that word salad?


----------



## oldmate (Nov 10, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> but if you don't want to accept your reality, no matter how much I tell you about the topic or my findings,



What findings??

You still have not answered the question about blind testing. Have you ever been the recipient of or conducted one yourself and with what equipment.

Oh yeah mate, one more thing, you have still not provided any solid evidence to back your claims. Clown.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 10, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> Now if you can read (and really not too far, just the previous post right next to yours) you will notice I gave a very simple example of 2 dacs on the same price range from the same company that completely sound different.



Terrific. How did you determine that they sound different? Can you tell me about your listening test? What controls did you put on your test to eliminate bias? How did you insure that the comparison was on a level playing field? Which of these two do you suspect is the DAC that is colored? Or are neither of them audibly transparent? Did you check them against DACs that are known to be transparent to find out? Do you have access to these DACs right now? Could we arrange to borrow them to verify your test results?



Elecroestatico said:


> Can't really convince anybody that something is sounding different if they are not perceiving it



Sure you can. Do a well controlled test. Get someone to verify it by reproducing your well controlled test. We will all believe you. I'm asking for you to help us understand how you employed controls so we can move on to verifying your results. Right now, they're just unsubstantiated claims.You are experiencing peer review right now. That is designed to challenge your claim so you can back it up with solid proofs. We are all willing to help you build the proof. You just need to jump in and help us support your claim. You've been wiggling all around, adopting a confrontational tone and trying to avoid providing any solid evidence at all. That is naturally going to make people suspicious about the validity of your claims. I'd love it if you are right. You just need to do more than just say something in sound science. You have to back up what you say here.

Castle, in response to your comment about pinning. The value in pinning those posts isn't in the comments. It's that the first posts are great FAQs that answer a lot of questions we get asked all the time around here. I have directed several people to those posts. They're doing their job.


----------



## oldmate (Nov 10, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> Thank you for the welcome! Don't be sorry about my wallet, its for sure not as fat as yours, but I have the power of knowledge on my side!





AnakChan said:


> Oneguy is quoting a Head-Fi greeting. Search for it here on Head-Fi.
> 
> You may want to tone down that attitude a little if you want to have a more harmonious relationship with your peers here.





Elecroestatico said:


> see what you guys have done for posting answers to questions that are not being asked? now people is more confused, so just follow my step guide and dont skip any instructions and you are good to go. Do I need to say it one more time guys?
> 
> also like my helpful posts please...im hungry for attencion





Elecroestatico said:


> Yeah I guess some of us have better hearing... I too can tell the difference in the 2 headphone jacks





Elecroestatico said:


> Screw you!





Elecroestatico said:


> I know a way to make you mojo completely silent if thats what you are looking for, but that requires a half loaded bucket and couple minutes of your time, PM if you are interested lol.





Elecroestatico said:


> LOL nice thread for halloween, late, but nice
> 
> hahaha please when you gain more experience do not delete your post



Seems he likes to be an asshole on all threads - his post about being hungry for "attencion" sums this guy up perfectly.

How about the "also like my helpful posts please" - now that's just gold!!

@Elecroestatico why are you doing this?? Be a man, apologise and pull your head in.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 10, 2018)

I wonder if he's paid to post on head-fi.


----------



## JaeYoon

PointyFox said:


> You such a funny guy!If you have such understanding, maybe you can use some of your knowledge of science and electronics to explain how DACs can sound different besides just saying it's due to the use of different materials?


I agree with your response to him. I find really odd how different DACs can sound different due to material. If he used the idea that DACs can have different filters that can change some stuff sure I guess!

Let's use sony for an example too!



 
Sorry for the giant screenshot. But sony is making a claim that because this player has a Copper Gold plated chassis. It has a "unique natural, acoustic sound".

But scrolling around it is still a Digital Audio Player. Digital music, 0s and 1s do not possibly understand copper and gold to create natural acoustic sound.


----------



## Steve999

bigshot said:


> Can I get bleu cheese dressing on that word salad?


----------



## Steve999

Sony is putting out some killer products nowadays but they are also doing some shameful marketing. I'm really disappointed in them.



JaeYoon said:


> I agree with your response to him. I find really odd how different DACs can sound different due to material. If he used the idea that DACs can have different filters that can change some stuff sure I guess!
> 
> Let's use sony for an example too!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

To be fair, it's probably getting harder to compete in the home audio market. Every brand seems to be struggling to differentiate their product from the competition. If you took the average blu-ray player or receiver and covered up the name of the manufacturer, it would be tough to guess whether it's a Sony or a Pioneer or a Onkyo. They are all pretty much the same wine in different bottles.


----------



## PointyFox

Steve999 said:


> Sony is putting out some killer products nowadays but they are also doing some shameful marketing. I'm really disappointed in them.



Actually they are telling the truth there.  They are saying the "natural, acoustic sound" is being lent to people who play instruments made out of the material, not the Walkman. Kind of deceptive. Why would they even mention that otherwise? They do say that the conductivity and strength "reinforce its raw audio performance". Again, they are being truthful yet still deceptive. They are not necessarily saying strength and conductivity "increase" the audio performance. "Reinforce" can be "in addition to", which is the only thing that makes sense in this case. The conductivity helps as shielding and the strength helps in case you drop it or stack stuff on top of it.


----------



## Arpiben

Not sure it will convince the trolls....
Anyhow thanks Ethan Winer for this *Null Tester* video.


----------



## Elecroestatico

oldmate said:


> Seems he likes to be an asshole on all threads - his post about being hungry for "attencion" sums this guy up perfectly.
> 
> How about the "also like my helpful posts please" - now that's just gold!!
> 
> @Elecroestatico why are you doing this?? Be a man, apologise and pull your head in.


BIG ULTRA LOL,  I just decided to ignore your friend pointy fox for so cheaply trying to discredit me by only copying and pasting half sentences of the things I have said in my posts in this thread and you with your ultra elevated iq come to the brilliant idea of doing something similar to me? Hahaha I gues I'm not gonna have to explain to you why you will be ignored too from now on do I?   lol do I also need to explain how half of the posts you quoted me are jokes and how the other half have been part of concversations where actually people even thank me in PM for my help? Such a sad thing you got your feelings hurt just because im telling you the truth about you not being able to perceive differences, I know it sounds personal but I cant find any other logical explanation for why many here claim they cant hear deifferences among their devices, but that is one thing and another is calling me an asshole and all, I really don't care but just like your friend who damaged his reputation and was exposed at how low his tactics were to try to discredit me, here we are again and I'm letting others decide who is getting personal and failing to keep honesty to a decent level.


----------



## Elecroestatico

JaeYoon said:


> I agree with your response to him. I find really odd how different DACs can sound different due to material. If he used the idea that DACs can have different filters that can change some stuff sure I guess!
> 
> Let's use sony for an example too!
> 
> ...


BIG  ULTRA LOL these guys hear me say that dacs sound different because the material they are made of is different and the first thing comes to their mind is that I'm talking about the case? hahaha no wonder why they feel trolled, whats next? oh no my dac 1 sounds warmer than my dac 2 because I replace the volume knob with a wooden knob? hahahaha you guys have little or 0 understanding of electronics, and btw even the case makes a difference in how well things might be grounded and how much RF can block so even that counts but thats not what I was talking about when I said materials.....sad sad world!


----------



## bigshot

Welcome back. Can you tell me about how you conducted your test now? Do you still have the DAC you tested?


----------



## Elecroestatico

Steve999 said:


> I wonder if he's paid to post on head-fi.


Do you want to hire me? I have far better post/likes ratio than you


----------



## Laura80

Arpiben said:


> Not sure it will convince the trolls....
> Anyhow thanks Ethan Winer for this *Null Tester* video.




Just watched that and tbh I didn’t understand most of the technical bits, he may as well have been speaking in a foreign language.

The end part of the video where he tests cheap cables with the expensive cable showing they are sonically indiscernible is very clear.


----------



## bigshot

Elecroestatico said:


> dacs sound different



I'm curious why you haven't replied. Should I take our conversation to PM?


----------



## bfreedma

bfreedma said:


> You have an amazing ability to ignore the points that were made in that and other posts.
> 
> Again, do you have anything beyond your own sighted observation to support your claims, or are we simply expected to abandon essentially all current knowledge of audio reproduction and believe you simply because you made a few snarky posts on the internet?  As Castle suggested and you conveniently ignored, its “put up or shut up” time.





Elecroestatico said:


> BIG  ULTRA LOL these guys hear me say that dacs sound different because the material they are made of is different and the first thing comes to their mind is that I'm talking about the case? hahaha no wonder why they feel trolled, whats next? oh no my dac 1 sounds warmer than my dac 2 because I replace the volume knob with a wooden knob? hahahaha you guys have little or 0 understanding of electronics, and btw even the case makes a difference in how well things might be grounded and how much RF can block so even that counts but thats not what I was talking about when I said materials.....sad sad world!



Perhaps you missed my previous post in your flurry of rather immature HaHas and LOLs.   Time for you to post evidence supporting your claims or move on.  Repeated posting in the manner you consistently have been is simply trolling in this subforum.

Do you understand what evidence is and what you should be posting to support your claims?  If not, let me know and I’ll explain in detail.


----------



## Steve999

Arpiben said:


> Not sure it will convince the trolls....
> Anyhow thanks Ethan Winer for this *Null Tester* video.




That was jaw-droppingly educational and awesome. Thank you so much for posting that.


----------



## bigshot

Ethan is a very knowledgeable guy. He used to post in this forum. I learned a lot from him.


----------



## oldmate (Nov 11, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> actually people even thank me in PM for my help?



So they thanked you in PM's rather than posting. Another thing you cannot prove!! How convenient.

Now, about those blind tests @Elecroestatico.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 12, 2018)

[Deleted because bigshot thinks he's gone.]


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 12, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> BIG  ULTRA LOL these guys hear me say that dacs sound different because the material they are made of is different and the first thing comes to their mind is that I'm talking about the case? hahaha no wonder why they feel trolled, whats next? oh no my dac 1 sounds warmer than my dac 2 because I replace the volume knob with a wooden knob? hahahaha you guys have little or 0 understanding of electronics, and btw even the case makes a difference in how well things might be grounded and how much RF can block so even that counts but thats not what I was talking about when I said materials.....sad sad world!


Looks like @bfreedma is right. You conveniently ignore parts of posts.

Ok please explain how exactly different materials in a DAC differentiate the sound to another dac made of different materials.
What wise knowledge can you bring to us mortals today?

Are you really that dense? Well yes, the copper case can help with EMI/RF but that's not what Sony is claiming! Did you not read the advertisement?

That's actually a perfect example. Both claims are unproven in it's situation, your DAC is converting the digital audio into a electrical signal that is converted through your headphones/speaker by magnetism to sound you can hear.
Please explain how exactly the different materials can change the sound.
But yes @PointyFox raised a good point about the reinforcing part with the copper chassis.


----------



## bigshot

I think he's gone.


----------



## oldmate




----------



## gregorio

Elecroestatico said:


> [1] I know it sounds personal but I cant find any other logical explanation for why many here claim they cant hear deifferences among their devices ...
> [2] Such a sad thing you got your feelings hurt just because im telling you the truth about you not being able to perceive differences,
> [3] BIG ULTRA LOL ...



1. To find a "logical explanation" for something has two basic requirements: 1. To find something, you actually have to look for it! And 2. You must actually be capable of "logic",  in order to recognise a "logical explanation"! 

This is the science forum, NOT the electrostatico forum. What's acceptable here is the facts and what science has found, NOT what you've been able or unable to find or whether you've even bothered to look in the first place!! Most unfortunately though, you've demonstrated an incapacity for logic, you haven't responded to a single one of the logical questions asked. You just completely ignore them and repeat exactly the same nonsense and self contradictions. For example, you acknowledged the influence and importance of listening training but when asked about your listening training, you refuse to respond. Likewise, you mention the importance of high quality, revealing equipment but when challenged about you're equipment, you simply ignore it and carry on telling everyone they have deficient listening skills and equipment. You're clearly incapable of logic and therefore it's OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE for you to find a "logical explanation", even if you tried to!

2. No, the really "sad thing" is that you clearly have no idea of "the truth". You haven't even looked for "the truth" and being incapable of logic, you wouldn't be able recognise it even if you found it! That leaves just two options, either you're deliberately lying/trolling or you're severely deluded.

3. That's EXACTLY the same response that a crazy, delusional mental patient would give to their doctor, upon being told that they are not really Napoleon or Joan of Arc. You surely don't want to continue to give the impression that you're a crazy, delusional mental patient do you?? In reality, it should be us having the BIG ULTRA LOL but then none of us would LOL at an afflicted mental patient.

If you want to have a logical/rational discussion, that can ONLY happen if you actually apply some logic. If you don't want to have a rational discussion, that's fine but you're definitely in the WRONG FORUM! So, what's it going to be?

G


----------



## bigshot

Yup. He's gone.


----------



## JaeYoon

bigshot said:


> Yup. He's gone.


I honestly wanted to know his reasons and tests done on his DACs. How did he come to the conclusion that different materials used in the construction of a dac would affect sound quality and what audio equipment he compared and tested.

Sadly, he avoided your question and maybe he might return and tell us.


----------



## castleofargh

JaeYoon said:


> I honestly wanted to know his reasons and tests done on his DACs. How did he come to the conclusion that different materials used in the construction of a dac would affect sound quality and what audio equipment he compared and tested.
> 
> Sadly, he avoided your question and maybe he might return and tell us.


most people going through the hurdle of a controlled listening test will already understand the significance of the set up and how it can affect not only the results, but what we can conclude from them. and anybody with a fiber of scientific method in him, will also know that and offer some context to his experience. 
what I'm saying is that people flying over how they got their "facts", are already telling you all about how they "tested": sighted impression, 1 finger of preconception, 2 fingers of overconfidence. never goes out of fashion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 13, 2018)

I was politely asking him basic questions over and over and he replied to everything around me, but never answered any of my questions. This wasn't just overconfidence and preconception. He knew he was being disingenuous and he was avoiding being cornered into having to admit it.

It's no fun to troll when the people you're trolling are very polite and nice and keep putting a noose in your hand. It's only fun when people fight back and match stupidity with more stupidity.


----------



## bfreedma

My envisionment of what the testing in question looked like.


----------



## Elecroestatico

Laura80 said:


> I just googled the chord dave you mentioned and am surprised at how expensive it is.
> 
> I’m very inexperienced in this hobby but for that kind of cost I’d expect to be able to hear a significant sonic performance?


yes, you can hear a significant difference, that is because the way the dac interprets and forms the analog signal is more complex and dynamic, there is a  silent background with very good dynamics and a very good designed stable and clean power source, and very low output impedance, among many many more things that make a dac sounding much much better than a cheap one. 

it's the internal processing inside the chip that reconstructs the analog signal where you start seeing the first differences in sound, thats why is so funny when they talk about a perfectly converted signal or when they talk about transparency or the funniest of all when they say all dacs  sound the same when they dont even have the same chip and let alone the differences in implementation of such chip, or what digital transport receiver inside such dac can be implemented and how delivers those 1 and 0's to the D/A converter chip, everything counts, even the case as some were ridiculing out of their own ignorance with a sony product


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Ahh we're back at the old audiophile bastion: flee when people ask for proof of your claims...and sneak in the backdoor to spout bollocks when the adults are in bed.

Don't listen to him Laura. All these dacs may measure differently but you won't be able to hear it unless you look at the machine whilst using it. That way you can think up millions of magic ways it somehow enhances your audio chain. Hide it behide a couple of boxes and do a blindtest with say an iPhone and you won't be able to hear a difference. If you do I will be the first to call you a doctor


----------



## Elecroestatico

JaeYoon said:


> Looks like @bfreedma is right. You conveniently ignore parts of posts.
> 
> Ok please explain how exactly different materials in a DAC differentiate the sound to another dac made of different materials.
> What wise knowledge can you bring to us mortals today?
> ...


Wait a second! you are now trying to blame me and demand that I respond in behalf of sony's claims? BIG ULTRA LOL. let me remind you that the reason SOMEBODY ELSE posted about that sony walkman was to attack me for saying that materials change the sound, then I proceed to make fun of that guy because obviously I was not talking about the material of the case a dap or dac is made of, I was talking more about the electronics inside, but I even have the decency of explaining that guy that even the case can have effects in the sound and if you read carefully it was me who in my explanation brought up the RF.

Now you want me to be responsible for what sony claims? LOL  another low move to discredit me has been exposed


----------



## Elecroestatico

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Ahh we're back at the old audiophile bastion: flee when people ask for proof of your claims...and sneak in the backdoor to spout bollocks when the adults are in bed.
> 
> Don't listen to him Laura. All these dacs may measure differently but you won't be able to hear it unless you look at the machine whilst using it. That way you can think up millions of magic ways it somehow enhances your audio chain. Hide it behide a couple of boxes and do a blindtest with say an iPhone and you won't be able to hear a difference. If you do I will be the first to call you a doctor


HAHAHA CHORD DAVE VS IPHONE what transducers did you use for your compassion? your tv speakers? lol


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Well I have blindtested the Hugo 2 against my ancient 16 bit Aune X1 and there was absolutely no difference. I used a Violectric V200 as amp and a pair of hd800 as headphones. The professional soundengineer (my buddy) I was doing this with couldn't hear any differences either.

Have you ever conducted a volume matched blindtest between two dacs? 

Ohh shute I forgot: LOL


----------



## Elecroestatico

JaeYoon said:


> I honestly wanted to know his reasons and tests done on his DACs. How did he come to the conclusion that different materials used in the construction of a dac would affect sound quality and what audio equipment he compared and tested.
> 
> Sadly, he avoided your question and maybe he might return and tell us.


nah you are just lying... to prove it, use the search forum and type something like "sony electroestatico" or "sony case" and you will find out several messages about this "materials used in the construction of a dac thing"         

another exposed liar?


----------



## Elecroestatico

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Well I have blindtested the Hugo 2 against my ancient 16 bit Aune X1 and there was absolutely no difference. I used a Violectric V200 as amp and a pair of hd800 as headphones. The professional soundengineer (my buddy) I was doing this with couldn't hear any differences either.
> 
> Have you ever conducted a volume matched blindtest between two dacs?
> 
> Ohh shute I forgot: LOL


volume matching is not even a concern when you can easily hear how 2 dacs have different sound signatures and those caracteristics can be identified regardless of volume


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Wow...

How old are you 7? 
Through decades and decades of doing these tests there's been but one returning factor that remains extremely important when comparing one piece of audio equipment to another. Volume level.
People will naturally pick the loudest as the best...even a smidgen can be enough to woo you that way.
But sure I forgot. You're not here to get better sound quality or indeed learn more about how one actually achieves it...nahh you seem more contempt with fighting windmills and saying LOL when posters get too close.
Have you recently spent a small fortune on a Chord dac? 
I have the remedy: don't visit sound science if you want your illusions preserved.


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 15, 2018)

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Wow...
> 
> How old are you 7?
> Through decades and decades of doing these tests there's been but one returning factor that remains extremely important when comparing one piece of audio equipment to another. Volume level.
> ...


I knew the "people will pick the loudest as the best" was coming lol. If you can't hear differences on dacs I understand why volume matching will be a priority for you and how much easier is for you to convince yourself that the louder seems better is a more acceptable tendency... im not saying compare at extremly different volume levels, im saying just about the zssame level people with good ears can tell one dac from another and volume microdifferences are really not important as we are listening for sound caracteristics such as the overall dryness or roundness of the sound or how the dac is presenting the soundstage, how strong is the center imaging, how much instruments breath, what frequencies tend to be more exposed and better represented etc etc, all will give a very particular sound signature to a device, and you dont need to break your head with micro adjusting volume matching lol, some are more similar sounding than others of course but really your all dacs amps and cables are the same is just plain ridiculous, shows the very little understanding some people have around here

and im not 7 years old, im older than that. Also I have not spent a small amout of money in a chord dac, maybe for you its a small amount but for me is my summer savings fortune, but my equipment is transparently listed so you can see my chord an other stuff, like a big lol to the guy saying that i refuse to tell them my equipment when its info disclosed


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

Alrighty I am done with this. You continue to post like this was the ordinary part of head-fi..and it's really not. There is no way for a dac to infuse "soundstage", "imaging" and it most certainly cannot get "instruments to breathe".
A dac converts 1s and 0s into sound. The imaging, soundstage and all the other audiphile nonsense stem from the recording and indeed how well the transducers convey it. 
Please do yourself a favour and leave this subforum alone. In here we demand proof when people claim the preposterous that goes against everything science has taught us up until now.

I will let you in on a little secret: I used to think exactly like you...until I put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## Elecroestatico

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Alrighty I am done with this. You continue to post like this was the ordinary part of head-fi..and it's really not. There is no way for a dac to infuse "soundstage", "imaging" and it most certainly cannot get "instruments to breathe".
> A dac converts 1s and 0s into sound. The imaging, soundstage and all the other audiphile nonsense stem from the recording and indeed how well the transducers convey it.
> Please do yourself a favour and leave this subforum alone. In here we demand proof when people claim the preposterous that goes against everything science has taught us up until now.
> 
> I will let you in on a little secret: I used to think exactly like you...until I put my money where my mouth is.


eww you could catch an ear infection if you put cash in your mouth! anyways you get the best sonic performance from an iphone that to you performs like a hugo 2, so I really don't even know how can i start a logical conversation when we are not seeing the same colors


----------



## gregorio

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Ahh we're back at the old audiophile bastion: flee when people ask for proof of your claims...and sneak in the backdoor to spout bollocks when the adults are in bed.



So succinct it's worth reposting! 



Elecroestatico said:


> BIG ULTRA LOL



And there we have it again, that same Big Ultra Lol of the crazy mental patient. As you can't respond to a single question but only with grade school level insults, then clearly you care more about trolling than looking like a complete imbecile. You're wasting your time though, @castleofargh will simply delete all your troll posts.

G


----------



## castleofargh

Elecroestatico said:


> Wait a second! you are now trying to blame me and demand that I respond in behalf of sony's claims? BIG ULTRA LOL. let me remind you that the reason SOMEBODY ELSE posted about that sony walkman was to attack me for saying that materials change the sound, then I proceed to make fun of that guy because obviously I was not talking about the material of the case a dap or dac is made of, I was talking more about the electronics inside, but I even have the decency of explaining that guy that even the case can have effects in the sound and if you read carefully it was me who in my explanation brought up the RF.
> 
> Now you want me to be responsible for what sony claims? LOL  another low move to discredit me has been exposed


you've been doing the best job at discrediting yourself IMO. starting with the constant LMAO trololo HYPER LOL tone of your posts. you might be surprised but this usually doesn't convey a notion of someone serious. (I know, mind blown^_^). 

then your argumentation has some pretty big flaws, and so far all you've done is paint over with your overconfidence instead of addressing them. simply dismissing some issues will have us believe that you're not honest about this or that you are simply ignorant about why we would insist on those flaws. again, whatever is really going on, your posts do not inspire trust, or expertise for that matter. 



Elecroestatico said:


> volume matching is not even a concern when you can easily hear how 2 dacs have different sound signatures and those caracteristics can be identified regardless of volume


this is a good example of what I'm talking about. so the matter at hand in this off topic(it's a topic about cables... yeah), is to try and properly identify audible differences between DACs. do you think it's smart to argue that we don't need to care about an audible difference(volume level) while testing for audible differences? even if the actual differences happened to be massive and very distinctive, you're still defending a nonsensical testing method. that's not the mentality of someone who cares much about facts. it looks more like the argument of someone who's lazy and tries to get away without doing things properly.  

look down on others all you want, you're not the only one doing so in the forum. if I had to moderate everybody with a big ego, I'd go mad. but your posts do speak for you and so far in this topic they don't place you as high as you think they do. I don't know you in anyway so all my impressions come from reading those few posts here. and the impression I get, apparently shared by others, is that of a youngster boasting about his own ignorance. I doubt very much that it's what you're trying to convey to us, so I can only suggest to spend a little more time and effort in writing your posts.


----------



## aerospace33

castleofargh said:


> you've been doing the best job at discrediting yourself IMO. starting with the constant LMAO trololo HYPER LOL tone of your posts. you might be surprised but this usually doesn't convey a notion of someone serious. (I know, mind blown^_^).
> 
> then your argumentation has some pretty big flaws, and so far all you've done is paint over with your overconfidence instead of addressing them. simply dismissing some issues will have us believe that you're not honest about this or that you are simply ignorant about why we would insist on those flaws. again, whatever is really going on, your posts do not inspire trust, or expertise for that matter.
> 
> ...



It's as if people go out of their way to avoid the science.


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 15, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> Wait a second! you are now trying to blame me and demand that I respond in behalf of sony's claims? BIG ULTRA LOL. let me remind you that the reason SOMEBODY ELSE posted about that sony walkman was to attack me for saying that materials change the sound, then I proceed to make fun of that guy because obviously I was not talking about the material of the case a dap or dac is made of, I was talking more about the electronics inside, but I even have the decency of explaining that guy that even the case can have effects in the sound and if you read carefully it was me who in my explanation brought up the RF.
> 
> Now you want me to be responsible for what sony claims? LOL  another low move to discredit me has


At least you brought up your points! You didn't run away completely!

So how do exactly did you see this? "it's the internal processing inside the chip that reconstructs the analog signal where you start seeing the first differences in sound, thats why is so funny when they talk about a perfectly converted signal."
So you are saying your product you purchased, is showing you that it is reconstructing the conversion and altering it with all the expensive materials that are inside.

@bigshot and @gregorio
Would you like to recommend our man here for some DACs that you can confirm are audibly transparent not sold by companies that alter the sound intentionally to sound different.
Thanks 

Also electro please don't laugh at @Kammerat Rebekka there is plenty of proof that an Iphone 6 can compete with Chord products.

https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/10/measurements-apple-iphone-4-iphone-6.html?m=1
Edit: Unfortunately archimago and ken did not compare the chord products to them
But the point of these sources is to show that even an iphone is capable of producing an audibly transparent audio signal at much lower price for us working class humans to enjoy 

There two places to check out how even an iphone 6 can produce high fidelity audio.

Archimago shows good data on tiny differences between the phones. But whether tiny differences are audible to average human ear is the big debate that is supposed to be what this thread is going on about.

Several of the people here such as @bigshot is not concerned of the numbers that the chord dave can pull off if he can't detect it audibly. What is the purpose for someone such as him to spend 2 grand on a item that has really good numbers but humans have a really hard time detecting.

I honestly have nothing against audiophiles who do choose to improve every aspect of their equipment. But this thread wants to discuss if those improvement in numbers is even audible between expensive cables and solid state dacs.


----------



## Elecroestatico

castleofargh said:


> you've been doing the best job at discrediting yourself IMO. starting with the constant LMAO trololo HYPER LOL tone of your posts. you might be surprised but this usually doesn't convey a notion of someone serious. (I know, mind blown^_^).
> 
> then your argumentation has some pretty big flaws, and so far all you've done is paint over with your overconfidence instead of addressing them. simply dismissing some issues will have us believe that you're not honest about this or that you are simply ignorant about why we would insist on those flaws. again, whatever is really going on, your posts do not inspire trust, or expertise for that matter.
> 
> ...



at least I explain and give reason for every ULTRA LOL that I writte, you instead, try to give me professional psychological evaluations for every ultra lol.... that is funny to me but I won't say ultra lol to you because apparently you get very offended


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 15, 2018)

Jae Yoon says: At least you brought up your points! <<<< at least? what post of mine doesn't bring up points?>>>>You didn't run away completely! <<<< who says I ran away and how you come to that conclusion?>>>

So how do exactly did you see this? "it's the internal processing inside the chip that reconstructs the analog signal where you start seeing the first differences in sound, thats why is so funny when they talk about a perfectly converted signal."
So you are saying your product you purchased, is showing you that it is reconstructing the conversion and altering it with all the expensive materials that are inside.<<<yes that is what is happening exactly, the internal processing of the chip interprets the 1 and 0's you all love to talk about so much, and yes the materials used also alter the sound for the good or for the bad and weather they are expensive materials or not, and yes thats what my thats what the product i purchased is showing me, just like any other product i purchased.>>>>

@bigshot and @gregorio
Would you like to recommend our man here for some DACs that you can confirm are audibly transparent not sold by companies that alter the sound intentionally to sound different.
Thanks  <<<<<no need to bother I already asked about the 300 dollar product that performs like a 5000 dac, got ignored but I didnt bother to continue asking for proof like they do to me. I won't establish more converdation with those individuals due to the way they so cheaply used low moves to discredit me, I exposed their praactices and that was the end for me.

Also electro please don't laugh at @Kammerat Rebekka there is plenty of proof that an Iphone 6 can compete with Chord products <<<<<< yeah i read all this very very long ago, im aware of the flatness of the iphone 4 and how a samsung 3 had also an good flat signal, that doesn't mean they are and reconstructing the asnalog signal in the same way or with the same performance.>>>>>

https://kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/10/measurements-apple-iphone-4-iphone-6.html?m=1
Edit: Unfortunately archimago and ken did not compare the chord products to them
But the point of these sources is to show that even an iphone is capable of producing an audibly transparent audio signal at much lower price for us working class humans to enjoy 

There two places to check out how even an iphone 6 can produce high fidelity audio <<<<sure body, actually I bet there are more than 2 places that show iphone outputs high res sound, but you fail to understand that not all high res audio is produced in the same way>>>>>

Archimago shows good data on tiny differences between the phones. But whether tiny differences are audible to average human ear is the big debate that is supposed to be what this thread is going on about.   <<<<< let me solve it for you,  yes differences are audible for the average human ear>>>>

Several of the people here such as @bigshot is not concerned of the numbers that the chord dave can pull off if he can't detect it audibly. What is the purpose for someone such as him to spend 2 grand on a item that has really good numbers but humans have a really hard time detecting.

I honestly have nothing against audiophiles who do choose to improve every aspect of their equipment. But this thread wants to discuss if those improvement in numbers is even audible between expensive cables and solid state dacs.<<<<<yeah thats what i keep saying, if you can't hear differences then be happy you get the max performance with your iphone but dont come and try to convince others of your limited perceptions>>>


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 15, 2018)

gregorio said:


> So succinct it's worth reposting!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thank you for the insults and the valuable info you posted in your reply, Thats what a mental patient would say right? lol    Now I highly suggest you do not put words into moderator's mouth, saying he will do something means you want to gain control in his decisions and thats not very respectful either body. Deleting posts that I have been exchanging with others interested in the thread would be a disrespectful move for them and sure they could question the values of such moderator. So learning respect that matters like don't treat others with admin decisions that  you can't take makes you look like like you wanna be the  boss and they most do what you tell them to do so, that, body, is more important than debating how respectful my lol's are.

one thing is for sure, you got a lot to learn about respect and im so glad you are not a moderator, it will be devastating for this forum and this thred in particular.


----------



## JaeYoon

@Elecroestatico
You failed to understand when I mean audibly transparent audio.
It means audio heared within the realms of a human.

You can claim the average humans can hear tiny changes in differences between those graphed output. Do you have any data to prove that?
I have a site that explains information about the limitations our ear has.
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Also high res audio that is 24 bits in actual form and above is not actually listenable for the average human.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/
What you failed to understand is the point I'm trying to make is that the iphone 6 can make audio that has artifacts below human hearing.

That is your failure. Your inability to prove that your ears can prove that you can hear the artifacts that the ear can't really pick up.


----------



## bfreedma

Elecroestatico said:


> at least I explain and give reason for every ULTRA LOL that I writte, you instead, try to give me professional psychological evaluations for every ultra lol.... that is funny to me but I won't say ultra lol to you because apparently you get very offended




I’ve yet to see you answer any questions or provide a non subjective explanation for anything you’ve posted.  Can you point me to something I might have missed that is based on objective data (showing audibility to humans) and not your opinion?  Feel free to skip the immature acronyms in your response if you make one.


----------



## Laura80

Elecroestatico said:


> yes, you can hear a significant difference, that is because the way the dac interprets and forms the analog signal is more complex and dynamic, there is a  silent background with very good dynamics and a very good designed stable and clean power source, and very low output impedance, among many many more things that make a dac sounding much much better than a cheap one.
> 
> it's the internal processing inside the chip that reconstructs the analog signal where you start seeing the first differences in sound, thats why is so funny when they talk about a perfectly converted signal or when they talk about transparency or the funniest of all when they say all dacs  sound the same when they dont even have the same chip and let alone the differences in implementation of such chip, or what digital transport receiver inside such dac can be implemented and how delivers those 1 and 0's to the D/A converter chip, everything counts, even the case as some were ridiculing out of their own ignorance with a sony product



Hello Elecroestatico, you certainly add fire to this discussion and are clearly passionate about this hobby.

I think Sound Science is very much it’s own island to the rest of the forum but I enjoy the diversity of opinion you offer.


----------



## Laura80

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Don't listen to him Laura. All these dacs may measure differently but you won't be able to hear it unless you look at the machine whilst using it. That way you can think up millions of magic ways it somehow enhances your audio chain. Hide it behide a couple of boxes and do a blindtest with say an iPhone and you won't be able to hear a difference. If you do I will be the first to call you a doctor



I’m just glad I’m not in the market for a fancy dac ☺️


----------



## bigshot

Sound Science isn't the island. We are the ones that are outside of the box, because we're free to challenge and require proof. The rest of Head-Fi forbids the discussion of double blind testing and bias. How can that lead to better discourse?


----------



## JaeYoon

Kammerat Rebekka said:


> Ahh we're back at the old audiophile bastion: flee when people ask for proof of your claims...and sneak in the backdoor to spout bollocks when the adults are in bed.
> 
> Don't listen to him Laura. All these dacs may measure differently but you won't be able to hear it unless you look at the machine whilst using it. That way you can think up millions of magic ways it somehow enhances your audio chain. Hide it behide a couple of boxes and do a blindtest with say an iPhone and you won't be able to hear a difference. If you do I will be the first to call you a doctor


That's the thing. If someone has that amazing of a hearing, they need to go get tested and see if they can be in guinness world record for having hearing well beyond the average human.


----------



## oldmate

bigshot said:


> The rest of Head-Fi forbids the discussion of double blind testing and bias. How can that lead to better discourse?



Yeah, about that!! I see you have been around here for some time. There is no doubt that Head.Fi in 2018 is vastly different to when you joined. And not in a good way.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 15, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> Several of the people here such as @bigshot are not concerned of the numbers that the chord dave can pull off if they can't detect it audibly. What is the purpose for someone such as him to spend 2 grand on a item that has really good numbers but humans have a really hard time detecting?



That is a great question. Do you have an answer for it? If a piece of audio equipment performs better than human ears can perceive, what is the point of better numbers? I can speculate... pride of ownership, like owning a sports car, investment into a product that you know is built well enough to last for years, convenience of having something that is smaller or more feature packed... But none of that means that it sounds any different for the purposes of listening to your music. Any of those reasons are fair and I can totally understand them, even if I may have different priorities than you. That is fine. But saying that an expensive DAC sounds better than any other DAC just isn't factual. That is the only thing I am arguing against. I know it isn't true, because I've gone to the trouble to do the tests myself and verify that all the DACs and DAPs I have access to are audibly transparent.

If someone wants to point me to a DAC that they have evaluated carefully and they believe it is colored, then I'm interested. I am curious why a company would would make something that isn't transparent. It would be an interesting curate's egg. I do suspect that it's more likely in super high end audio where a company is trying to sell themselves based on a "house sound" than it is in a reasonably priced unit where there is a lot of competition.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 15, 2018)

oldmate said:


> Yeah, about that!! I see you have been around here for some time. There is no doubt that Head.Fi in 2018 is vastly different to when you joined. And not in a good way.



Hey! I was here before that. . . that . . . . BIGSHOT! 

I might have taken a decade or more off but that's irrelevant.

It was the same problem back then, but it was a much tighter community throughout. What to do with people like "us" was a real problem for Jude et. al. People with differing views might not have always been so bitter about it, because you came to know personalities and who didn't mean you any harm. Your arch philosophical adversary might wish you happy birthday (literally).  I was around for the initial inception of the idea of this sub-forum and I think I remember it even came and went once. Now the Politics forum came and went in a puff of smoke and that was a total disaster. The rest of the community needed Sound Science in their own special way. And this was a convenient repository for threads and people that brought up inconvenient truths. We had some hydrogen audio gurus hanging out here too which was very cool, actually. It was when they were kicking butt developing the LAME MP3 codec.

To stay on topic, I am listening right now through $30 headphones on a $70 DAC that has pretty purple letters on it and drives low-impedance or high-impedance headphones like nobody's business. Sure sounds good to me. I am confident in both pieces of gear. I've read reviews of the headphones with lots of objective measurements. They're damn good headphones. I get a real kick out of a $30 piece of gear that holds its own with the big league stuff. The build quality of the headphones is awful so I assume they might break eventually.

Edit: Wait, wait, this the cables thread. Okay, I am using the cable that is attached to my headphones, and a USB cable that I found on the floor. I am very confident in both.

Now people think they are going to come in here and bust our chops, like it's a sport. Good luck.


----------



## bigshot

I was against the formation of sound science at first because I saw it as a "banishment group". But after a while, I realized that the rest of Head Fi had banished themselves. This group is much less commercial than the rest of the site. And I think the anonymous shills for companies (which are definitely working in the rest of Head Fi) don't dare set foot in here.


----------



## oldmate

Steve999 said:


> Hey! I was here before that. . . that . . . . BIGSHOT!



Sorry man - a few of us old timers still around.



bigshot said:


> I can speculate... pride of ownership, like owning a sports car, investment into a product that you know is built well enough to last for years, convenience of having something that is smaller or more feature packed...



I totally agree. Problem is though you get these jokers who straight up buy TOTL gear and think it makes them an expert overnight.


----------



## oldmate

bigshot said:


> I realized that the rest of Head Fi had banished themselves.



Brilliant. Author!! Truest words I have ever read around here.


----------



## bigshot

oldmate said:


> Problem is though you get these jokers who straight up buy TOTL gear and think it makes them an expert overnight.



I was being polite and not mentioning ego gratification, but that is a big reason for sure. Personally, I can't see investing my ego into a box full of chips and wires, but it takes all kinds I guess.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 15, 2018)

bigshot said:


> I was against the formation of sound science at first because I saw it as a "banishment group". But after a while, I realized that the rest of Head Fi had banished themselves. This group is much less commercial than the rest of the site. And I think the anonymous shills for companies (which are definitely working in the rest of Head Fi) don't dare set foot in here.



I was "for" it . . . I thought of it like Hydrogen but with more personality and you could actually state a subjective impression once in a while without everyone screaming about it and referring you to what was it on Hydrogen, TOS #8. I think the whole rest of Head-Fi *mandates* that you violate Hydrogen TOS #8. I think it was 8. And I thought we were like renegades flying in the face of authority, _but Head-Fi needed us_, which was pretty cool. But your way of looking at it has some real punch. 

*The infamous Hydrogen Audio TOS 8:*

*TOS 8.* All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims.  Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings.  Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Almost all of us (or literally all of us?) as we conduct ourselves here would be toast over there. But the spirit lives on here.


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 16, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> I was "for" it . . . I thought of it like Hydrogen but with more personality and you could actually state a subjective impression once in a while without everyone screaming about it and referring you to what was it on Hydrogen, TOS #8. I think the whole rest of Head-Fi *mandates* that you violate Hydrogen TOS #8. I think it was 8. And I thought we were like renegades flying in the face of authority, _but Head-Fi needed us_, which was pretty cool. But your way of looking at it has some real punch.
> 
> *The infamous Hydrogen Audio TOS 8:*
> 
> ...


I have a smurf account on hydrogenaudio for some time.

But yes, If you were to turn sound science into tos8 style of hydrogenaudio it could turn sound science on headfi into a ghost town with only it's original members and very few activity. Because audiophiles are not allowed to share subjective ideas into their forum.

We are a small community compared over there.


----------



## tansand

I have those 1" jds labs portable interconnects, the stock ones that came with the topping NX1s', and some 7 dollar silver plated copper ones from ebay. The silver plated copper is a little too bright, but the copper ones sound good, the stock one a bit better than the jds labs. Unfortunate becuase the jds labs are so slim. I think it's helpful you can tune the sound with a 3" interconnect between the DAP and amp.


----------



## Steve999

tansand said:


> I have those 1" jds labs portable interconnects, the stock ones that came with the topping NX1s', and some 7 dollar silver plated copper ones from ebay. The silver plated copper is a little too bright, but the copper ones sound good, the stock one a bit better than the jds labs. Unfortunate becuase the jds labs are so slim. I think it's helpful you can tune the sound with a 3" interconnect between the DAP and amp.



Would it be possible for you to provide some measurements or some double-blind listening test results to make sure they sound different? I don’t expect you to have done so already but it might be an informative exercise for you.


----------



## tansand

What would you suggest needs to be measured, steve999?


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 17, 2018)

tansand said:


> What would you suggest needs to be measured, steve999?



Capacitance, resistance, and inductance.

Here’s some discussion that seems reasonable based on my limited knowlege:

http://www.tonestack.net/articles/speaker-building/audio-interconnect-cables.html

And here’s a meter I just ordered for myself as part of the learning process:

https://www.amazon.com/Proster-Capacitance-Inductance-Resistance-Self-discharge/

I do not claim to be an expert, I find electricity to be a very complex subject.


----------



## tansand

I was thinking it might take a high speed waterfall plot of some kind, but I don't know. All I can think of is that differences in frequency response are being created somehow, or maybe some phase effect.


----------



## Steve999 (Nov 18, 2018)

tansand said:


> I was thinking it might take a high speed waterfall plot of some kind, but I don't know. All I can think of is that differences in frequency response are being created somehow, or maybe some phase effect.



Read diligently through the first post of the first thread in this sub-forum. That’s more than I could ever do for you. Other than to tell you to put all of that effort into the music instead of trying to differentiate between the sounds of wires. I still am amazed by a light switch and by alternating current. I still find the mere fact of electricity to be jaw-dropping. The document I linked to tells you all I know and more, and reflects my editorial tilt. It sounds to me like you have high quality functioning wires of short length. That should be electrical performance well in excess of what is needed to be audibly optimal. If you doubt it get the meter and measure capacitance, resistance, and inductance. Or have you and a friend set up a DBT. That’s all I’ve got, that’s all my cards on the table. Based on what you are saying I honestly think gear wise you are good to go and then some. Unless you want to start thinking about speakers and headphones and if what you have there is doing what you want. Even then I think listening to a track a few times may get you more enjoyment. I’ve hit “good enough for me” in speakers. Headphone and speaker technology coupled with DSP has hit an exciting time and great headphones for cheap has hit an exciting time. So gear wise that’s where my mind is at. But still I’m about the music. We now have access to a huge percentage of the world’s music library for $10 a month. It’s amazing. I’d say take that ball and run with it and have fun. And so ends my meanderings.


----------



## tansand

It does sound pretty good. It's a colorfly C3 with the output capacitors removed and replaced with wires, and the zobels on the outputs open circuited. This puts  1.6v on the output, so I need to use an amp with an input capacitor, but it sounds really good. I'm pretty happy! Have fun!


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 19, 2018)

Steve999 said:


> Capacitance, resistance, and inductance.
> 
> Here’s some discussion that seems reasonable based on my limited knowlege:
> 
> ...


 trying to measure those can be interesting(although not always as easy/precise as one would like), to try and get a proper "view" of what the cable is bringing to the circuit and most of all when it's plain weird compared to the standard. but as almost all possible effects will depend on what is plugged on both ends, I'd always suggest trying to measure the signal coming out of the device after the cable. that way we can really find out how it's affecting the sound instead of trying to fit some subjective impressions into some cherry picked variables that happen to look like they correlate and would justify our own feelings.
or record a song at the same output, time sync both, check for level difference, save the compensated files and ABX them in foobar like a boss. if it doesn't do much for the user, it sure would help fellow members accept that something is going on with certain cables(whatever the actual reason is).


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 19, 2018)

tansand said:


> I have those 1" jds labs portable interconnects, the stock ones that came with the topping NX1s', and some 7 dollar silver plated copper ones from ebay. The silver plated copper is a little too bright, but the copper ones sound good, the stock one a bit better than the jds labs. Unfortunate becuase the jds labs are so slim. I think it's helpful you can tune the sound with a 3" interconnect between the DAP and amp.



Yeah it's cool to be able to tune the sound with the cables, and sometimes the brightness of silver is adequate for other devices, specially if your transducers are warm or slow, but all depends on the rest of the chain, remember its all about synergy. Gold is usually smoother but with luscious dynamics.   The connectors also play an important role in  how the cable will sound. The technique used to weld/solder the terminals, even the amount of oxygen that will enter as the cable as it ages,  the impedance of the cable its dampening factor get affected by all these examples among many others.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Elecroestatico said:


> Yeah it's cool to be able to tune the sound with the cables, and sometimes the brightness of silver is adequate for other devices, specially if your transducers are warm or slow, but all depends on the rest of the chain, remember its all about synergy. Gold is usually smoother but with luscious dynamics.   The connectors also play an important role in  how the cable will sound. The technique used to weld/solder the terminals, even the amount of oxygen that will enter as the cable as it ages,  the impedance of the cable its dampening factor get affected by all these examples among many others.



I hope by the above you're being facetious.  Because all it does is makes me want to go down to the hardware store and buy 10m of ordinary 16AWG zipcord, which has satisfied the ears of me, my wife, my parents, and our guests for decades.  Seriously.


----------



## JaeYoon

TheSonicTruth said:


> I hope by the above you're being facetious.  Because all it does is makes me want to go down to the hardware store and buy 10m of ordinary 16AWG zipcord, which has satisfied the ears of me, my wife, my parents, and our guests for decades.  Seriously.


Same here!

If someone managed to get gold cables with smooth and luscious dynamics, and all these other variables that change the sound and successfully perform multiple tests via an ABX switcher, foobar and produce abx test logs documenting the differences between silver, copper, gold, standard clothanger, show samples and examples that could be reproduced, we might have someone that should head to hydrogenaudio right away and let everyone there know there is a audio breakthrough!


----------



## bigshot

He's not being facetious. I doubt he really believes it either. He's trolling. He replies to people he thinks he can troll and he ignores the ones that he knows won't do a silly angry dance for him. Best ignored.


----------



## JaeYoon

Elecroestatico said:


> Yeah it's cool to be able to tune the sound with the cables, and sometimes the brightness of silver is adequate for other devices, specially if your transducers are warm or slow, but all depends on the rest of the chain, remember its all about synergy. Gold is usually smoother but with luscious dynamics.   The connectors also play an important role in  how the cable will sound. The technique used to weld/solder the terminals, even the amount of oxygen that will enter as the cable as it ages,  the impedance of the cable its dampening factor get affected by all these examples among many others.


Hi there! Welcome back!
So I recommend you install foobar and then install the abx switcher.
Our friend brooko will assist you,
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...ping-tagging-transcoding.655879/#post-9268096
And a cheap ABX switcher you can buy on Amazon so you don't have to unplug cables.
With that done! You should be able to
- Document the differences between your DACs that are constructed with different materials. Show us ABX test logs that show the difference that you can hear on what time in the song and pass it. Do around 15 trials to confirm it is consistent.
- you should be able to document and consistently pass a double blind trial documenting you can tell the difference between a well welded soldered terminal.
- you should able be able provide test logs on how oxygen affects the cable by providing a oxygen free cable test logs compared to a cable that has oxygen in it
- so gold can cause the electrical signal to have luscious Dynamics! Great! That's fantastic! I eagerly await your double blind test logs documenting the exact time and place in the song that you heard this difference between that cable and a copper or silver cable and have a consistent pass rate on the trials.

I will patiently await your ABX test logs and photos of the equipment being tested in your environment.


----------



## castleofargh

a switch is not an abx box. 

GALA's opinion on cables:
"And they say silver, I choose gold 
I'm not afraid to be alone
Someone will judge his gentle soul
Let the boy cry and he will know"

as the potential changes in signature have a lot to do with the various impedances involved in the circuit and not just the cable, directly correlating silver with brighter(compared to copper) is wrong, pure and simple, oxygen free. it's a possibility, but only one among many, and that's what makes the correlation nonexistent. it's trivial to think of a setup where a silver cable will end up being the "warmer" one, measurably so and on occasion audibly so(again usually depends on the specs of the rest of the circuit).


----------



## tansand (Nov 19, 2018)

Ah, I'm assuming you've ABX tested that, castleofargh? Have you heard examples of the silver plated cable being less bright than the copper?


----------



## castleofargh

tansand said:


> Ah, I'm assuming you've ABX tested that, castleofargh? Have you heard examples of the silver plated cable being less bright than the copper?


there is no need to blind test that when ohm's law tell us that much. let's take the most obvious hypothetical example for me,  2 cables as identical as can be, in gauge, length, braiding, shielding, etc. but one made of silver and one made of copper. so we can confidently assume that the silver one will at least have lower impedance than the copper one. are we in agreement with that?
now let's plug each cable in turn into, well really most single BA driver IEMs. then we'd measure or sometimes listen to the difference when it's big enough. a BA driver often has its impedance rising massively in the trebles, like these 3 guys:


it's an impedance graph, with an er4sr, an old sony XBA-c10, and I don't remember what I picked for the thrid one(lol, sorry. I just opened randomly some single BA files I have, but all impedance graphs are named "impedance" because I'm a genius, s once open I don't have a clue where I picked it). anyway it's not hard to see a trend in the upper range, based on my own experience this is fairly typical.

now we have basic electricity telling us that for the load(IEM), the source impedance is amplifier output impedance+cable impedance. and that means two things:
1/ if the amp's impedance isn't very small, the difference in cables is not going to matter much when added to the amp.
2/ that the amp+silver cable are going to have lower total impedance.(as we keep the same amp)

now we deduce that the frequency response will be more attenuated in the low and mid range in reaction to the IEM's own impedance response. and when using the copper cable that behavior will be bigger than with the silver cable. meaning that once you match the volume to align at 1khz, the frequency response graph will show a boost in the trebles for the copper cable compared to the FR when using the silver cable. in simple terms, the copper cable would be "brighter" in this example. it's really just good old ohm's law, except that it must be calculated for each frequency as the variables involved keep changing for at least the IEM.

for an example with sources of different impedance changing the FR, https://www.head-fi.org/threads/feedback-about-gears-stop-doing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/   (self advertising, yeah!!!) I've been told that aside from me whining, the impedance part was easy to understand. or you have the sticky topic about impedance in the main page of the section.
clearly here I'm only paying attention to impedance variations, and FR changing as a result. that doesn't mean it's the only variable capable of affecting the output sound of course. but it's often what's causing the most obvious changes. at least based on my own attempts at measuring stuff when they sounded different to me.
I haven't had a silver cable for years and really don't plan on investing in one anymore, so I can't offer to measure the actual case I was presenting. but I've done a lot of measurements adding resistors of different values between the amp and various IEMs. so I can show some exaggerated examples of how the low impedance "cable"(anything between the amp and the IEM), doesn't always sound "brighter".


----------



## Elecroestatico

TheSonicTruth said:


> I hope by the above you're being facetious.  Because all it does is makes me want to go down to the hardware store and buy 10m of ordinary 16AWG zipcord, which has satisfied the ears of me, my wife, my parents, and our guests for decades.  Seriously.


dont buuy ordinary 16 awg zipcord, sommme of them donnt even have pure copper cores, lol u silly boy


----------



## Elecroestatico (Nov 20, 2018)

castleofargh said:


> there is no need to blind test that when ohm's law tell us that much. let's take the most obvious hypothetical example for me,  2 cables as identical as can be, in gauge, length, braiding, shielding, etc. but one made of silver and one made of copper. so we can confidently assume that the silver one will at least have lower impedance than the copper one. are we in agreement with that?
> now let's plug each cable in turn into, well really most single BA driver IEMs. then we'd measure or sometimes listen to the difference when it's big enough. a BA driver often has its impedance rising massively in the trebles, like these 3 guys:
> 
> it's an impedance graph, with an er4sr, an old sony XBA-c10, and I don't remember what I picked for the thrid one(lol, sorry. I just opened randomly some single BA files I have, but all impedance graphs are named "impedance" because I'm a genius, s once open I don't have a clue where I picked it). anyway it's not hard to see a trend in the upper range, based on my own experience this is fairly typical.
> ...


So I guess they are finally learning the truth from us.... I hope one day they thank me instead of insulting me

edit: I heard that the cable thats behind the wall to power your outlets its great for subwoofers but i never tried it


----------



## Elecroestatico

JaeYoon said:


> Hi there! Welcome back!
> So I recommend you install foobar and then install the abx switcher.
> Our friend brooko will assist you,
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/set...ping-tagging-transcoding.655879/#post-9268096
> ...


LOL is not the amount of oxygen the problem, it's the oxidation that can affect the cable performance and this is dependent on how much oxidation and in what areas of the cable such oxidation originates.

And yes, gold has those sound characteristics, just like silver tends to be brighter. Its only a way to describe the sound, is not like magically you are going to get luscious dynamics, common don't be too hard on yourself! just use your ears 

And finally, what is foobar? and what kind of component ABX is? am I the only one here using windows media player?


----------



## Elecroestatico

Thank you all for the "welcomes back" I received, I know you miss me when I'm away but rest assure I have never left...I will never let you down.


----------



## JaeYoon

Elecroestatico said:


> LOL is not the amount of oxygen the problem, it's the oxidation that can affect the cable performance and this is dependent on how much oxidation and in what areas of the cable such oxidation originates.
> 
> And yes, gold has those sound characteristics, just like silver tends to be brighter. Its only a way to describe the sound, is not like magically you are going to get luscious dynamics, common don't be too hard on yourself! just use your ears
> 
> And finally, what is foobar? and what kind of component ABX is? am I the only one here using windows media player?


So still no measurements or even an ABX test log for me on that?


----------



## Elecroestatico

JaeYoon said:


> So still no measurements or even an ABX test log for me on that?


sure body sure, dont address anything of the things I have said (not like is the first time you do so).  Have you been reading previous page and this page or only my posts? i bet you haven't,  otherwise you wouldnt be crying for measurments.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Elecroestatico said:


> dont buuy ordinary 16 awg zipcord, sommme of them donnt even have pure copper cores, lol u silly boy



Then call ALL of us who use plain ol' speaker wire "silly", because even a slight turn of a treble knob will "brighten" the sound far more than your waste-o-money silver or gold conductors.


----------



## JaeYoon

Elecroestatico said:


> sure body sure, dont address anything of the things I have said (not like is the first time you do so).  Have you been reading previous page and this page or only my posts? i bet you haven't,  otherwise you wouldnt be crying for measurments.


Ok then! So you have no proof. No tests done at all. Just utter nonsense.


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 20, 2018)

Elecroestatico said:


> Yeah it's cool to be able to tune the sound with the cables, and sometimes the brightness of silver is adequate for other devices, specially if your transducers are warm or slow, but all depends on the rest of the chain, remember its all about synergy. Gold is usually smoother but with luscious dynamics.   The connectors also play an important role in  how the cable will sound. The technique used to weld/solder the terminals, even the amount of oxygen that will enter as the cable as it ages,  the impedance of the cable its dampening factor get affected by all these examples among many others.


You should definitely consider posting this on hydrogenaudio. No really! I highly recommend you head there and do it.

Let them know, that no ABX test logs or any form of measurements are needed! Just your own ears right?


----------



## bigshot

He never replies to my posts. I think he's afraid of me. I don't bite!


----------



## Laura80

Sorry if this is off topic, but is this cable in the link just a power cable?

https://www.fanthorpes.co.uk/cables/mains-power-products/power-cables/chord-music-mains-cable/

It’s just short of £5k!

Am I missing something more than it does other than connect power to a device?


----------



## bigshot

Yes, and it's easily modified to use it to plug in your toaster!


----------



## Laura80

bigshot said:


> Yes, and it's easily modified to use it to plug in your toaster!



Apparently the mains cable in question is available for demonstration by request at the dealership.

I’d imagine the demonstration would be rather dull.


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 20, 2018)

bigshot said:


> He never replies to my posts. I think he's afraid of me. I don't bite!


I think I should've taken your advice and not reply to him. When asked about his DACs and how he came to his conclusions. Elecro will do everything he can to avoid doing any actual tests or comparisons with actual measurements or ABX test logs.

He will talk about all the other irrelevant stuff.
He won't even reply to you!!!

From his reply above! If he's going to make claims such as welding and soldering affect sound quality, he should substantiate his claim. He won't and will beat around the bush to try to move goalposts. His recent post is a perfect example of avoiding testing his claims!!!

Added: I forgot to mention


Elecroestatico said:


> Yeah it's cool to be able to tune the sound with the cables, and sometimes the brightness of silver is adequate for other devices,





castleofargh said:


> so we can confidently assume that the silver one will at least have lower impedance than the copper one. are we in agreement with that?
> so I can show some exaggerated examples of how the low impedance "cable"(anything between the amp and the IEM), doesn't always sound "brighter".


I wonder how elecro forgot about his other claim that silver is the "brightness" cable.


----------



## bfreedma

Laura80 said:


> Sorry if this is off topic, but is this cable in the link just a power cable?
> 
> https://www.fanthorpes.co.uk/cables/mains-power-products/power-cables/chord-music-mains-cable/
> 
> ...




The best part of the page you linked is that they offer financing.  The worst part is that people might actually go into debt financing a power cable.

You can always add a $3,800 Ethernet cable.  At least the shipping is free

https://www.amazon.com/Audioquest-D...542754144&sr=8-1&keywords=audioquest+ethernet


----------



## JaeYoon

bfreedma said:


> The best part of the page you linked is that they offer financing.  The worst part is that people might actually go into debt financing a power cable.
> 
> You can always add a $3,800 Ethernet cable.  At least the shipping is free
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Audioquest-D...542754144&sr=8-1&keywords=audioquest+ethernet


That's the dangerous! Because they can entice people to buy on impulse! And may not be sure they can afford to do so in the long run. Oh if you can't buy this cable in full now? Don't worry about it! We can make you finance it! We hope you can make all the payments on time if not!!!


----------



## JaeYoon

Laura80 said:


> Sorry if this is off topic, but is this cable in the link just a power cable?
> 
> https://www.fanthorpes.co.uk/cables/mains-power-products/power-cables/chord-music-mains-cable/
> 
> ...


That is not offtopic. It's a perfect example!
The website is super shady in it's information and sales pitch.

Although without them providing actual specs in of itself. It's hard to calculate much, and also this
"During our own listening tests we have been pleasantly surprised at the significant changes to the final musical performance."

Funny, I don't see any link on that site pertaining to a listening test done. What variables were this listening test done? How many people participated?

Nothing like the public listening tests on HA.
"Enormous attention has been focussed on materials and shielding to ensure the lowest possible noise floor on the earth conductor. All the internal elements use Taylon® insulation rather than PTFE. This insulation, combined with Chords optimum shielding design, redefines the maximum possible musical performance that we can offer with power connections."
What kind of shielding does a consumer need, we're assuming because this is a bulky audio cable, it will be kept at home for personal listening. So what kind shielding would the average consumer of personal audio would need that much insulation?

"The design also uses a uniquely modified version of our Super ARAY technology"
........


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 20, 2018)

JaeYoon said:


> That's the dangerous! Because they can entice people to buy on impulse! And may not be sure they can afford to do so in the long run. Oh if you can't buy this cable in full now? Don't worry about it! We can make you finance it! We hope you can make all the payments on time if not!!!




That is the real issue.  The reality that marketing, both directly (manufacturer and retailer) and indirect (head-FI hype) leads people to spend beyond their means.  I don’t think most here are really trying to spend the least amount of money possible as the sole buying criteria, but an uneducated buyer going into debt or sacrificing savings they shouldn’t is where I believe the line needs to be drawn.

If your financial position allows for some unnecessary spending because you simply want something, it’s all good.  I’ve certainly spent more than technically necessary at times because there were components I wanted that ticked off a few of my buying criteria checkboxes other than price.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 20, 2018)

JaeYoon said:


> "During our own listening tests we have been pleasantly surprised at the significant changes to the final musical performance."



That is quite a trick! A wire that improves musicians' performances! Does that mean that I can plug my DAC in with this wire and turn the Shaggs into the Beatles?


----------



## JaeYoon (Nov 20, 2018)

bfreedma said:


> That is the real issue.  The reality that marketing, both directly (manufacturer and retailer) and indirect (head-FI hype) leads people to spend beyond their means.  I don’t think most here are really trying to spend the least amount of money possible as the sole buying criteria, but an uneducated buyer going into debt or sacrificing savings they shouldn’t is where I believe the line needs to be drawn.
> 
> If your financial position allows for some unnecessary spending because you simply want something, it’s all good.  I’ve certainly spent more than technically necessary at times because there were components I wanted that ticked off a few of my buying criteria checkboxes other than price.


That's the thing! If someone has a lot of wealth, it's not a concern!

But there was someone on head-fi a while back whom I talked to who used affirm to finance custom IEM audio cables, and high priced multi BA IEMs and he told me that the monthly payments became too much. $480 a month was just too much and ended up he sold them on head-fi auction thread to pay for the monthly payments. Unfortunately, he had to sell it much less than he paid for because it was used.

He ended up selling other equipment to pay off the loan in full.
But that is just one danger of financing, he didn't have the means to pay for the equipment he financed.


bigshot said:


> That is quite a trick! A wire that improves musicians' performances! Does that mean that I can plug my DAC in with this wire and turn the Shaggs into the Beatles?


That is hilarious!  we should've gotten into the audio cable business and sold cables and made a fortune. We can just buy some cables a few bucks a foot and sold it for 2000 and market it which all sorts of technology that was put into it.

Get some impressive slogans and a good writer and we should be set.

Where's Steve Eddy when we need him lol.


----------



## bigshot

I imagine it's pretty easy to arrange financing on a five grand loan when you're selling a two dollar product.


----------



## SilentNote

Wouldn't a null test easily prove if there's a difference between cables?

My intuition tells me that if there's a difference it's most definitely inaudible. Like -100db or less.


----------



## Maxx134

SilentNote said:


> Wouldn't a null test easily prove if there's a difference between cables?
> 
> My intuition tells me that if there's a difference it's most definitely inaudible. Like -100db or less.


I am assuming a Null test would only cover the audible spectrum, but we don't know how it would affect a system depending where placed and if it is filtering or leaking any upper oscillations that may or may not be going on.

Ever notice some headphone cables heavily braided?
I find them to be excuses to add expenses to the wire.


----------



## bigshot

Who cares about sound humans can't hear? It won't make Bon Jovi sound any better. Just apply a low pass filter at 20kHz and forget it.


----------



## gregorio

SilentNote said:


> [1] Wouldn't a null test easily prove if there's a difference between cables?
> [2] My intuition tells me that if there's a difference it's most definitely inaudible. Like -100db or less.



1. Yep.
2. Second option (less)! 



Maxx134 said:


> [1] I am assuming a Null test would only cover the audible spectrum, [1a] but we don't know how it would affect a system depending where placed and if it is filtering or leaking any upper oscillations that may or may not be going on.



1. Why do you assume that? A null test is a simple test; we take two signals, invert the phase of one of them and then sum them together. If the two signals are the same then they "null", IE. The result of the summing is zero, no signal at all. If the two signals are in any way different, the result of the summing is the difference between them, regardless of what the difference is, whether it's at 1Hz, 100gHz or anywhere in between! ...
1a. Therefore, this assertion is completely false! If for example we had two signals that were identical except that one of them contained some say 80kHz content and the other didn't, the result of a null test would be a "difference file" containing that 80kHz content.

G


----------



## SilentNote

“Busted” from mythbusters lands on the the thread.


----------



## castleofargh

SilentNote said:


> Wouldn't a null test easily prove if there's a difference between cables?
> 
> My intuition tells me that if there's a difference it's most definitely inaudible. Like -100db or less.


it's going to really depend on the cable, and more importantly on what it's being used for. 
for interconnect, the differences would expect mostly:
- hardly measurable change in loudness. unless it has plain wrong impedance compared to the standard it's supposed to follow, and then all bets are off. 
- a slightly different frequency cut off, with a roll off(they will all roll off at some point) that probably starts to matter way up in the ultrasonic frequencies. but on occasion you do end up with something as dramatic as already -0.1dB at 20kHz so now the music is ruined! ^_^
- some difference in shielding(from irrelevant to somehow having the shield soldered inadequately for the specif use). about that, the matter is going to be how much you need shielding where you are?







now for headphone cables it's a different story. because there is pretty much no standard, so expecting divergence in electrical specs is sort of normal. some will make light, flexible cables as a priority and go beyond what you'd expect electrically for such a use. some will make big fat horrible cables that do have very low impedance and more than enough insulation to keep crosstalk wayyyyy low. some actually use the cable as an electrical component for the final tuning the headphone/IEM, and add resistors or whatever in them that will alter, or stabilize the frequency response of the transducer. so if you remove that cable and use a random headphone cable instead, chances are that they won't sound the same. some cables will be shielded, and half the time with single ended cables, even the guy making the cable has no idea if he should solder that to the "ground" or not. if the cable is braided a certain way then the total length of the wire can be a good deal longer than the same cable length straight, so between the length difference and the braids and probably some other differences, we certainly can expect at least measurable differences and sometimes audible ones. in general many people will find themselves in situations where cables do alter the sound audibly.
we could consider those events the "crap happens" of cable. what I find very strange isn't that people get audible differences sometimes, but this:
1/ they think that their usually miserable way of "testing" can be conclusive. I read cable reviews where the guy didn't have a switch, didn't measure if one made the headphone louder. his way required a good minute just to switch the cable as fast as he could which is a huge nono when looking for small audible differences. absolutely anybody who knows anything about how to conduct a listening test knows as much. but the reviewer is telling you everything(he believes) about the sound of those cables anyway, with the supreme confidence that only ignorance and/or a massive ego can confer to a person. 
2/ that people almost always draw the wrong conclusions anyway. as if it wasn't bad enough that they jump on conclusions, they suck at doing it. like the "silver is brighter" stuff a few pages ago, it can be true under a given set of conditions, and not true under different sets of conditions. basically people make a rule that if you flip a coin it will always fall on head. they think they're right and don't hesitate to come declare it on the forum, even if all they have is a butchered anecdotal experiment, or the friend of a friend who knows a guy who said it was so. and yet they will fight to defend the idea on the web. I don't know if it's fun or sad, but at least I know it's a mistake. 
2a/ how often people decide that if they like one cable better, then it "obviously" has positive objective impact on sound. it's the same as 2, but it's such an incorrect way of thinking about audio and subjective experience that IMO it deserves its own little spot. 


all that to say, you can very much have differences way above -100dB because of a cable. and if you go seek those differences, like many audiophile actively do, of course you'll end up getting them. there are only so many exotic products you can purchase and randomly stick together before something starts acting weirdly. but are those anecdotal situations proof that it's worth spending significant money on cables to change the sound the way we like? I personally don't think so. in practice, moving the placement of the headphone on your head is going to change the sound more than the vast majority of cables ever will. that's what I've come to believe after measuring it many times.


----------



## sander99

Laura80 said:


> It’s just short of £5k!


And that's for 1 metre, if your wall outlet is 10 metres away you'll need £22,999.00 for the 10 metres version!

But wait, what about the copper wires in the wall, oh, and the rest of the distance to the nearest power plant? Maybe we can ask Chord how much it would cost to make a custom high end power connection from the nearest power plant, say 50 km, to my hifi system?
Actually, maybe we should ask them if they can built a high end power plant as well, one that runs on hand picked high end audio grade coal! (Or uranium, but I fear that +200 dB+ when things go worst case awry.)


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> And that's for 1 metre, if your wall outlet is 10 metres away you'll need £22,999.00 for the 10 metres version!
> 
> But wait, what about the copper wires in the wall, oh, and the rest of the distance to the nearest power plant? Maybe we can ask Chord how much it would cost to make a custom high end power connection from the nearest power plant, say 50 km, to my hifi system?
> Actually, maybe we should ask them if they can built a high end power plant as well, one that runs on hand picked high end audio grade coal! (Or uranium, but I fear that +200 dB+ when things go worst case awry.)


for the anecdote, they're currently putting the electrical lines underground around my village, so I keep seeing those huge rolls of cable, and the elite audiophile sleeping deep inside me is a little moved by that vision. the cable is almost like my fist in diameter(insulation included). I'd need 3 to make myself a single ended IEM cable. I suspect that passing it around my ears might be a challenge, but if it's the price of a good soundstage and night and day better experience... one downside though, from the color, they're using aluminum. so it's official, the electrical engineers working on that project are not true audiophiles. plus real audiophiles know that you must always keep your cables away from the floor.noobs.


----------



## Glmoneydawg (Jul 23, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> for the anecdote, they're currently putting the electrical lines underground around my village, so I keep seeing those huge rolls of cable, and the elite audiophile sleeping deep inside me is a little moved by that vision. the cable is almost like my fist in diameter(insulation included). I'd need 3 to make myself a single ended IEM cable. I suspect that passing it around my ears might be a challenge, but if it's the price of a good soundstage and night and day better experience... one downside though, from the color, they're using aluminum. so it's official, the electrical engineers working on that project are not true audiophiles. plus real audiophiles know that you must always keep your cables away from the floor.noobs.


The good news is you can now purchase an amplifier that draws 200AMPS....or an arc welder to drive your choice of ginormous headphones or speakers......i expect a full report


----------



## Glmoneydawg

Btw aluminum wire is not up to code here in Canada ....also makes for truly crappy motor windings...you might want to talk to your village elders about this


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jul 23, 2019)

Glmoneydawg said:


> Btw aluminum wire is not up to code here in Canada ....also
> makes for truly crappy motor windings...you might want to
> talk to your village elders about this



But aluminum wire produces such sparkly trebles!


----------



## asymcon (Jul 23, 2019)

Sorry I haven't read all 93 pages, but I disagree with the thread topic.
Yes, they make a *huge *difference.
Cheap PVC insulated stock AKG cable falls apart in a few years of indoor usage, but a PE+Neoprene composite as well as silicone holds up for years and years even in challenging conditions. Silicone also makes high diameter power cables (4 AWG) much easier to handle and can withstand over 200°C. So can't see what is the argument here?

Van Damme PE+Neo cable still holds up after 8 years as a mic cable, while just a week ago AKG stock insulation disintegrated into pieces, like aluminium being attacked by Ga.


----------



## bigshot

He meant that cables don't make a difference to the sound. Certainly build quality will make a cable last longer. There the question is how many cheap cables do you have to buy to add up to the price of a fancy cable? Is it cheaper just to replace the cheap one one or two times? Also, in a static home stereo situation, connectors are not likely to get worn out. It might make more of a difference in a portable rig. It's all a trade off of cost vs durability.


----------



## asymcon

I sort of assumed that, but decided to go on with the charade anyway 
Actually good cables doesn't have to be expensive. Such as VD single pair for €1.3/metre.
It's better to stick to "buy once, cry once" idea for cables (in instances where higher price actually mean quality), as recabling a mouse lead is no fun, just like some types of HP.


----------



## L8MDL

Why do you feel the need to convince others? Some deep seated insecurity, no doubt...


----------



## bigshot

L8MDL said:


> Why do you feel the need to convince others? Some deep seated insecurity, no doubt...



You can only convince someone who bases their opinions on facts. People who want to believe whatever they want to believe won't listen.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Jul 25, 2019)

L8MDL said:


> Why do you feel the need to convince others? Some deep seated insecurity, no doubt...



to try and squash silly myths that cause uninformed individuals to waste money? To put snake-oil salesmen out of business?

there's a lot of product being sold thanks to over-blown proclamations on forums like this one from people who think they hear all sorts of amazing benefits from stuff like boutique cables and expensive dacs and the magical benefits of burn-in.  There's nothing wrong with trying to get down to some truth and reality.

EDIT - and as far as insecurities go, I'd say it's the folks who have a deep-seated need to believe in the myths that have the insecurities.  They can't seem to take having their convictions challenged.  They seem to feel that if cables and uber-hi rez sources and all that don't actually make a difference in any meaningful way, the hobby will be ruined for them.  But the reality is it's actually just the opposite.  The truth will set you free my friends!


----------



## Steve999 (Jul 25, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> to try and squash silly myths that cause uninformed individuals to waste money? To put snake-oil salesmen out of business?
> 
> there's a lot of product being sold thanks to over-blown proclamations on forums like this one from people who think they hear all sorts of amazing benefits from stuff like boutique cables and expensive dacs and the magical benefits of burn-in.  There's nothing wrong with trying to get down to some truth and reality.



I would add that for a person like me who has always enjoyed recorded music and electronics it is an engaging subject standing on its own merits. It is fertile ground for me to learn interesting things, and an area that I can apply practically in my own home. I also have the opportunity to further understand how the product of recorded music moved from performance of the musicians to recording to mastering to arriving in my home. There are also aspects of consumerism and history that tie into this area too.

The arguments we see going around in circles here are decades old. If people just come in here and influence the subject matter with incorrect information the accuracy and value of the content would plummet.

Sound Science is in a particularly unique position because addressing these issues head-on is often highly discouraged in the rest of head-fi. That dynamic adds some extra friction and challenges for this sub-forum.


----------



## gregorio

Steve999 said:


> I also have the opportunity to further understand how the product of recorded music moved from performance of the musicians to recording to mastering to arriving in my home.



I see this as a particular problem. Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions. For example, in the editing phase we have almost unlimited control over every aspect of the recorded performance. Have a look at this for example:

And have a look at the videos on this page to get a fuller understanding of the range of manipulations available: https://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-can-melodyne-do

How often is Melodyne or some similar tool used? Pretty much ubiquitously! (although not commonly on acoustic classical recordings and some jazz).

G


----------



## bigshot

When I was editing M&E, I would do all kinds of edits and no one would ever know that they were edits. Particularly in sound effects where I would create rhythmic combinations of multiple effects that would weave around the musical beats.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> I see this as a particular problem. Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions. For example, in the editing phase we have almost unlimited control over every aspect of the recorded performance. Have a look at this for example:
> 
> And have a look at the videos on this page to get a fuller understanding of the range of manipulations available: https://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-can-melodyne-do
> 
> ...




Deepfake manipulation.  Leave the imperfections in!


----------



## Davesrose (Jul 27, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Deepfake manipulation.  Leave the imperfections in!



I've actually been involved with 3D animation, and there has been some recent deepfakes that are really impressive.  Take a look at this video from VFX artists looking at the end scene of Rogue One (end of video).  It's amazing how much more natural the deepfake is from the CGI rendering of the movie.



At least with VFX, there's still artistry....from what I can tell with music production, it's been "quantized" for quite a few years.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Deepfake manipulation.
> [2] Leave the imperfections in!



1. "Deepfake" compared to what? Deepfake compared to a reality that never exists? There isn't a recorded performance, there's a lot of different individual recordings done at different times (and different places) which are edited, processed and mixed into "a performance". In other words, the "deepfake" is effectively the reality of a song/track, while the actual reality is just sequence of individual instrument and vocal recordings.

2. Which imperfections? The imperfections which match (or improve) artistic intentions or the imperfections which detract from them? Did you actually watch the posted and other videos? If you had, then you would have noticed that while we can eliminate imperfections, that's neither the limit of the tools available nor how they are typically used. The tools allow us to manipulate the imperfections, so we can completely correct all aspects of any imperfections, only correct some aspects of the imperfections (while leaving desired aspects of the imperfections unchanged), not change individual imperfections at all or even make the imperfections even more imperfect, entirely depending on artistic intentions!

Aren't you exhibiting exactly what I suggested: "_Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions._"? You're assuming that there is "a performance" of a song/track and also, that all the aspects of all imperfections are deliberate/intensional and artistically desirable. The latter is never the case, even with the world's greatest musicians, let alone with those whose "talent" is partially/largely/entirely their marketability rather than purely their musical ability!

G


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. "Deepfake" compared to what? Deepfake compared to a reality that never exists? There isn't a recorded performance, there's a lot of different individual recordings done at different times (and different places) which are edited, processed and mixed into "a performance". In other words, the "deepfake" is effectively the reality of a song/track, while the actual reality is just sequence of individual instrument and vocal recordings.
> 
> 2. Which imperfections? The imperfections which match (or improve) artistic intentions or the imperfections which detract from them? Did you actually watch the posted and other videos? If you had, then you would have noticed that while we can eliminate imperfections, that's neither the limit of the tools available nor how they are typically used. The tools allow us to manipulate the imperfections, so we can completely correct all aspects of any imperfections, only correct some aspects of the imperfections (while leaving desired aspects of the imperfections unchanged), not change individual imperfections at all or even make the imperfections even more imperfect, entirely depending on artistic intentions!
> 
> ...



Never confuse me for an audiophile.  

I always value content over what it is played through - be that a $30 CD boombox or a $3,000 living room rig.

Manipulation is manipulation, through either system!


----------



## SpeakerBox

krmathis said:


> Why even bother trying to convince? Just ignore!



Yes, just listen and be happy.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] Never confuse me for an audiophile.
> [2] Manipulation is manipulation, through either system!



1. If you're going to make typical audiophile fallacious assertions and ignore the actual facts, how can I do anything other than confuse you for an audiophile?

2. The vast majority of commercial music recordings can only exist due to manipulation. Again, with the vast majority of commercial music an actual performance of a song/track never exists, the song only exists through the manipulation of all the individually recorded instruments. So what are you saying, that you don't want any manipulation and therefore no music from around the late 1950's onwards?

G


----------



## Watagump

I want someone to do a blind test but use the same cable for every single test.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 1. If you're going to make typical audiophile fallacious assertions and ignore the actual facts, how can I do anything other than confuse you for an audiophile?
> 
> 2. The vast majority of commercial music recordings can only exist due to manipulation. Again, with the vast majority of commercial music an actual performance of a song/track never exists, the song only exists through the manipulation of all the individually recorded instruments. So what are you saying, that you don't want any manipulation and therefore no music from around the late 1950's onwards?
> 
> G



Audiophile = love of the sound of something

MELOphile = admiration of the music itself

So don't try to make a flat or sharp singer into something he or she ain't!  (Unless you work for Fox)


----------



## castleofargh

TheSonicTruth said:


> Audiophile = love of the sound of something
> 
> MELOphile = admiration of the music itself
> 
> So don't try to make a flat or sharp singer into something he or she ain't!  (Unless you work for Fox)


they're artists, why shouldn't they create what they want, anyway they want it, using any tool they want? we're having the same conversation again and again. you'd rather keep a given art form stagnant because you like how it was at a certain point and don't like how it is evolving. a guy like you was actively complaining every time a new instrument, musical genre, or production process came to be. and of course like everyone of those guys, you believe your circumstances are different and that you're really doing it for the sake of music. and like them, you're wrong. because every single one of those new tools, new techniques, new styles, brought the potential for more diversity in music. this post processing tool is the same, it offers many new options and doesn't remove anything. an artist doesn't like that tool, he just won't use it, the end. only guys like you, wish to remove possibilities because you don't like them.
there are many albums I'm reluctant to describe as music, and even more stuff that I simply don't like, but I'll always be on the side of artistic freedom. even if the result is more of the stuff I hate! 




I'm a tiny bit passionate about artistic freedom in general, sorry to everybody for probably adding fuel to this strange off topic.


----------



## gregorio (Jul 29, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> So don't try to make a flat or sharp singer into something he or she ain't!



That statement makes absolutely no sense, unless you have an idealised and completely incorrect understanding of what all the popular music genres are and how they're created. Have you ever heard what an electric guitar actually sounds like? Each note is just a short, quiet twang, it only sounds anything even vaguely like an electric guitar by manipulating it into "something it ain't" (with massive amounts of added distortion). What about a drumkit, ever heard what one of those actually sounds like? Again, it's manipulated to sound very significantly different on a recording (or at a live gig) from what it really sounds like. Synthesizers are of course by definition pure manipulation. And backing instruments/vocals and lead vocals have been edited, layered and otherwise significantly manipulated going back as far as the late 1950's (Phil Spectre's "wall of sound" for example). So that's the drums, guitars, synths, backing instruments and vocals all manipulated "into something they ain't", what's left?? ... Nothing's left, that's everything, every instrument in the entire band! Without this manipulation "into something it ain't" what you'd be left with would sound absolutely nothing like a rock band or any other derivative or related genre! In other words, your cry of "don't try to make it into something it ain't" is utter nonsense, the vast majority of music only exists BECAUSE it's been made "into something it ain't", this is what defines and differentiates all these music genres from purely acoustic music genres!

Also (and again), did you even watch the posted video before your rant? Did you not notice that all sung notes are sharp, flat or usually both, as they invariably drift during the evolution of the note? Given that all popular music genres are defined and predicated on making every sound/instrument "into something it ain't", why shouldn't we do the same with the lead vocal if it improves artistic intent?

Lastly (and also again!), if you repeatedly make typical misguided/misinformed audiophile assertions then you leave us with no logical alternative but to view you as a typical misguided/misinformed audiophile. If, as you state, you don't want to be viewed this way, the solution is entirely in your hands, IE. Don't make typical misinformed audiophile assertions in the first place and certainly don't just keep repeating them!



castleofargh said:


> I'm a tiny bit passionate about artistic freedom in general, sorry to everybody for probably adding fuel to this strange off topic.



It's not entirely off topic, the whole point of artistic intention is to manipulate/affect perception and the reported differences between audio cables are wholly due to differently affected perceptions. The only difference is that with artistic intention perception is affected with audible differences, while cables solely depend on other differences, which aren't audible. Admittedly then, it's only very tenuously on topic! 

G


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 2, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Who cares about sound humans can't hear? It won't make Bon Jovi sound any better. Just apply a low pass filter at 20kHz and forget it.



Hate to burst your bubble, but tests say different:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10848570/




More at bottom of that page:


This could be the key and one aspect overlooked in this thread...


----------



## L8MDL

I see nothing in the titles of those articles that imply that cables will make a difference. Of course I didn't read them...


----------



## oldmate (Aug 2, 2019)

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> The truth will set you free my friends!



Not to mention saving you a fist full of dollars.

I had to laugh hard the other day when reading a certain members posts about how his hearing is not up to par because of his age but in another post can tell the difference between a 6 and 8 wire cable. After 50 hours of burn in of course!!

Don't bother with these types. They are a lost cause and usually never post in the music thread which is what this is all about.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 2, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but tests say different:
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10848570/
> 
> ...



Oh god, not this hyperbole.  I have seen an even more recent Japanese study about brain activity with high frequencies, but all of this is meaningless.  The Japanese study had a small sample, and there was a various range that had activities in the thalamus, but no activities in the cortex.  The neurologist of the study has been very cautious to say there *might* be some kind of actual perception.  Of those he found that did have activity, it was only noticed with EKG and they themselves didn't feel any reactions.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 2, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> Oh god, not this hyperbole



Look who is not being open to facts?
Tell the researchers who done all the work, in numerous publications, that it's just Hyperbole... to you!

For lazy readers:
Quote:
"Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC. These results suggest the existence of a previously unrecognized response to complex sound containing particular types of high frequencies above the audible range. We term this phenomenon the "hypersonic effect."

I would also speculate that this could be a reason why some prefer DSD files..


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 2, 2019)

L8MDL said:


> I see nothing in the titles of those articles that imply that cables will make a difference. Of course I didn't read them...


Apologies to all here.
As I am actually just trying to find and suggest any possible _reason _as to why this thread topic exists.

We should focus on anything overlooked and why we have this situations like mine, where I have heard super expensive headphone wire that was not any better than cheaper wire, but still, I have heard wire that I preferred over others..


----------



## oldmate

Maxx134 said:


> Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC. These results suggest the existence of a previously unrecognized response to complex sound containing particular types of high frequencies above the audible range. We term this phenomenon the "hypersonic effect.



You conveniently left out as you lot always do that this was a controversial scientific study and that numerous other studies have contradicted the portion of the results relating to the subjective reaction to high-frequency audio, finding that people who have "good ears" listening to SACD and high resolution DVD Audio recordings on high fidelity systems capable of reproducing sounds up to 30 kHz cannot tell the difference between high resolution audio and the normal CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.


----------



## Davesrose

Maxx134 said:


> Look who is not being open to facts?
> Tell the researchers who done all the work, in numerous publications, that it's just Hyperbole... to you!
> 
> For lazy readers:
> ...



Could you be up to date?  The study you're trying to quote now is already discredited.  What you've been inferring is ultra-high frequencies....even past 20KHZ can be "euphoric".  I have a medical background: I have yet to see any studies that say people can perceptualyl "feel" beyond their hearing capability.

I did invest in SACD when it came out, and I've always liked it for classical.  It's more that it has a low noise floor, is replicating studio masters, and with DSD recordings I could hear more soundstage.  I haven't formally tested my hearing, but listening to sound tones on my laptop, I've heard 17khz (and I'm in my early 40s).  Given my age, I doubt I'm in the outlier group of being able to *actually* hear above 20khz.  But even then, it's only during the best situations that you can hear highest FR.  And no matter what study, there has been no cohesive one that has offered definitive proof of perceptual ultra-high FR.


----------



## Maxx134

oldmate said:


> You conveniently left out as you lot always do that this was a controversial scientific study and that numerous other studies have contradicted the portion of the results relating to the subjective reaction to high-frequency audio, finding that people who have "good ears" listening to SACD and high resolution DVD Audio recordings on high fidelity systems capable of reproducing sounds up to 30 kHz cannot tell the difference between high resolution audio and the normal CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.


Ok, I will accept your opinion and also appreciate that you made me aware of what I didn't fully look into.
So if you can linked one at your leisure it would help because the problems that can happens if the tests you mentioned had zero high frequency content?


----------



## Maxx134

Davesrose said:


> Could you be up to date? The study you're trying to quote now is already discredited


I don't know this and the link had a few other studies as seen in pic.
If they all discredited then I have no more suggestions .
Remember I am just trying to help point out anything to explain why.

Its easy to dissmiss, but hard to find out possible reasons.


----------



## oldmate (Aug 2, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Its easy to dissmiss, but hard to find out possible reasons.



Look mate, this is the best advice I can give you as a non audiophile but a lover of music.

Crack open your favorite beer, spirit, wine or god forgive your favorite blend of hooch. Que up your favorite album. Kick back and enjoy. Forget about all this audiophile tom foolery.


----------



## Davesrose

Maxx134 said:


> I don't know this and the link had a few other studies as seen in pic.
> If they all discredited then I have no more suggestions .
> Remember I am just trying to help point out anything to explain why.
> 
> Its easy to dissmiss, but hard to find out possible reasons.



Honestly I would skip the idea about the hype of high resolution >20khz being a factor of our hearing (because medically, there's still no study that can say people can perceive ultra-high frequencies).  I am a fan of DSD and 92khz BD concerts: and while it could be that the formats offer >20khz, it's more that they don't fall into the trend of being compressed.  With my SACDs, I have old RCA master series (from the 50s and 60s) that are more straight studio master tapes direct to the SACD.  With my BDs, I like concerts as they're 92khz surround (lots of bass and dynamics).


----------



## Maxx134

Ok guys.
 Anyways, for listening comparisons of very minute differences, I find this video opinion helpful:



I agree with this guy on way he tests on hearing .


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but tests say different:
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10848570/
> 
> ...


or this could be your vague attempt to link together 2 controversial subjects for trolling purpose? what's your point and how would you defend it? 



Maxx134 said:


> Ok guys.
> Anyways, for listening comparisons of very minute differences, I find this video opinion helpful:
> 
> 
> ...



as I understand it, the method he explains as the right for him, doesn't demonstrate his ability to notice a difference at all. which is the one and only purpose of an abx test. he would know that A is always the same sound or device, so he never has to guess if what's playing is A or B. he's only thinking about differences and trying to find them. it's an impression test that's clearly better than a typical audiophile sighted test as he isn't biased by knowing the device he's listening to. I guess he gets a cookie for that effort, but it's missing the key component of an abx, which is the opportunity to disprove the null hypothesis.
basically his alternative to ABX is a test that doesn't solve the one question the ABX test was asking. that's a pretty big fail.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but tests say different



Those tests just show that super audible frequencies show up on brain scans. You could jab yourself with a sewing needle while you listen to Beethoven and the jabs would show up on a brain scan, but it wouldn't make Beethoven sound any better. Show me a test where people can easily discern a difference and can hear an audible improvement.


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> You could jab yourself with a sewing needle while you listen to Beethoven and the jabs would show up on a brain scan, but it wouldn't make Beethoven sound any bette


Haha yeah I think floating in a water tank in a dim lit room  would be more ideal.

It does open up the area of perception, not actuall hearing ability, but assimilation of what is being heard.
Sometimes we may percieve better than other times.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

castleofargh said:


> or this could be your vague attempt to link together 2 controversial subjects for trolling purpose? what's your point and how would you defend it?
> 
> 
> as I understand it, the method he explains as the right for him, doesn't demonstrate his ability to notice a difference at all. which is the one and only purpose of an abx test. he would know that A is always the same sound or device, so he never has to guess if what's playing is A or B. he's only thinking about differences and trying to find them. it's an impression test that's clearly better than a typical audiophile sighted test as he isn't biased by knowing the device he's listening to. I guess he gets a cookie for that effort, but it's missing the key component of an abx, which is the opportunity to disprove the null hypothesis.
> basically his alternative to ABX is a test that doesn't solve the one question the ABX test was asking. that's a pretty big fail.



The only one trolling is you. He’s been having an honest dialogue with several people in here. Maybe learn how to read?


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> It does open up the area of perception, not actuall hearing ability, but assimilation of what is being heard.



Perception and hearing aren't necessarily the same thing. In this case, although super audible frequencies can be perceived in brain scans, they can't be heard with human ears. The perception is something other than audible. I suppose we can perceive ultra violet light when it burns our skin, but we can't see it. It's something like that.


----------



## Maxx134

castleofargh said:


> or this could be your vague attempt to link together 2 controversial subjects for trolling purpose? what's your point and how would you defend it?


Ok, I didn't think they were controversial because they offer a possible explanation as to why in general we all claim to hear and prefer different equipment, whether it be wire or components..

You must agree that we all have our preferences or we would all be owning a simple O2 amp and be done.

So I post two topics that I felt will help, not because YOU found them controversial.
I don't feel any source of information would be controversial just because it goes against common train of thought.
I was late to the party to find out my links had alternative tests to also disprove/ negate them.



castleofargh said:


> basically his alternative to ABX is a test that doesn't solve the one question the ABX test was asking. that's a pretty big fail


It may not solve the original pupose you say it was thought out for ( in its origins), but it DOES solve HIS purposes..

I felt his viewpoint was a useful tool, as that is a person of a company, not just an engineer.
His knowledge holds weight.
It is not an extremist view, one way or the other.

Apologies if you felt I was trolling, so I will sit back as I know there are many here that have much knowledge to  give and I appreciate everyone's time even if they show me to be wrong, as learning is what it's all about.


----------



## SpeakerBox

The way that higher frequency response is perceived (at least by me) is in transient response.  When you have what is a essentially a step response (lead edge of a drum impact for example), Fourier analysis tells us that these types of wave forms can be represented by the summation of a series of sine waves (some of which might be outside the audible spectrum).   If the frequency response of audio components (even cable) is lacking then transient response may suffer.  Just a thought to ponder.  I used this as a basis for using CAT5E for speaker cable as it is designed to pass gigabit data rates.   The result was quite stunning in terms of the amount of extra detail I heard.   That said, I would never try and tell someone who heard no difference they were wrong.  Different strokes....


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

There is nothing in the transient peak of a drum hit that is even in the same universe of scale as the size of a 20kHz wave form. If a full range of frequencies from 20 to 20 can be reproduced without error, everything that is audible in recorded music will be there. Timing error in digital audio is usually in the picosecond range. That is infinitesimally small compared to even the fastest transient present in music. If you are getting poor transient response, you should look at your speakers or headphones, not your DAC or amp.

Whether or not we own an O2 amp or not depends entirely on preference. Sound quality doesn't have anything to do with it.. Some people prefer expensive equipment because it is a status symbol. Some people don't care about sound quality and just buy whatever is most convenient. There are a million reasons to buy one amp over another that have nothing to do with sound quality. Every human being is subject to bias. You are, and I am. That isn't an insult, and it isn't a failing on anyone's part. It's something you have to take into consideration. The way we avoid bias interfering with our comparisons is controlled testing.

The mistake you are both making is that you are assuming that there is an improvement and you're trying to think up a reason why that might be. That is totally backwards. You should be asking "Is there an audible difference?" first. Do a simple line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison between CD quality sound and higher data rates; THEN if you can discern a difference, you can start thinking about why that might be.

I've done this test myself. I took an SACD recording that was recorded in DSD directly to SACD with no editing and compared it to the exact same recording and mastering at 16/44.1. As hard as I struggled to hear a difference, I couldn't. None of my friends can hear a difference. None of us here in Sound Science who have done controlled tests like that can hear a difference. The bulk of scientific literature says no human can hear a difference.

So if you want to claim that ultrasonics improve sound quality, you are going to have to prove that you can hear a difference first.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> There is nothing in the transient peak of a drum hit that is even in the same universe of scale as the size of a 20kHz wave form. If a full range of frequencies from 20 to 20 can be reproduced without error, everything that is audible in recorded music will be there. Timing error in digital audio is usually in the picosecond range. That is infinitesimally small compared to even the fastest transient present in music.
> 
> The mistake you are both making is that you are assuming that there is an improvement and you're trying to think up a reason why that might be. That is totally backwards. You should be asking "Is there an audible difference?" first. Do a simple line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison between CD quality sound and higher data rates; THEN if you can discern a difference, you can start thinking about why that might be.
> 
> ...



Anything that produces an impulse like waveform will have multiple frequency components per Fourier - maybe drums are a bad example for higher frequencies - not sure (piano on an oscilloscope sure looks like an impulse and may have higher components).  All I'm saying is that some of those components may be out of the audible spectrum.  I don't know for a fact that it changes the perceived sound.  I did not assume there was an improvement with CAT5E.  My experiment was only to say that CAT5E should be able to pass high frequencies I wonder how it will sound?  Turned out I liked the sound - YMMV.    

I personally would not use any CD, SACD for any test as I think they all sound harsh.  Not a fan of digital at all and not sure I would discern much over the harshness. Bottom line: not trying to convince anyone of anything - just sharing experience. As I said before, food for thought.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

There is no transient in recorded music anywhere near what you are talking about. I think you just like the concept of the higher frequencies. We get a lot of that around here... folks who swear music sounds more "real" and "wider soundstage" and "lifted veils". When it comes down to it, it always ends up placebo effect. I don't think you can actually hear them. No human can.

What analog playback are you using to achieve super audible frequency reproduction?


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 3, 2019)

bigshot said:


> There is no transient in recorded music anywhere near what you are talking about.
> 
> What analog playback are you using to achieve super audible frequency reproduction?



Well, I have seen piano transients on my scope.  They produce a very fast rising spike.  I call that a transient.

I have a VPI table (which I love), a heavily modified Kenwood KT-7550 Tuner which is good on some stations, and a Sony DVP-NS999ES CD/SACD/DVD which basically sucks.

I have amps from Jeff Rowland and Proceed but prefer my Modded/Restored Pioneer SX-1250.  Sounds incredible.  Speakers are some I designed and LS3/5As.  Tweeter on LS3/5As go out to 40KHZ.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 3, 2019)

The transient on a piano isn't even in the same league as a 20kHz waveform. And digital audio can reproduce up to 20kHz perfectly. LPs don't have super audible frequencies. They roll them off to prevent premature record wear. And FM radio tops out around 15kHz, lower than that in a lot of cases. Your problem is most likely that your speakers or headphones are bright at the top end, so anything with much sound above 10kHz sounds harsh. Analog sounds better to you because it doesn't have any content up in that range. It sounds better to you because there is LESS high frequency content, not because it has more. That is the problem with assuming premises before testing to see what is actually going on.

Thankfully, the frequencies above 10kHz are the least important ones when it comes to perceived sound quality, and the higher you go, the more irrelevant they become. The core frequencies are much more important and LPs and FM radio can do that just fine. So you've found a workable solution to the harshness of the high frequencies in your transducers.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> The transient on a piano isn't even in the same league as a 20kHz waveform. And digital audio can reproduce up to 20kHz perfectly. LPs don't have super audible frequencies. They roll them off to prevent premature record wear. And FM radio tops out around 15kHz, lower than that in a lot of cases. Your problem is most likely that your speakers or headphones are bright at the top end, so anything with much sound above 10kHz sounds harsh. Analog sounds better to you because it doesn't have any content up in that range. It sounds better to you because there is LESS high frequency content, not because it has more. That is the problem with assuming premises before testing to see what is actually going on.
> 
> Thankfully, the frequencies above 10kHz are the least important ones when it comes to perceived sound quality, and the higher you go, the more irrelevant they become. The core frequencies are much more important and LPs and FM radio can do that just fine. So you've found a workable solution to the harshness of the high frequencies in your transducers.



Nope - no bright equipment (I just hate digital and have actually tuned my speakers to be on the warm side).  Seems that for both of us we would have to do a Fourier breakdown of a musical impulse to make our point as to what frequencies are contained in the pulse.  Never said I used the tuner for high frequency analysis, was just listing my equipment per request.  What I have done is use a square wave generator at various frequencies and then looking at the output to the speakers and the CAT5E seems to pass the square wave more accurately than zip cord.  A square wave can have a fast rising leading edge and that was my way to simulate a impulse.  Not try to convince you - just answering your queries.  Just wanted to relay my experiences.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 5, 2019)

I believe that Cat5e cable is only 24 to 26 gauge.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Cat5e_vs_Cat6

This is very thin for a speaker wire. Browsing around the web it appears that people have been able to A/B/X 24-26 gauge speaker wire versus 16 gauge. 16 gauge wire appears to have better conductivity and less resistance and therefore to result in audible changes as opposed to 24 gauge wire. The 24 gauge wire apparently caused measurable differences in frequency response, of differing types between different speakers and amps, that were within the audible range for some people, and some people could A/B/X the frequency response differences. So there! Perhaps speaker wires can make an audible difference! Once we get to 16 gauge and up, though, the A/B/X data between different varieties of speaker cable generally appears to be something like this:

http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_wire.htm

However, there have been some interesting different findings, although once you get up to 16 gauge and up the differences are said to be extremely subtle and the matter of preference between people based on the very small differences they could reportedly hear appears to be not correlated with the gauge or type  of wire or the cost:

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-speaker-cable/

The wirecutter article above appears not valid to me because I can’t see that they used A/B/X methodology or even a truly blind methodology and I am skeptical because professional reviewers on some types of testing have been found to have below average audio discernment.

The below-linked article is more difficult to discount out of hand, but again the matter or preference, and the very small differences, and the prospect of variability between different amps and speakers seem to be interesting and confounding factors. You’ll also find a paragraph stating that the square waves passing through the 24 gauge wire and other wires were identical, and that the 24 gauge wire seems to be of such reduced measurable performance as to result in predictably audible differences:

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-cables-can-you-hear-difference

If anyone has better data or additional data or notes that I have misinterpreted the articles have at it. I am just reading and learning on the fly.

With respect to audibility of ultrasonic frequencies, I did ask a person with stratospherically more expertise than me about this. He said the only possibility he knew of in terms of ultrasonic frequencies making a difference even in theory was where two ultrasonic frequencies reproduced would interfere with one another to result in intermodulation distortion within the audible band of frequencies. Three things to notice here though: intermodulation distortion tends not to be pleasing in the least and the level of intermodulation distortion would never be audible under real world listening circumstances, and further would be buried in the music.

Again, always willing to be corrected. Although I am not expressing any opinion but am rather recounting my interpretation of what I have read.

My layman’s opinion, based on what I can discern from various writings, for whatever it’s worth, and subject to my lack of expertise in any of these areas, is that the propositions of CAT5e making good speaker wire or ultrasonic frequencies being relevant to recorded music are incorrect.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Steve999 said:


> I believe that Cat5e cable is only 24 to 26 gauge.
> 
> https://www.diffen.com/difference/Cat5e_vs_Cat6
> 
> ...




I once opened up the speakers I now listen to and replaced the internal wiring(20AWG?) between drivers and crossover with the same 16AWG I was running from my receiver to them.  Definitely felt it in the bottoms and tops.  But: It was ordinary ZIP 16 gauge, not that lah-dee-dahh(wagging my wrist) multi-core super oxygen sealed "directional molecular bond" $19.95 per inch stuff the audiophile dealers sell and audiophiles swear by.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Steve999 said:


> I believe that Cat5e cable is only 24 to 26 gauge.
> 
> https://www.diffen.com/difference/Cat5e_vs_Cat6
> 
> ...



Good research and opinions by all here.  These discussions get everyone thinking - which in my view is the reason for all discussions on head-fi and the like.  Audio is interesting to me because it makes me think about the reasons I hear what I hear.


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> Ok, I didn't think they were controversial because they offer a possible explanation as to why in general we all claim to hear and prefer different equipment, whether it be wire or components..
> 
> You must agree that we all have our preferences or we would all be owning a simple O2 amp and be done.
> 
> ...


perception of ultrasounds is a battle almost almost entirely driven by audiophiles who want it to be true for all the wrong reasons. to be clear on this, "I know what I heard" from a sighted listening is not conclusive evidence! nobody vaguely involved with science or simply the desire to know facts about something, is going to accept that as proof of anything. if we did, the general conclusion on the question of flying saucers would be that aliens definitely land on the planet, do abduct many people. and based on testimonies, are really into sexual stuff and anal probing for some reason. "thousands of testimonies over decades can't be wrong"... sure they can. now it doesn't mean we know for a fact that nobody was ever abducted by aliens or that ultrasounds can't make a difference in our listening. but we have no reason to accept empty claims, so we don't. 

as for cables making a difference, the controversial aspect isn't so much that it's impossible, because just with electrical specs we understand what can and will happen. there is actually not much room for surprise or controversy when it comes to wires. the problem comes almost entirely from how too many audiophiles expect changes to happen the wrong way for wrong reasons. on the other side of the conversation we have people like @bigshot who will keep saying that cables makes no difference, while being perfectly aware that there can be many exceptions depending on various conditions. so that of course drives the other side crazy because they take his statements literally (and why shouldn't they). basically it's a matter of overconfidence, logical fallacy, jumping to conclusion, and miscommunication. a all lot of miscommunication. but it's not really a matter of cables. those do behave like they are expected to, based on their electrical specs.



about the video and its purpose, what can I say? it's irrelevant who he is or that he's really good at making pancakes. ABX exists to try and reject the null hypothesis, his alternative doesn't, so it is not an alternative.
he's also wrong about stress and losing our means to notice stuff. maybe he's like that, but even he probably isn't. the most common studies on stress(I mean studies not the BS conclusions in tabloids), usually find a middle ground to be the best option. no pressure and we just have no focus or motivation, too much pressure/stress and someone will break mentally. we will reach a peak result somewhere within that range of pressure levels where there is some but still not too much for us to achieve that specific task.
now how does that translate into handling an abx test? the first time you get on a bike, you're naturally afraid. how afraid will depend on the person, age, and other circumstances, but we all understand how new stuff can be an emotional challenge. now, if his argument against bikes is that they create too much pressure, my reaction will be that he's dishonest or that he clearly hasn't learned how to ride a bike. that's also my conclusion about how he describes ABX.
the emotional pressure of a test where you can press A and listen to some music or test signal, press B and get another sample, press X and get either A or B. it's not the end of the world. you can try A, B or X as many time as you like, and when you consider that you have identified X as being A or B you chose. if you don't know we won't shoot your dog.
if someone needs several thousands of trials to stop panicking under those utterly boring and danger-less conditions, I'm afraid that he might have trouble dealing with many things in life.for everybody else, just practice a few times and you're done, no more horrible pressure.


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 4, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> perception of ultrasounds is a battle almost almost entirely driven by audiophiles who want it to be true for all the wrong reasons. to be clear on this, "I know what I heard" from a sighted listening is not conclusive evidence! nobody vaguely involved with science or simply the desire to know facts about something, is going to accept that as proof of anything. if we did, the general conclusion on the question of flying saucers would be that aliens definitely land on the planet, do abduct many people. and based on testimonies, are really into sexual stuff and anal probing for some reason. "thousands of testimonies over decades can't be wrong"... sure they can. now it doesn't mean we know for a fact that nobody was ever abducted by aliens or that ultrasounds can't make a difference in our listening. but we have no reason to accept empty claims, so we don't.
> 
> as for cables making a difference, the controversial aspect isn't so much that it's impossible, because just with electrical specs we understand what can and will happen. there is actually not much room for surprise or controversy when it comes to wires. the problem comes almost entirely from how too many audiophiles expect changes to happen the wrong way for wrong reasons. on the other side of the conversation we have people like @bigshot who will keep saying that cables makes no difference, while being perfectly aware that there can be many exceptions depending on various conditions. so that of course drives the other side crazy because they take his statements literally (and why shouldn't they). basically it's a matter of overconfidence, logical fallacy, jumping to conclusion, and miscommunication. a all lot of miscommunication. but it's not really a matter of cables. those do behave like they are expected to, based on their electrical specs.
> 
> ...



I don't necessarily want anything to be true, just love to investigate.  Bottom line for me is to enjoy the music.

Gotta go, an alien ship just landed near my house and is abducting my neighbor.


----------



## castleofargh

SpeakerBox said:


> The way that higher frequency response is perceived (at least by me) is in transient response.  When you have what is a essentially a step response (lead edge of a drum impact for example), Fourier analysis tells us that these types of wave forms can be represented by the summation of a series of sine waves (some of which might be outside the audible spectrum).   If the frequency response of audio components (even cable) is lacking then transient response may suffer.  Just a thought to ponder.  I used this as a basis for using CAT5E for speaker cable as it is designed to pass gigabit data rates.   The result was quite stunning in terms of the amount of extra detail I heard.   That said, I would never try and tell someone who heard no difference they were wrong.  Different strokes....


as posted by @Steve999 there can clearly be some impacts with impedance/gauge on such a wire depending on the speakers and listening levels. I see 100ohm impedance for those no matter the length, so I'm guessing it's BS or maybe a value for 100m or 1km? IDK, I have crappy internet so I never bothered looking up quality Ethernet cables. but if we're talking passive speakers, you're probably messing with a lot, for the sake of some so very theoretical benefits. 
I see no issue with you doing what you like for whatever reason, but in this case we would _*really*_ need to check those variables and what impacts they can have on your gear, before deciding that the change in sound has anything to do with the possibly extra higher frequencies. 
your logic for transients and the need for a wider frequency range to reproduce them is correct. and we do get a clear consequence with digital cables where slower maximum speed can correlate with how soon they start turning into a low pass filter. I completely agree with the principle you present and I do love to think about any signal as a sum of sines. it explains so much.

but!  
let's forget the instruments, mics, mastering, file format, and even most of our playback gear up to the transducer(even if many DACs and amps will somewhat filter stuff at some point by choice of just because the design leads to it). now we have the transducers, and our ears left. the transducer may or may not go very high in frequency, but even if it does, we can expect the physical movement to take some time, the radical change of direction to also take some time, and the all thing to be not that linear and to generate a bunch of changes in phase and frequencies. that's visible on measurements and does change a transient a good deal, not sure that having slightly higher ultrasonic amplitudes(maybe) from the cable is going to make much of a difference here.
and the ear will naturally low pass very high frequencies, and all of which somehow reaches the cochlea if it's loud enough to get there and still mean anything, will barely be able to make it to the entrance and won't propagate much inside, causing at best the few air cells of that area to be triggered. if we happen to still have working cells in that area as it's were we typically lose hearing first(the highest frequency we can perceive).
so my bet, and also my personal experience in practice, is that we're never getting great transients and that it's fine because we don't know how to "capture" them correctly anyway. and obviously my last argument here really is that if it made a clear difference, we'd be able to pass blind tests between hires and CD pretty easily just by focusing on a few good impacts. in practice it's not that easy.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> Never said I used the tuner for high frequency analysis, was just listing my equipment per request.



OK, then I will ask the question again and try to be clearer....

You said that you have found that super audible frequencies are important to the sound quality of recorded music. What playback equipment are you using to reproduce music with frequencies above 20kHz?

If you are not saying that super audible frequencies are important to the sound quality of recorded music, that is fine and we are in agreement. Frequencies you can't hear don't make music sound better. Maybe it was the other guy talking about super high frequencies and I mixed you two up.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> OK, then I will ask the question again and try to be clearer....
> 
> You said that you have found that super audible frequencies are important to the sound quality of recorded music. What playback equipment are you using to reproduce music with frequencies above 20kHz?
> 
> If you are not saying that super audible frequencies are important to the sound quality of recorded music, that is fine and we are in agreement. Frequencies you can't hear don't make music sound better. Maybe it was the other guy talking about super high frequencies and I mixed you two up.



All I am saying is the following:

Denon 301ii to Leach phono stage to pioneer sx 1250 to ls3/5a when used with cat5e cable provided a noticible increase in detail to my ears.  The cartridge is rated up to 60khz and the ls3/5a tweeter at 40khz.  Was the difference due to higher frequencies contained in transients?  I don't know.  More study required.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

You're mistaken. The cartridge may be rated up to 60kHz, but that doesn't mean that your LP records contain signal that high. In fact, they don't have anything but noise above 17kHz. When LPs are cut, they apply a low pass filter to prevent record wear. High frequencies on LPs are produced by very delicate groove modulations, particularly at the center grooves. If you had an LP with a tone between 17kHz and 20kHz, it would turn into a mush of audible crackle after only a few plays. The needle would scrape all those high frequencies off quickly. Record masterers filters those off to ensure records last.

You're attributing the improvement to super audible frequencies when it's the exact opposite. You are listening to sources that don't go about 15 to 17kHz and you've chosen speakers with a high end roll off. That warmer sound is what rolled off high end sounds like. I like that too with some things, particularly classical music.

I'm not saying that your system doesn't sound good. I trust you that it does. I'm saying that high degree of sound quality isn't due to super audible frequencies, because your system doesn't produce super audible frequencies. If you EQed your playback, you could probably filter to make digital sound just as good.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

A kick drum hit is one MF(!) of a transient, yet even the highest frequencies produced by such is still well below 10kHz, let alone 20.

The definition of transient isSUDDEN.... and not very long lasting.  And not dependent on any given frequency or set of frequencies.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> You're mistaken. The cartridge may be rated up to 60kHz, but that doesn't mean that your LP records contain signal that high. In fact, they don't have anything but noise above 17kHz. You're attributing the improvement to super audible frequencies when it's the exact opposite. You are listening to sources that don't go about 15 to 17kHz and you've chosen speakers with a high end roll off. That warmer sound is what rolled off high end sounds like. I like that too with some things, particularly classical music.
> 
> I'm not saying that your system doesn't sound good. I trust you that it does. I'm saying that high degree of sound quality isn't due to super audible frequencies, because your system doesn't produce super audible frequencies.



You can't convince me of that unless you have a digital Fourier analyzer hooked up to somebody today's best vinyl recordings with the analyzer yielding no components above 20khz on fast moving transients.  By the same token I would have to do the same to convince you.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 4, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> You can't convince me of that unless you have a digital Fourier analyzer hooked up to somebody today's best vinyl recordings with the analyzer yielding no components above 20khz on fast moving transients.  By the same token I would have to do the same to convince you.



I'd be interested in getting clarification from your opinion.  Do you believe LPs can generate measurable 60khz signals?  Citations say that the best reel to reel studio masters might go from 10hz-20khz.  The RIAA curve's constants are 50hz, 500hz, and 2122hz (while that is slightly higher than 20khz, I assume it's still for mathematical reasons).  Most people say they prefer vinyl due to distortion (IE digital being bright, and vinyl having some rolled off highs).  Especially since an LP's source in the best of circumstances gets to 20khz, I can't see how 60khz wouldn't just be random.

When it comes to ultra-high frequencies enhancing music, I have never seen any scientific consensus that has suggested this.  I've taken neuro-anatomy and can appreciate the physiology of the brain.  The main consensus I've seen is that there can be activity in the thalamus, but it's inconclusive as to any perception a person might feel.  And honestly, if you're making the leap that ultra-high frequencies can add some kind of euphoria to music....what if it's the other end of the spectrum of causing you violent nausea.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

Square waves don't occur in music and they are considered illegal signals in digital audio. You don't have to be able to reproduce square waves to be able to reproduce drum hits. They are on opposite sides of the universe in the grand scheme of things.

Let's define the transient of a drum hit... I'm guessing that is probably no less than around 3 to 5 milliseconds. A 20kHz waveform is .02 milliseconds? I'm not a scientist or a mathematician... Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like a drum hit is two orders of magnitude slower than a 20kHz tone. If digital audio can reproduce 20kHz cleanly, it is going to be a piece of cake to reproduce a drum hit accurately. Is it even possible for a transient to be faster than the frequency it is produced at?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Davesrose said:


> c....what if it's the other end of the spectrum of causing
> you violent nausea.



Lemme have 30 seconds of  of 14HZ at 90db!  lolol


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> I'd be interested in getting clarification from your opinion.  Do you believe LPs can generate measurable 60khz signals?  Citations say that the best reel to reel studio masters might go from 10hz-20khz.  The RIAA curve's constants are 50hz, 500hz, and 2122hz (while that is slightly higher than 20khz, I assume it's still for mathematical reasons).  Most people say they prefer vinyl due to distortion (IE digital being bright, and vinyl having some rolled off highs).  Especially since an LP's source in the best of circumstances gets to 20khz, I can't see how 60khz wouldn't just be random.
> 
> When it comes ultra-high frequencies enhancing music, I have never seen any scientific consensus that has suggested this.  I've taken neuro-anatomy and can appreciate the physiology of the brain.  The main consensus I've seen is that there can be activity in the thalamus, but it's inconclusive as to any perception a person might feel.  And honestly, if you're making the leap that ultra-high frequencies can add some kind of euphoria to music....what if it's the other end of the spectrum of causing you violent nausea.



What I am saying is that I believe there *may* be higher frequencies contained as part of transients.  Fourier analysis tells us that a simple square wave contains an infinite number of frequencies when broken down into frequency components.  So my question is : are there wave-forms in music that when broken down may yield similar results.  Music is not a simple sine wave.  As I said - I am investigating this and using CAT5E was just a starting point.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Lemme have 30 seconds of  of 14HZ at 90db!  lolol



Attend a demonstration in Hong Kong and you'll be likely to experience just that! Or vacation in Havana on a US passport!



SpeakerBox said:


> What I am saying is that I believe there *may* be higher frequencies contained as part of transients.



Only in purely theoretical transients... I don't think there is anything  remotely like that in real world music. In Sound Science we call this "chasing down a rabbit hole". When you leave audibility behind and leave recorded music behind, you've entered a twilight zone of pure theory. It may be an interesting mental exercise, but it won't make Dark Side of the Moon sound any better in your living room. Ultimately, all that matters is what human ears can hear. Go ahead and double down over the threshold of audibility with a little headroom "just to be safe". But insisting that over two orders of magnitude makes a difference when there's a whole body of testing that says it is completely inaudible is pushing it. That sort of hoodoo plays in the rest of Head-Fi, but it doesn't fly in Sound Science. I bet it's an entertaining rant to use at cocktail parties full of drunken sound engineers though!


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> What I am saying is that I believe there *may* be higher frequencies contained as part of transients.  Fourier analysis tells us that a simple square wave contains an infinite number of frequencies when broken down into frequency components.  So my question is : are there wave-forms in music that when broken down may yield similar results.  Music is not a simple sine wave.  As I said - I am investigating this and using CAT5E was just a starting point.



Well previously, I mentioned I did like SACD and high res blu-ray concerts: but I think it's more that they are less likely to be compressed and are approximating studio masters.  If you look at the fundamental FR of instruments, they are clearly below 20khz, and you're getting into harmonics (of which, sure you can keep going logarithmically up mathematically, but from a reproduction standpoint, I think it still diminishes).  I'm no sound expert...but I've read the argument for high-res formats isn't so much realistic modeling of ultra-high frequencies, but no distortion within the audible spectrum.


----------



## bigshot

Given an apples to apples comparison between SACD and CD, within the audible range there is absolutely no difference between the two. They are waveform for waveform identical. The only advantages to SACD lie outside the range of human hearing.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> Well previously, I mentioned I did like SACD and high res blu-ray concerts: but I think it's more that they are less likely to be compressed and are approximating studio masters.  If you look at the fundamental FR of instruments, they are clearly below 20khz, and you're getting into harmonics (of which, sure you can keep going logarithmically up mathematically, but from a reproduction standpoint, I think it still diminishes).  I'm no sound expert...but I've read the argument for high-res formats isn't so much realistic modeling of ultra-high frequencies, but no distortion within the audible spectrum.



Interesting, and I think CD/SACD have to roll off due to the low pass filter used to recover the analog signal.  The only CD player I have heard that sounded half way decent to me was my old Rotel RCD-855 (God rest its soul).


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

The filter on CD players is applied above your ability to hear. Every CD player I have ever owned sounds identical. I do controlled listening tests with every piece of equipment I buy to make sure it is audibly transparent.

I think you've misdiagnosed your problem. I think you have a frequency response imbalance in the high end somewhere.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 4, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> Interesting, and I think CD/SACD have to roll off due to the low pass filter used to recover the analog signal.  The only CD player I have heard that sounded half way decent to me was my old Rotel RCD-855 (God rest its soul).



It seems to me that you're referencing a component's "musicality" than actual measured specs (and something that wouldn't gain acceptance in "Sound Science").  Back when SACD didn't allow digital output, I got a high end stereo player, that also up-samples CD to 192khz.  I've really liked it.  When I took it to a friend's house to audition (he himself being a vinyl head), he mentioned he was unimpressed.  Now that I have a receiver that handles DSD, I can also output digital DSD from a BD player.  To me, it sounds more clinical than my high end player, but the digital config gives me the surround layer.  I'm probably a purist when it comes to being an audiophile.  I do have a vinyl collection, but it's with classic rock: back when the original masters for vinyl were better than later issues for CD.  For new music, I get digital.  I guess what I'd say is that any component (analog or digital) is going to have some subtle differences due to design.  I have yet to see any articles that confirm there being sources that can generate pure 60khz tones.


----------



## bigshot

I compare apples to apples. I take a high data rate file and convert it to 16/44.1 and do a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. I do the same kind of comparisons with my players and amps. It all sounds the same. If I take something over to someone else's house, or try to compare something I heard a day ago to something I'm listening to right now, I imagine differences. Those differences disappear with controlled testing. Human perception is fallible and bias has more of an impact on our judgements than any of us realize.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> The filter on CD players is applied above your ability to hear. Every CD player I have ever owned sounds identical. I do controlled listening tests with every piece of equipment I buy to make sure it is audibly transparent.
> 
> I think you've misdiagnosed your problem. I think you have a frequency response imbalance in the high end somewhere.



I realize the filter is above the 20 to 20 range.  Just pointing out that if there were ultra high frequencies the filter might remove some of them.  With me the issue with CD is that I am probably more sensitive to harshness than most people.  Always been an issue ever since I can remember.  If anything my system leans towards warm due to the Pioneer and my Fisher 400.


----------



## bigshot

The harshness is probably coming from a frequency response imbalance in your room and speakers, not digital.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> It seems to me that you're referencing a component's "musicality" than actual measured specs (and something that wouldn't gain acceptance in "Sound Science").  Back when SACD didn't allow digital output, I got a high end stereo player, that also up-samples CD to 192khz.  I've really liked it.  When I took it to a friend's house to audition (he himself being a vinyl head), he mentioned he was unimpressed.  Now that I have a receiver that handles DSD, I can also output digital DSD from a BD player.  To me, it sounds more clinical than my high end player, but the digital config gives me the surround layer.  I'm probably a purist when it comes to being an audiophile.  I do have a vinyl collection, but it's with classic rock: back when the original masters for vinyl were better than later issues for CD.  For new music, I get digital.  I guess what I'd say is that any component (analog or digital) is going to have some subtle differences due to design.  I have yet to see any articles that confirm there being sources that can generate pure 60khz tones.



Well I did provide specs on the tweeter and cartridge.  On that note - if we assume that engineers at KEF and Denon are not stupid, why do you think they would produce components with responses above 40KHZ?


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> The harshness is probably coming from a frequency response imbalance in your room and speakers, not digital.



Don't hear it on my VPI table.  Smooth as silk.


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> Well I did provide specs on the tweeter and cartridge.  On that note - if we assume that engineers at KEF and Denon are not stupid, why do you think they would produce components with responses above 40KHZ?



I thought I was already inferring it: I don't think that it's a coherent response above 40khz, but that there's chance for no distortion at 20khz.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> I thought I was already inferring it: I don't think that it's a coherent response above 40khz, but that there's chance for no distortion at 20khz.



Then why make a component cable of above 40KHZ response?


----------



## Davesrose

I don't think such a rating is guaranteeing >40khz response so much as there's more shielding for optimal connection.  I think the main concern with interconnect cables is not getting noise with long cable runs (minimized by gauge size and shielding).


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> I don't think such a rating is guaranteeing >40khz response so much as there's more shielding for optimal connection.  I think the main concern with interconnect cables is not getting noise with long cable runs (minimized by gauge size and shielding).



I believe a while back someone tested the KEF T27 and proved it would work out to 40KHZ.  I still ask why they went to the trouble?


----------



## bigshot

SpeakerBox said:


> Well I did provide specs on the tweeter and cartridge.



What difference does that make if those frequencies aren’t in the music?


----------



## bigshot

SpeakerBox said:


> Don't hear it on my VPI table.  Smooth as silk.



I already answered that. Your records roll off at the top. CDs don’t. Your imbalance is probably in the frequencies that are on the CD, but not in your records.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> What difference does that make if those frequencies aren’t in the music?



I was answering a question related to providing specs.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> I already answered that. Your records roll off at the top. CDs don’t. Your imbalance is probably in the frequencies that are on the CD, but not in your records.



Well - with all due respect, I don't accept that answer.  My records sound every bit as bright and detailed on the top as my CD player sans the harshness.


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> I believe a while back someone tested the KEF T27 and proved it would work out to 40KHZ.  I still ask why they went to the trouble?



That's a speaker...how relevant is that to the specs of a record player?  I know tweeters in speakers do have FR ratings going into or past 40KHZ, but does that have a direct correlation to a turn table plugged in to the source?  No it doesn't.  The TT has its own specs, and even though the speaker's tweeter is rated at 40khz, that doesn't mean there's accurate sound reproduction going from 20hz-40khz.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SpeakerBox said:


> Then why make a component cable of above 40KHZ response?



Tah MAKE MONEY!  That's why!


Off of sucke- I mean, audiophiles who will fall for it.


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> Well - with all due respect, I don't accept that answer.  My records sound every bit as bright and detailed on the top as my CD player sans the harshness.



Yet you also previously mentioned a disdain for CD/SACD players in general.  All indications I'm seeing is that you like the "musicality" of your LP system (which if isn't as "bright" means they do have treble roll off).


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 4, 2019)

Its interesting as I just read an article about cutting audiophile vinyl that discusses how many of these recordings have content well above 20KHZ (they are cut faithfully to the original recording) and that a good cartridge should be able to reproduce them.  Still not making a statement on whether this can be heard - just that it is there on vinyl.


----------



## SpeakerBox

TheSonicTruth said:


> Tah MAKE MONEY!  That's why!
> 
> 
> Off of sucke- I mean, audiophiles who will fall for it.



Certainly a possibility.  There are no shortage of rip off artists.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> Yet you also previously mentioned a disdain for CD/SACD players in general.  All indications I'm seeing is that you like the "musicality" of your LP system (which if isn't as "bright" means they do have treble roll off).



Per my other post - not all records are rolled off.


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> Its interesting as I just read an article about cutting audiophile vinyl that discusses how many of these recordings have content well above 20KHZ (they are cut faithfully to the original recording) and that a good cartridge should be able to reproduce them.  Still not making a statement on whether this can be heard - just that it is there on vinyl.



Can you cite your source?  As from my understanding, most vinyl is from studio tapes: which the best quality ones approached 20khz.  There may be new pressings coming from digital productions...but from what I can see of the physical medium, vinyl is still not able to extend past 21khz.


----------



## SpeakerBox

These are just two of them (lots out there):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

It is also stated that the cartridge is the main limiter of high frequency response for vinyl assuming it is recorded there - which in many cases it is as the studio wants to be true to the original.


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> These are just two of them (lots out there):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording
> 
> ...



It's funny your source is myths about vinyl...

So these sources are saying LP is 20KHZ.  The best is your link on myths....which says "Commonly there is audio content up to 23-24 kHz on many vinyl records.".  Again, I previously mentioned source content was up to 20khz...during the age of analog, there was no consistent >20khz reproduction.


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 4, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> It's funny your source is myths about vinyl...
> 
> So these sources are saying LP is 20KHZ.  The best is your link on myths....which says "Commonly there is audio content up to 23-24 kHz on many vinyl records.".  Again, I previously mentioned source content was up to 20khz...during the age of analog, there was no consistent >20khz reproduction.



Myths or not, these links support my assertion that vinyl can go beyond 20khz.  One of links talks about the ability to successfully put 122khz (experimentally) on vinyl and the fact that quadraphonic had 50khz content which kind of blows the 20khz limit you had mentioned out of the water (not sure how they did it).  I also wonder what direct to disk recording limits are also (going to look into that).  Also I believe that newer audiophile recordings are not necessarily limited like the analog age recordings were.  In any case this is a fascinating discussion that I consider valuable, although probably not changing hard held opinions.  We have beat this horse pretty hard.

Edit: Here is another link that supports higher frequencies on vinyl and mentions that tape machines were flat to 20KHZ and rolled off at only 6 to 12 DB per octave.  So there could be significant info at 40KHZ.

http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> Myths or not, these links support my assertion that vinyl can go beyond 20khz.  One of links talks about the ability to successfully put 122khz (experimentally) on vinyl and the fact the quadraphonic had 50khz content which kind of blows the 20khz limit you had mentioned out of the water (not sure how they did it).  I also wonder what direct to disk recording limits are also (going to look into that).  Also I believe that newer audiophile recordings are not necessarily limited like the analog age recordings were.  In any case this is a fascinating discussion that I consider valuable, although probably not changing hard help opinions.  We have beat this horse pretty hard.



  I can't take ultra-high frequencies with vinyl seriously if there was a +-5-10 DB at 20khz.  I do think it's odd that you're keen about ulra-high frequencies, which are going to be more accurate with digital recording, and then state your disdain for digital recordings.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> I can't take ultra-high frequencies with vinyl seriously if there was a +-5-10 DB at 20khz.  I do think it's odd that you're keen about ulra-high frequencies, which are going to be more accurate with digital recording, and then state your disdain for digital recordings.



Not really more accurate - there is a hard roll off at 22KHZ on CDs.  The resulting phase shift is probably what I hear as harshness.


----------



## Davesrose

SpeakerBox said:


> Not really more accurate - there is a hard roll off at 22KHZ on CDs.  The resulting phase shift is probably what I hear as harshness.



I'm really skeptical that you could hear the difference at 20khz with whatever turntable or CD player you were listening to.  I do think it more likely you're into the "musicality" of turn tables. You say you don't like CDs or SACDs, even though the high resolution digital technologies introduced have the best quantization and accuracy from a model standpoint.


----------



## bigshot

SpeakerBox, I'd answer point by point, but I don't think you really want any interaction. You just want us to validate your incorrect assumptions. That isn't going to happen in Sound Science. I'm afraid you might be becoming too defensive in your arguments. That limits your ability to learn from the people around you. Sound Science is very fortunate to have a lot of very knowledgeable people, and they are generous in their willingness to share. But your own attitude is going to determine if you can take advantage of that. If you're going to go into Dunning Krueger mode, you should probably just go back to the rest of Head-Fi where people can have opinions without being challenged.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> SpeakerBox, I'd answer point by point, but I don't think you really want any interaction. You just want us to validate your incorrect assumptions. That isn't going to happen in Sound Science. I'm afraid you might be becoming too defensive in your arguments. That limits your ability to learn from the people around you. Sound Science is very fortunate to have a lot of very knowledgeable people, and they are generous in their willingness to share. But your own attitude is going to determine if you can take advantage of that. If you're going to go into Dunning Krueger mode, you should probably just go back to the rest of Head-Fi where people can have opinions without being challenged.



What do you think my assumptions are?


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

You have quite a few assumptions about the source of the problems in your system..."Digital harshness" assumes that the harshness is caused by digital audio but you don't know that for sure. You assume that what you hear isn't influenced by bias and perceptual error due to lack of level matching and auditory memory. You assume that music contains super audible frequencies and those are what makes it sound good. You assume the advertorial and manufacturer tear sheets are telling you the truth. Honestly, with all those assumptions, I don't know why you even bother to post here. You believe you know everything you need to know. You aren't going to learn anything from us.

The big problem with your approach is that you think you can arrive at answers without asking questions. That is fine if you want to play it that way. But you're just wasting everyone's time, particularly your own. I don't choose to waste my time like that. If you want to listen and are willing to ask questions of yourself, I'll participate with you. If not, I'll talk past you to the other people in the thread and consider your comments as textual excelsior. That's what I do with a few people around here who are disingenuous like this.



Davesrose said:


> Can you cite your source?  As from my understanding, most vinyl is from studio tapes: which the best quality ones approached 20khz.  There may be new pressings coming from digital productions...but from what I can see of the physical medium, vinyl is still not able to extend past 21khz.



ironically, a lot of his current LPs are mastered from digital sources. The fact that they don't have "digital harshness" by the time they are playing back on his turntable is proof that the upper frequencies are being rolled off.

I have about 10,000 records. I like records. But as much of a fan as I am, I don't claim that LPs have better sound fidelity than CDs. LPs are capable of sounding very good. But they can also be inconsistent and subject to all kinds of problems, from warping to surface noise to inner groove distortion. CDs are higher quality and more convenient.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> ironically, a lot of his current LPs are mastered from digital sources. The fact that they don't have "digital harshness" by the time they are playing back on his turntable is proof that the upper frequencies are being rolled off.
> 
> I have about 10,000 records. I like records. But as much of a fan as I am, I don't claim that LPs have better sound fidelity than CDs. LPs are capable of sounding very good. But they can also be inconsistent and subject to all kinds of problems, from warping to surface noise to inner groove distortion. CDs are higher quality and more convenient.



How do you know how my records were mastered.  Most of mine is vintage vinyl bought used in various local stores or given to me.  The one digital master I have (Lee Ritenour / Earth Run) sounds like crap.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

I've actually produced music that has been released on LP, CD and on television. I've worked with people who did LP mastering.

As a record collector, you might be interested in seeing this... it's one wall in my library. This is about half of my record collection.







If you like Lee Ritenour, you should hear Six String Theory. It's in multichannel and sounds fantastic. One of the best sounding albums I've ever heard. Overtime is fantastic too.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> ironically, a lot of his current LPs are mastered from digital sources. The fact that they don't have "digital harshness" by the time they are playing back on his turntable is proof that the upper frequencies are being rolled off.
> 
> I have about 10,000 records. I like records. But as much of a fan as I am, I don't claim that LPs have better sound fidelity than CDs. LPs are capable of sounding very good. But they can also be inconsistent and subject to all kinds of problems, from warping to surface noise to inner groove distortion. CDs are higher quality and more convenient.



Yeah, I have vinyl inherited from my granparents and mainly used records I've bought from record stores (also have a record cleaner to keep them in tip top shape).  I've mainly just viewed records as a source for good studio masters before the 1980s.  I've only bought one new record (a Jack White record)....mainly to see what one of the new hologram pressings looks like.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> I've actually produced music that has been released on LP, CD and on television. I've worked with people who did LP mastering.
> 
> As a record collector, you might be interested in seeing this... it's one wall in my library. This is about half of my record collection.



Does this wall mean you know how my records were mastered?


----------



## SpeakerBox

So here is how I think this went:

1.) I said I thought I heard an improvement in sound using CAT5E.
2.) I was asked what equipment was passing high frequencies (although I never claimed to be sure the improvement was ultrasonics - it was a question).
3.) I listed the equipment out and was told vinyl can't do that.
4.) I gave references that said it can (although I never claimed to be sure I can hear ultrasonics).
5.) Have mentioned I don't like CDs.
6.) Was told they have better frequency response than vinyl.
7.) I showed that was not necessarily true.
8.) I'm told I have preconceived assumptions (what are they?).

Anyway - I do enjoy talking with you guys.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

Davesrose said:


> I've mainly just viewed records as a source for good studio masters before the 1980s.



Some mastering is better, some worse. It all depends on the circumstances. The best part of LPs is that there is a lot of music that was never re-released on CD.

I have audiophile albums too... Sheffield Lab direct to discs, MFSL half speed mastered and their black box hand pulled pressings... I know how good an LP can sound. They can sound very very good. But I also know how good digital audio can sound. CDs are capable of sounding just as good as the master tape. That wasn't possible back in the era of LPs. It was always a compromise.


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> You have quite a few assumptions about the source of the problems in your system..."Digital harshness" assumes that the harshness is caused by digital audio but you don't know that for sure. You assume that what you hear isn't influenced by bias and perceptual error due to lack of level matching and auditory memory. You assume that music contains super audible frequencies and those are what makes it sound good. You assume the advertorial and manufacturer tear sheets are telling you the truth. Honestly, with all those assumptions, I don't know why you even bother to post here. You believe you know everything you need to know. You aren't going to learn anything from us.



Yes, I have assumed that that the harshness I hear is digital.  Maybe a mistake - will give that.  That said, I never said that I was in any way sure that higher frequencies made the improvement I heard,  as posted earlier it was a question that I am still pondering.  Yes, I tend to believe specs but agree they could be wrong - if you have better info I am listening.  Contrary to what you think I am thinking I really enjoy the back and forth of this discussion and am not defensive - just trying to answer questions the best I can.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2019)

The first thing to do would be to try to isolate the source of your problem. Do you have any friends with good home audio systems that play digital? You might listen to see if the problem is universal, or if it is limited to just your system. I seriously doubt that it is universal, because there are lots of hi fi nuts who love the sound of their CDs. I suggested that the harshness might be a high frequency response imbalance. You could check to see if that is the case by playing back a CD and adjusting the high end roll off with an equalizer. If you don't have one, you could try a primitive version of that by just turning down the treble control and seeing if the harshness goes away. it could also be capacitors going south. Is your amp old? It could also be your ears. I know that I am very sensitive to high level high frequency sound. An equalizer can fix that easily.

Harshness is not an inherent aspect of digital audio. It's an indication of some sort of imbalance or distortion in the way you are playing it back. Isolating where that imbalance is would be the first thing to try to track down. If you know where it's occurring you can correct it.


----------



## old tech

Maxx134 said:


> Ok, I will accept your opinion and also appreciate that you made me aware of what I didn't fully look into.
> So if you can linked one at your leisure it would help because the problems that can happens if the tests you mentioned had zero high frequency content?


http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf


----------



## old tech

SpeakerBox said:


> Well - with all due respect, I don't accept that answer.  My records sound every bit as bright and detailed on the top as my CD player sans the harshness.


Well then you most likely are unable to hear frequencies above 14khz, let alone have super human abilities to hear ultrasonic noise. What is your age btw?

The CD will be at the very least, within 0.5db at 20khz, a vinyl record would dip below 0.5 from around 15 khz.

Another issue you may be having and worth exploring, is whether the CDs you have are the best masterings of that particular album, particularly if it is a later 'remastered' CD.  I know when I compare my well mastered CDs to their vinyl version (and my turntable/cart is a cut above any VPI product), it is the CD that is more detailed, smooth and clean high frequencies.  Oh and the bass response too, but that is another subject.


----------



## SpeakerBox

old tech said:


> Well then you most likely are unable to hear frequencies above 14khz, let alone have super human abilities to hear ultrasonic noise.



Can you show me where I said I I could hear ultrasonics?   I did state that I thought it might be present based on Fourier series, but that was it.


----------



## Maxx134

Has anyone in this thread covered the aspect that although human hearing is supposedly 20-20khz, it was also found that the frequency of the phase shift difference between ears can be detected way beyond the 20khz ..

I am probably not explaining this correctly so any comments welcome but this shows how the brain can use the ear information so differently that the frequency response is actually part of whole picture...

I know I keep looking for another answer to whats already covered .


----------



## Davesrose

Maxx134 said:


> Has anyone in this thread covered the aspect that although human hearing is supposedly 20-20khz, it was also found that the frequency of the phase shift difference between ears can be detected way beyond the 20khz ..



No, the argument is that human hearing goes to 20khz, and that audio equipment *might* need to go above it for phase shift.


----------



## old tech

Maxx134 said:


> Has anyone in this thread covered the aspect that although human hearing is supposedly 20-20khz, it was also found that the frequency of the phase shift difference between ears can be detected way beyond the 20khz ..
> 
> I am probably not explaining this correctly so any comments welcome but this shows how the brain can use the ear information so differently that the frequency response is actually part of whole picture...
> 
> I know I keep looking for another answer to whats already covered .


Where was it found?  The studies that have been posted so far do not support that assertion.

Also, consider that the 20hz to 20khz range often stated really only applies to health young children or adolescents and only to test signals.  In the real world our hearing is less acute outside the midrange so even if one can hear up to (and beyond) 20khz, any content up there would be completely masked by the music magic in the midranges.  

If there are phase shifts above 20khz, it would not be perceptible. Even if phase shifts occur within the 20-20k range it is unlikely to be perceptible unless it is of a very great magnitude.  The proof is in vinyl playback, it has plenty of phase shifts due to inaccuracies of the stylus tracking the groove (or the groove itself) and RIAA equalisation. Yet, very few notice it even though by order of magnitude and in the area where our ears are sensitive it is substantially greater than any phase shift caused by digital filters in the >20khz range.


----------



## old tech

SpeakerBox said:


> Can you show me where I said I I could hear ultrasonics?   I did state that I thought it might be present based on Fourier series, but that was it.


But the point is that even if it was present, its effect would be immaterial at best.


----------



## pstickne (Aug 4, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> Well I did provide specs on the tweeter and cartridge.  On that note - if we assume that engineers at KEF and Denon are not stupid, why do you think they would produce components with responses above 40KHZ?


Even really crummy speakers can boast huge frequency ranges..

I don’t believe if there is much work / designing to make a modern diaphragm headphone speaker support such an “extended” range. It seems more or less the natural limits of standard technology and design.

Then it’s a label on a box.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 5, 2019)

Inaudible is inaudible. 20kHz is the limit for almost all people. There are very young people with remarkable ears that might be able to hear to 24kHz or so, but that is just a tiny sliver of additional frequencies and the amount of sound like that in recorded music (even SACDs) is minuscule. In fact those frequencies are probably inaudible in recorded music anyway because of the low level of upper harmonics and the effects of auditory masking. There are crackpot audiophile gurus who will tell you that ears can hear stuff scientists say they can't, but that is just sales pitch to try and sell you their high end DAC. People who talk about jitter and phase shift and ultrasonics are the ones who are most likely to want to sell you something.

There was a study at the AES where they played a sample of music at 16/44.1 for people and had them compare it to 24/96. They asked if they had a preference for which one sounded better. Most people said they couldn't tell a difference. The ones that expressed a preference fell into a random curve. Then they asked them to compare to a file that had all the high frequency information above 10kHz rolled off. Most people said they could detect a difference between the two samples, but didn't think that one sounded any better than the other.

Frequencies from 10kHz to 20kHz are the least important part of the nine octaves that make up human hearing. And frequencies above 20kHz are not only unimportant, they are inaudible.


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> Has anyone in this thread covered the aspect that although human hearing is supposedly 20-20khz, it was also found that the frequency of the phase shift difference between ears can be detected way beyond the 20khz ..
> 
> I am probably not explaining this correctly so any comments welcome but this shows how the brain can use the ear information so differently that the frequency response is actually part of whole picture...
> 
> I know I keep looking for another answer to whats already covered .


sure interaural delays can be picked that are smaller than a 20kHz period. but here is the situation:
- almost all music comes from pieces of mono recordings that get panned by a guy with a slider or a knob, so we're not talking picosecond accuracy here, but artificial by hand(and ear) stuff. so the need to have the ultimate accuracy in the file for this is debatable IMO. 
- just because a record is sampled at 44.1kHz does not mean the delay between each sample is the smaller inter channel delay we can record(despite the purposefully misleading stuff brought up by MQA people, Chord, and many others). CD can handle way more accurate phase shifts without a sweat be it in one channel or between both. so even if we were to find a use(maybe super customized and accurate binaural stuff???? who knows), we're still fine on that specific matter. 


@SpeakerBox as I suggested before, you might want to try and get some information about the impedance of your ethernet/speaker cable. and the impedance graph for your speakers too, so we can try to estimate the amount of frequency response change born from that instead of using near zero ohm speaker cables. it's only one aspect of all which could go wrongdifferently, but it's probably not a negligible one. depending on the situation, that could lead to maybe 10dB variation at some points in the frequency response(or maybe a lot less, it's a case by case problem).


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 5, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> sure interaural delays can be picked that are smaller than a 20kHz period. but here is the situation:
> - almost all music comes from pieces of mono recordings that get panned by a guy with a slider or a knob, so we're not talking picosecond accuracy here, but artificial by hand(and ear) stuff. so the need to have the ultimate accuracy in the file for this is debatable IMO


I agree, I think this aspect probably has most to do with localization and so also soundstage and aural dimensions.
I know in the recording studio much is added with processors adding reverb so even though in some recordings there are separate microphones all added later we cans still hear the result mix as an artificially made presentation.
That's why I like live venue recordings as they contain actual recorded acoustics.

Although this topic of wire would not apply, I do notice that the aspect of holography varies on different components, and I have noted the better gear (regardless of price) always has more notable dimension or holography..
I am also aware that this aspect also may also be artificially added, so experience & familiarity with the musical track played is a factor.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 5, 2019)

old tech said:


> If there are phase shifts above 20khz, it would not be perceptible


Yeah I explained it wrong..
Not phase shift, but the localization ability which is the sound arrival difference between the two ears, as the brain can pick out the slight time delay in smallest amounts so the timing ability is higher than 20hz.
Sorry cannot explain better.


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 5, 2019)

old tech said:


> Well then you most likely are unable to hear frequencies above 14khz, let alone have super human abilities to hear ultrasonic noise. What is your age btw?
> 
> The CD will be at the very least, within 0.5db at 20khz, a vinyl record would dip below 0.5 from around 15 khz.
> 
> Another issue you may be having and worth exploring, is whether the CDs you have are the best masterings of that particular album, particularly if it is a later 'remastered' CD.  I know when I compare my well mastered CDs to their vinyl version (and my turntable/cart is a cut above any VPI product), it is the CD that is more detailed, smooth and clean high frequencies.  Oh and the bass response too, but that is another subject.



So your point here has really got me thinking.  Since I am 63 years old I would probably be lucky to hear 15KHZ.  If that is true, that puts CDs and vinyl on equal footing from the point of view of my ears, this even if my assertion that some vinyl recordings do contain higher frequencies is wrong.  This adds to the mystery, in my mind at least, as to why I don't like the sound of CDs (because other than phono stage/dac they both share the same signal path).  Interesting stuff!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SpeakerBox said:


> So your point here has really got me thinking.  Since I am 63 years old I would probably be lucky to hear 15KHZ.  If that is true, that puts CDs and vinyl on equal footing from the point of view of my ears, this even if my assertion that some vinyl recordings do contain higher frequencies is wrong.  This adds to the mystery, in my mind at least, as to why I don't like the sound of CDs (because other than phono stage/dac they both share the same signal path).  Interesting stuff!



Mastering to CD vs mastering to LP also makes a huuuuuge difference. Ever consider that?


----------



## gregorio (Aug 5, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> [1] if we assume that engineers at KEF and Denon are not stupid, why do you think they would produce components with responses above 40KHZ?
> [2] Well - with all due respect, I don't accept that answer. My records sound every bit as bright and detailed on the top as my CD player sans the harshness.
> [3] Not really more accurate - there is a hard roll off at 22KHZ on CDs.
> [3a] The resulting phase shift is probably what I hear as harshness.



1. They aren't stupid, they also aren't in charge. They produce components with responses above 40kHz because there is a market demand they can make money from!
2. I can't account for what they sound like to you but vinyl is not "every bit as detailed on top as CD".
3. Yes, much more accurate. In the high freqs vinyl is very inaccurate, while CD is extremely accurate all the way up to the reconstruction filter (20kHz - 22kHz).
3a. What phase shift? Typically linear phase filters are employed in CD players and as the name suggests, there is no phase shift.


SpeakerBox said:


> 1.) I said I thought I heard an improvement in sound using CAT5E.
> 2.) I was asked what equipment was passing high frequencies (although I never claimed to be sure the improvement was ultrasonics - it was a question).
> 3.) I listed the equipment out and was told vinyl can't do that.
> 4.) I gave references that said it can (although I never claimed to be sure I can hear ultrasonics).
> ...


1. Should make no difference at all, data rates won't make any difference, neither will the audio freq content beyond 20kHz.
3. What you were told was essentially correct.
4. Sure, under certain lab conditions very high freqs can be cut and reproduced with vinyl but not with commercial LP cutters and yes, many commercial LPs do have content up to around 24kHz but it's largely noise/distortion.
5. Your choice of course but just because you don't like CD doesn't mean that it's not technically superior.
6. Which is also correct.
7. No you didn't! You showed that vinyl can under lab conditions contain extremely high freqs (well beyond CD) but you didn't show that it's in anyway accurate. Within (and even somewhat beyond) the audible range, CD has far better frequency response.
8. The vast majority of commercial LPs employ a multi-band compressor/limiter pre-cutting which can reduce the treble and in the high treble LPs are inaccurate anyway. What you seem to be assuming is the opposite, that commercial LPs have better treble freq response. You're also assuming phase is a problem and that energy in transients above 20kHz (even if it could be accurately cut and reproduced on vinyl) is in some way audible, both of which are incorrect. You also seem unaware of the fact that almost all LPs from the late 1970's onwards have already gone through at least one digitisation process. In other words, if you are hearing a difference and prefer LP to CD, then you prefer it because it's less accurate, LPs can sound less harsh because they're reproducing high freqs more inaccurately and at a lower level relative to the high bass region.

G


----------



## SpeakerBox (Aug 5, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. They aren't stupid, they also aren't in charge. They produce components with responses above 40kHz because there is a market demand they can make money from!
> 2. I can't account for what they sound like to you but vinyl is not "every bit as detailed on top as CD".
> 3. Yes, much more accurate. In the high freqs vinyl is very inaccurate, while CD is extremely accurate all the way up to the reconstruction filter (20kHz - 22kHz).
> 3a. What phase shift? Typically linear phase filters are employed in CD players and as the name suggests, there is no phase shift.
> ...



Some good points here.  Here is the link where I found the most salient points about high frequencies in commercially available vinyl, in this case Super Tramp.   Never meant to assert they are all that way.  http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> I know in the recording studio much is added with processors adding reverb so even though in some recordings there are separate microphones all added later we cans still hear the result mix as an artificially made presentation. That's why I like live venue recordings as they contain actual recorded acoustics.



Are you talking about live binaural recordings? Because any mix of multitracked live recordings would introduce all kinds of changes to the acoustic people would be hearing from the audience. Live recordings are generally just performed live. The sound is multi-miked and mixed and manipulated just like studio recordings are.


----------



## Maxx134

gregorio said:


> 1. Should make no difference at all, data rates won't make any difference, neither will the audio freq content beyond 20kHz


There is a big problem here overlooked, between what the design "should" do (perfection in theory), and what the equipment , in real world usage actually does...with the problems and quality of the equipment used.

1-The dac using whatever input chips (xmos?) Used.
2- Its conversion of either USB or spdif or other. 
3- the timing, jitter and the noise interference (a market already exists for).
4- the computer noise and the software used, and  infinitum of issues that can arise from that.

So for design purposes and solving issues is great to state parameters, but actual real world issues will always arise.
Mostly irrelevant stuff too like improper board design and oscillations.
Maybe even poor dac design or skimping on circuits (for profit margins to save).

Real time is a liquid transitional state, not static design state of steady sinewaves..

But I do agree that the solutions should always be attainable or explainable in theory and testing and measuring to make gear work as intended.


----------



## Maxx134

Does everyone here agree that we have all the scientific  tools necessary to explain "sound science"?

OR,
Can anyone accept that there are still perceptions that have not been fully looked into..
For example, like this "old" video of a girl "seeing" without her eyes:





I only bring this up because I feel we need to keep an open mind on possibility of explanations not yet covered.


----------



## Maxx134

Better example using the ears to see:


----------



## sander99 (Aug 5, 2019)

@Maxx134: That is going a bit far off topic, maybe you should go take a look at some of the following web pages for example:
http://skepdic.com/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/...ualism_and_alternative_ways_of_knowing_in_21/
https://skepticalinquirer.org/


----------



## gregorio (Aug 5, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> Here is the link where I found the most salient points about high frequencies in commercially available vinyl, in this case Super Tramp. Never meant to assert they are all that way. http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html



Yes but that link doesn't actually tell you what that ultrasonic content actually is! How do you know it's not time correlated distortion? It's a typical audiophile article, half speed mastering, Japanese pressing and then a bit about studio tape machines (which is not entirely true incidentally) but they missed out the most important bit, what did they record that "bell percussion" with? Most mics used for perc roll-off around 12kHz and produce extremely little above 20kHz, even if they used a condenser mic (which are more sensitive to high freqs) they still roll-off around 16kHz-20kHz. Add mic roll-off to the roll-off of analogue tape, plus the increasing noise/distortion (that's an unavoidable fact of physics) the higher the frequency, plus the generational losses of tape (more unavoidable noise/distortion) and what actual signal do we have left, even if we could hear it, which we can't! We've only started to get studio mics that exceed the 20kHz roll-off in the last decade or so, in response to a (marketing driven) consumer demand for digital audio formats which contain even more ultrasonics.



Maxx134 said:


> There is *a big problem here* overlooked, between what the design "should" do (perfection in theory), and
> [2] what the equipment , in real world usage actually does...with the problems and quality of the equipment used.
> 1-The dac using whatever input chips (xmos?) Used.
> 2- Its conversion of either USB or spdif or other.
> ...



1. Define "big". If there is a "problem" that is say 100 times below the threshold of audibility, then I wouldn't call it "big", I'd call it "tiny" and only of any interest at a purely technical level, at a practical level it's not a "problem", let alone a "big problem".

2. All those "problems" can be reduced to many times below audibility even with very cheap DACs.

3. Yes they will but if even a $60 DAC can reduce ALL those real world issues to many times below audibility then any DAC of the same price or higher where those real world issues are audible is faulty and/or incompetently designed!



Maxx134 said:


> [1] Does everyone here agree that we have all the scientific tools necessary to explain "sound science"?
> OR,
> [2] Can anyone accept that there are still perceptions that have not been fully looked into..
> [3] For example, like this "old" video of a girl "seeing" without her eyes ... I only bring this up because I feel we need to keep an open mind on possibility of explanations not yet covered.



1. Yes.
2. Not so much. I can't think of any perceptions that have not been "looked into", although we (science) can't fully explain them all.
3. You seem to be missing a fundamental fact: We can't (and don't) record perceptions, only sound pressure waves converted into analogue waveforms (and then encoded into digital data). The fundamental fact is: If we can't measure it then we can't record it and of course you can't reproduce it! I do "_keep an open mind on possibility of explanations not yet covered_" but not for the recording or reproduction of an audio signal because those explanations have been fully covered. In fact, few if any areas of science have been so fully covered!

G


----------



## castleofargh

sander99 said:


> @Maxx134: That is going a bit far off topic, maybe you should go take a look at some of the following web pages for example:
> http://skepdic.com/
> https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/...ualism_and_alternative_ways_of_knowing_in_21/
> https://skepticalinquirer.org/


yup, I have to agree with that remark.
this is a topic about cable with a super specific and super loaded question. for other stuff, it would be cool to try and go ask/discuss in more dedicated topics. let's think about the poor guys who will come to read this topic just to ends up with videos of real life Daredevils, talks of inter-aural delays, and phono cartridges.


----------



## SpeakerBox

gregorio said:


> Yes but that link doesn't actually tell you what that ultrasonic content actually is! How do you know it's not time correlated distortion? It's a typical audiophile article, half speed mastering, Japanese pressing and then a bit about studio tape machines (which is not entirely true incidentally) but they missed out the most important bit, what did they record that "bell percussion" with? Most mics used for perc roll-off around 12kHz and produce extremely little above 20kHz, even if they used a condenser mic (which are more sensitive to high freqs) they still roll-off around 16kHz-20kHz. Add mic roll-off to the roll-off of analogue tape, plus the increasing noise/distortion (that's an unavoidable fact of physics) the higher the frequency, plus the generational losses of tape (more unavoidable noise/distortion) and what actual signal do we have left, even if we could hear it, which we can't! We've only started to get studio mics that exceed the 20kHz roll-off in the last decade or so, in response to a (marketing driven) consumer demand for digital audio formats which contain even more ultrasonics.



1.) How do you know it is distortion?  I concede that I don't know for sure it is audio.  One of us could be wrong.
2.) Even if the mic rolls off there can still be significant information recorded during the roll off period (depending on DB/octave).  Some tape machines roll off at only 6DB/Octave after 20KHZ.  Not sure you have made your case for not being able to record high frequencies in analog although I will agree it could be a challenge for people probably smarter than me.
3') I agree completely with your point on hearing - but I was just searching for answers on if high frequency audio could be present on vinyl.

At least I have tried to provided a source and am not just speculating.  I am also a EE and have been around the audio block a few times (including acting as a sound man) - so not totally green behind the ears.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 5, 2019)

sander99 said:


> @Maxx134: That is going a bit far off topic, maybe you should go take a look at some of the following web pages for example:
> http://skepdic.com/
> https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/...ualism_and_alternative_ways_of_knowing_in_21/
> https://skepticalinquirer.org/


That article is psuedo modernism cloaked in a mask under the guise of _*their*_ definition of "science" which is more a belief system based on specific chosen theories .

True science does not conflict with history, whether biblical or ancient.

So as with any belief system, it is a choice.
If you don't dig past that article and do your own research, you will be swayed to the intentions of the author.

We are very good in this thread at dissmissing each other but my point is over.


----------



## gregorio

SpeakerBox said:


> 1.) How do you know it is distortion? I concede that I don't know for sure it is audio. One of us could be wrong.
> 2.) Even if the mic rolls off there can still be significant information recorded during the roll off period (depending on DB/octave). Some tape machines roll off at only 6DB/Octave after 20KHZ. Not sure you have made your case for not being able to record high frequencies in analog although I will agree it could be a challenge for people probably smarter than me.
> 3') I agree completely with your point on hearing - but I was just searching for answers on if high frequency audio could be present on vinyl.



2. Define "significant". I've not come across a tape machine that only rolls off 6dB/Oct beyond 20kHz, they usually roll-off a bit earlier and more than 6dB, same with mics. Even if you had 6dB roll-off on the tape and 6dB roll-off on the mic, that's at least a 12dB roll-off and probably closer to 24dB/Oct, that's a pretty serious filter and let's not forget that we're also talking about high order harmonics here, which are lower in amplitude than the lower order harmonics to start with. Therefore,
1. I don't know with absolute certainty. Given all these conditions it probably is audio: A certain instrument type (metallic perc), hit with a hard stick/mallet/beater, a closely placed condenser with unusually low ultrasonic loss, a mic pre-amp that introduces little distortion (rarely employed in non-classical music), perfectly aligned top class studio tape machine with unusually low ultrasonic loss, little/no mixing (generational loss), perfectly preserved master tape, half-speed master cutting (without digital conversion), short run speciality pressing, near pristine LP condition and all the cartridges and other reproduction chain which is not only all capable of ultrasonic reproduction but adds little/no distortion. How often do you think all these conditions exist simultaneously?

3. None of the above makes any practical difference if you can't hear above 20kHz anyway. For someone in their 60's, 12kHz - 13kHz would be very good, so the audible differences (for this someone) must be below 12-13kHz and there are easily measurable (and audible) differences, the aforementioned compression of the treble and a relative boost of the high bass freqs, both of which are "inaccuracies" (but are commonly perceived as "warmer").

G


----------



## gregorio

Maxx134 said:


> [1] So as with any belief system, it is a choice.
> [2] We are very good in this thread at dissmissing each other but my point is over.



1. Agreed. So do you choose to believe probably the most studied, well understood, demonstrated and implemented science known to humankind (of electrical signal transmission, data storage and reconstruction/reproduction) or do you choose believe a bunch of audiophile myths/marketing which contradicts this science?

2. Does that mean you've chosen the latter?

G


----------



## SpeakerBox

gregorio said:


> 2. Define "significant". I've not come across a tape machine that only rolls off 6dB/Oct beyond 20kHz, they usually roll-off a bit earlier and more than 6dB, same with mics. Even if you had 6dB roll-off on the tape and 6dB roll-off on the mic, that's at least a 12dB roll-off and probably closer to 24dB/Oct, that's a pretty serious filter and let's not forget that we're also talking about high order harmonics here, which are lower in amplitude than the lower order harmonics to start with. Therefore,
> 1. I don't know with absolute certainty. Given all these conditions it probably is audio: A certain instrument type (metallic perc), hit with a hard stick/mallet/beater, a closely placed condenser with unusually low ultrasonic loss, a mic pre-amp that introduces little distortion (rarely employed in non-classical music), perfectly aligned top class studio tape machine with unusually low ultrasonic loss, little/no mixing (generational loss), perfectly preserved master tape, half-speed master cutting (without digital conversion), short run speciality pressing, near pristine LP condition and all the cartridges and other reproduction chain which is not only all capable of ultrasonic reproduction but adds little/no distortion. How often do you think all these conditions exist simultaneously?
> 
> 3. None of the above makes any practical difference if you can't hear above 20kHz anyway. For someone in their 60's, 12kHz - 13kHz would be very good, so the audible differences (for this someone) must be below 12-13kHz and there are easily measurable (and audible) differences, the aforementioned compression of the treble and a relative boost of the high bass freqs, both of which are "inaccuracies" (but are commonly perceived as "warmer").
> ...



Everything you said here makes sense to me.  We are in agreement.


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> Does everyone here agree that we have all the scientific  tools necessary to explain "sound science"?



We certainly understand the principles behind sound recording and playback. When it gets into the multiple variables of acoustics, it gets more complicated, but it's still possible to sort it all out and understand it. Have you made an effort to research the subject? I've spent quite a few weekends doing that.

By the way, I like magic tricks and I really want to believe them. It's more fun that way.


----------



## old tech (Aug 6, 2019)

SpeakerBox said:


> So your point here has really got me thinking.  Since I am 63 years old I would probably be lucky to hear 15KHZ.  If that is true, that puts CDs and vinyl on equal footing from the point of view of my ears, this even if my assertion that some vinyl recordings do contain higher frequencies is wrong.  This adds to the mystery, in my mind at least, as to why I don't like the sound of CDs (because other than phono stage/dac they both share the same signal path).  Interesting stuff!


Could be a number of reasons.  One of them is that most LPs are mastered differently to CDs so even though it is the same signal path, the signal is different.  I don't know how many CDs you have but if you have many and you prefer the sound of LPs over any CD (or vice versa) it could be something else is at play.

As generalised speculations, it could be that your ears are overly sensitive to the high frequencies around 3-10khz.  This can be age related where once higher frequencies were pleasant but later in life they become irritating so a more attenuated response is preferred (one way to test this is to do a proper needle drop of one your records and burn it to a CD - it should sound as pleasant to you as the LP).  If it doesn't, another factor is psychological, that is you have convinced yourself that CDs don't sound good so it sets up an expectation bias which is influencing your perception of the sound - we all are susceptible to expectation biases to various degrees. Another, as others have pointed out, it could be your gear or that your CD is a poorly mastered example.

If it turns out that you simply prefer a more attenuated high end response, there may be a non-transparent DAC that may suit you, or you could try and dabble with an equaliser in your playback chain.  But first, try out a few CDs which are highly regarded for sound quality and see how you go.  One I can recommend is the 1983 Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon Black Triangle CD (you can get these second hand on Ebay for around $50 - $100, but make sure it is a "non TO" CD, ie it does not have TO in the matrix to ensure it is the one with the Sony mastering rather than the 1984-87 EMI mastering).

There are of course many other CDs which are highly regarded (too many to mention) but the reason I recommend this particular CD is that it was a flat transfer from the same production master as the 1977 Japan Pro Use LP.  I have both and they sound remarkably similar, in fact most people would not tell the difference in a proper double-blind test except for the very small vinyl give aways. So if you get this CD and it sounds harsh you can effectively rule out that it is due to it being a CD or mastering differences, given it sounds the same as that pro use LP, and look elsewhere for the answer.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 5, 2019)

bigshot said:


> We certainly understand the principles behind sound recording and playback. When it gets into the multiple variables of acoustics, it gets more complicated, but it's still possible to sort it all out and understand it. Have you made an effort to research the subject?


Not that specific topic recently.
 I do have a degree in recording engineering & electronics though I am not in that field.
I only focused on electronics  with headphone modifications as a hobby.

So TBH the answer is indirectly and no unfortunately I don't have the luxury to delve into this, which is why I actually value tapping into your brain.



old tech said:


> http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf


That's quite an article, thanks for posting.
Yet that one guy that had 8 out of 10 actually proves it can be done(!)
Ha.
That test points out possible digital degradation, which admittedly most didn't notice,  but doesn't compare actual analog to digital source recordings...




SpeakerBox said:


> So your point here has really got me thinking.  Since I am 63 years old I would probably be lucky to hear 15KHZ.  If that is true, that puts CDs and vinyl on equal footing from the point of view of my ears, this even if my assertion that some vinyl recordings do contain higher frequencies is wrong.  This adds to the mystery, in my mind at least, as to why I don't like the sound of CDs (because other than phono stage/dac they both share the same signal path).  Interesting stuff!


I think the frequency response may not the factor at play here at all.
One reason being that member BigShot mentioned that most music is not in that range.
Most instruments and, if I recall correctly, ear sensitivity would be in the midrange.

It could be your sensitivity at certain frequencies as well.
It could be bias.
It could be your turntable has a more pleasing cartridge.
It could be your dac is not working as should.
It could be your source files are not as good.
It could be your CD player opamp chips suck (!)


----------



## bfreedma

Maxx134 said:


> Not that specific topic recently.
> I do have a degree in recording engineering & electronics though I am not in that field.
> I only focused on electronics  with headphone modifications as a hobby.
> 
> ...




One person scoring 8 out of 10 in one test certainly doesn’t prove anything.  You would need to average at least 8/10 on a large series of tests to get anywhere near statistical significance, let alone proof.  Flip a coin in a handful of sets of 10 and you’re likely to get 8/10 on a single trial.  A single score of 80% is statistically insignificant and is well within the expected results if guessing the answer.

You’re certainly throwing a lot of stuff at a wall in the hopes that something will stick.  Perhaps it would be better to dig deeper before claiming some kind of “victory”.  At least read this thread so you don’t continue to rehash debunked studies and theories.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 8, 2019)

[deleted-disengaging]


----------



## old tech (Aug 6, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Not that specific topic recently.
> 
> That's quite an article, thanks for posting.
> Yet that one guy that had 8 out of 10 actually proves it can be done(!)
> ...



As stated by Bfreedma, one person getting 8/10 in 153 trials is not a statistically valid positive - it is well within normal probabilities to get the same result for a 10 single throws of a fair coin in 153 trials.

As for a comparison between analog and digital sources, try digging up the research in Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." _Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education._ 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

The subjects in this test listened to simultaneous digital and analog  recordings of the same concert performance played back on CD and analog tape respectively.  It was recorded unequalised and unmixed (so no mastering differences). They were able to switch back and forth between the two level matched recordings at will, and everything was blinded and well controlled. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas. However the recording media for this test were compact disc and cassette tape*, so it's not directly comparable to a vinyl record. The researchers concluded:

_Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher rating means for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.
_
* One criticism of this study was the use of a cassette recorder rather than reel to reel.  However, the authors responded to that by stating the test would not have been practical as there are no consumer reel to reel recordings released in 2000 and in any event, hardly anyone still uses reel to reel playback (even less so in 2019). In addition, they publishing the metrics of the professional grade cassette tape and recorder which surpassed vinyl playback and almost equaled professional open reel to reels running at 7.5 ips.


----------



## Maxx134

bfreedma said:


> person scoring 8 out of 10 in one test certainly doesn’t prove anything


I just tried and got 6right! Lol



bfreedma said:


> You’re certainly throwing a lot of stuff at a wall in the hopes that something will stick. Perhaps it would be better to dig deeper before claiming some kind of “victory”. At least read this thread so you don’t continue to rehash debunked studies and theories.


For you its rehashed because you know.
For me it's learning and I appreciate you and everyone who gives me balance.
I will take your advice and read threads beginning.


Yes I have been throwing what I feel were valid ideas to try.
I always believe humbling your pride and being open is best way to approach new ideas.
Personally, I still think 8 out of 10 is hard to do, haha
If its not repeatable, then its a fluke right?
I don't know if they ever tried to make that guy redo the test.
Oh well.
Onto the wire topic.
I am out of possible reasons/explanation for this thread title so will wait for you to answer!


----------



## gregorio (Aug 6, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Personally, I still think 8 out of 10 is hard to do, haha



No, it's not "hard to do", in fact the opposite, it's almost inevitable. Do the same number of trials (467) and see how hard it is NOT to get 8/10 at least once, haha!


SpeakerBox said:


> Everything you said here makes sense to me. We are in agreement.



For your further information, you might find the video below useful. Although it's seemingly about a different subject (a type of meter used to measure dynamic range) the video excellently demonstrates how vinyl differs from CD. It's clearly shown that LP distorts the transient peaks and if you listen carefully you'll hear that the LP has a little less high/high-mids and is somewhat smoother/less well defined in the mids compared to the CD. The result is that the LP could be described as "less harsh" and/or "warmer" and therefore, relative to an individual's preferences, "better". However, it's not actually better, it's actually worse, it's distorted and would be more correctly described as having lost "punch" and "mid/high freq detail". In other words, while you might prefer the "less harsh" vinyl, you're getting lower fidelity and missing out on the intentions of the artists/engineers who wanted that amount of "harshness".

Of course, it's entirely your choice which you prefer but if you truthfully want to explain your preference for vinyl, then the answer lies entirely within your personal preference/perception. If you try to explain it in terms of vinyl being in some way technically better/superior (like freq response for example) you're going to end up contradicting at least some of the well demonstrated science/facts! Arguably the most common problem in the audiophile world is that someone has a preference (or wants you to have a preference), asserts that preference is due to some audible, technical superiority and backs that assertion up with some actual facts/science. Unfortunately, even when those quoted facts/science are actually true, they omit other salient/important facts which invalidate their facts. For example (and getting back on topic), I've seen various audiophile cable makers quote the science/fact of "skin effect", how it causes signal loss and how their cable uses exotic (expensive) materials/construction which improves the issue. Their scientific fact is correct but invalidated by the omitted fact that in any decent/average cable, skin effect would cause a signal loss of about a hundredth of a dB! Same problem with your linked article.

G


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> I just tried and got 6right! Lol
> 
> 
> For you its rehashed because you know.
> ...


ask questions if you have them. even those making big scary eyes will in fact be happy to try and answer honest curiosity. 
as for 8/10 meaning something or not, this is just basic statistic. if you flip a coin 10 times and don't get 5 head and 5 tail, would you say that it's significant and conclude that the odds for a coin falling on head aren't actually 50/50? completely failing an abx test results in guessing between 2 choices. so failure is not 0/10, but 5/10. and just like with the coin, the more trials you do, the more accurate the result at a statistical level, because the odds of you getting that result by chance become smaller and smaller as you add up more trials. 
in an actual test, if someone ended up getting 10/10, I do expect that the researchers would have that person run more tests or come back another day if it's too tiring. just to determine if it was a fluke or not.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> No, it's not "hard to do", in fact the opposite, it's almost inevitable. Do the same number of trials (467) and see how hard it is NOT to get 8/10 at least once, haha!
> 
> 
> For your further information, you might find the video below useful. Although it's seemingly about a different subject (a type of meter used to measure dynamic range) the video excellently demonstrates how vinyl differs from CD. It's clearly shown that LP distorts the transient peaks and if you listen carefully you'll hear that the LP has a little less high/high-mids and is somewhat smoother/less well defined in the mids compared to the CD. The result is that the LP could be described as "less harsh" and/or "warmer" and therefore, relative to an individual's preferences, "better". However, it's not actually better, it's actually worse, it's distorted and would be more correctly described as having lost "punch" and "mid/high freq detail". In other words, while you might prefer the "less harsh" vinyl, you're getting lower fidelity and missing out on the intentions of the artists/engineers who wanted that amount of "harshness".
> ...





I had a falling out with Ian a few years ago. When it comes to dynamics vs loudness, the guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

In the end, he has to bring in a paycheck, so the likes of him, Ludwig, and Lord-Alge will just squash squash away to their clients' delight!


----------



## SpeakerBox

gregorio said:


> No, it's not "hard to do", in fact the opposite, it's almost inevitable. Do the same number of trials (467) and see how hard it is NOT to get 8/10 at least once, haha!
> 
> 
> For your further information, you might find the video below useful. Although it's seemingly about a different subject (a type of meter used to measure dynamic range) the video excellently demonstrates how vinyl differs from CD. It's clearly shown that LP distorts the transient peaks and if you listen carefully you'll hear that the LP has a little less high/high-mids and is somewhat smoother/less well defined in the mids compared to the CD. The result is that the LP could be described as "less harsh" and/or "warmer" and therefore, relative to an individual's preferences, "better". However, it's not actually better, it's actually worse, it's distorted and would be more correctly described as having lost "punch" and "mid/high freq detail". In other words, while you might prefer the "less harsh" vinyl, you're getting lower fidelity and missing out on the intentions of the artists/engineers who wanted that amount of "harshness".
> ...




Thanks for the info.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Maxx134 said:


> I think the frequency response may not the factor at play here at all.
> One reason being that member BigShot mentioned that most music is not in that range.
> Most instruments and, if I recall correctly, ear sensitivity would be in the midrange.
> 
> ...



It could be rolled up in a bunch of stuff.   That said, my CD player is a Sony NS999ES which seems to be fairly well regarded.  I use it as a transport feeding a Musical Fidelity V90-DAC which also seems to be well liked.   You are right about the sensitivity to certain frequencies though.  The investigation continues I guess.


----------



## Steve999

SpeakerBox said:


> It could be rolled up in a bunch of stuff.   That said, my CD player is a Sony NS999ES which seems to be fairly well regarded.  I use it as a transport feeding a Musical Fidelity V90-DAC which also seems to be well liked.   You are right about the sensitivity to certain frequencies though.  The investigation continues I guess.



As you apparently surmise, the odds of your CD player or DAC being part of the equation or problem here are exceedingly low.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> [1] I had a falling out with Ian a few years ago. [1a] When it comes to dynamics vs loudness, the guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
> [2] In the end, he has to bring in a paycheck, so the likes of him, Ludwig, and Lord-Alge will just squash squash away to their clients' delight!



1. Why am I not surprised!
1a. No, he knows his stuff. I don't always agree with his artistic mastering choices but I don't recall ever hearing anything from him on a technical/factual level that was incorrect, misrepresented or "a wolf in sheep's clothing". On the other hand, you've demonstrated some serious misunderstanding of both dynamic range and loudness.

2. That makes no sense. In a highly competitive service industry, delighting one's clients must be the goal! 



SpeakerBox said:


> It could be rolled up in a bunch of stuff. That said, my CD player is a Sony NS999ES which seems to be fairly well regarded. I use it as a transport feeding a Musical Fidelity V90-DAC which also seems to be well liked. You are right about the sensitivity to certain frequencies though. The investigation continues I guess.



The point I was trying to make is that if you're after the actual truth/facts, your investigation will have to continue indefinitely! You're looking for answers in the wrong place and therefore there's only two possible outcomes; either you find an answer which isn't the truth/actual fact or you will never find an answer!

I do get it, I've fallen foul of it in the past myself, you hear/perceive something as better and then try to find a technical explanation for why it's better (or conversely, why the other thing is worse). That seems like such a logically obvious approach that it's virtually unquestionable but that's exactly why this is such a serious problem and why this thread was started! Science has proven and it's demonstrated in practice almost continually, that this is actually a very poor approach. While it usually works, there are numerous occasions when it doesn't, but because it's "unquestionable" the only option left on the table is to make-up some fallacy along the lines of "science doesn't know everything" and/or "you must be open to alternative explanations", which is particularly ironic because the situation is due to them not being open to the fact that the "unquestionable" is in fact questionable. In other words, for many/most audiophiles: If it sounds better then by definition it's obviously "better", now let's explain why it's better. In actual fact, it's often the case that if it sounds better it may not actually be better, it could be exactly the same or in some cases actually worse! 

This is exactly the trap you've fallen into; vinyl sounds better, so is better, and you are therefore "investigating" what in the CD chain (the CD format itself, CD players, DACs, etc.) is worse and why it's worse. You've just eliminated your player and DAC, you seem to have eliminated your original idea (freq response) so your investigation must continue ... what's next, digital interconnects maybe, jitter or any number of other typical audiophile myths that have been thoroughly debunked for decades, which we'll have to individually demonstrate/prove to you (as we've done with freq response)? The actual answer isn't where you're looking for it, there is no truthful technical explanation for why CD is worse than vinyl because CD isn't worse than vinyl, it's demonstrably/provably better! The actual answer therefore lies in your approach, you are going to have to question the "unquestionable", that it's not better because it sounds better, that it's actually worse. To put it another way, you're going to have to consider that you actually prefer "worse" over "better", are therefore perceiving "worse" as being "better" and therefore must question your perception. The actual answer to your investigation lies in your personal perception and preferences, you won't find it anywhere else!

G


----------



## Maxx134

Since the majority here claim that most sonic  differences are inaudible, will anyone here claim than an Odac is as good as a Schiit yggdrasil?


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

Maxx134 said:


> Since the majority here claim that most sonic  differences are inaudible, will anyone here claim than an Odac is as good as a Schiit yggdrasil?



@Maxx134 you don’t belong in this thread. These people are worse than religious zealots. Even when the tests actually show measurable differences, they say it doesn’t matter because it’s inaudible. Even when a study backs up an audiophile claim, they say it’s too small to represent anything other than a statistical average of basic odds and probability, or they say the study was biased or it was merely groupthink or it wasn’t a true double-blind, or it was blah blah blah. 

Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly open-minded, albeit often misguided, too. Either way, you’ll get beaten up far less than in this masochistic cesspool of condescension.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 7, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Since the majority here claim that most sonic  differences are inaudible, will anyone here claim than an Odac is as good as a Schiit yggdrasil?



Never owned those particular things, but I can tell you that my high end Oppo player and DAC/amp sound the same as a $40 Walmart DVD player. (I did a controlled listening test on them.)



Hifiearspeakers said:


> Even when the tests actually show measurable differences, they say it doesn’t matter because it’s inaudible.



This is an interesting complaint... Why would inaudible stuff matter in a home audio component? It seems to me that imperceptibility is pretty clearly a good reason for something to not matter. In fact, I can't think of anything that would matter less.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 7, 2019)

I suggest we people who are worse than religious zealots go agnostic on this one. As I’m sure @Maxx134 knows, that’s been the subject of extremely bitter personal disputes elsewhere. I suggest we not get into it because we have no way of knowing. We should not take the bait. We’d just get dragged into the mud pit and we have no first-hand knowledge (that I know of). And in the end it is of no significant importance.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 7, 2019)

Hifiearspeakers said:


> [1] These people are worse than religious zealots.
> [2] Even when the tests actually show measurable differences, they say it doesn’t matter because it’s inaudible.
> [3] Even when a study backs up an audiophile claim, they say it’s too small to represent anything other than a statistical average of basic odds and probability ...
> [4] Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly ...
> [5] Either way, you’ll get beaten up far less than in this masochistic cesspool of condescension.



1. Of course we are! Because not only do we have beliefs but we have actual reliable evidence/facts to back up those beliefs. In fact, we have our beliefs BECAUSE of the reliable evidence/facts!

2. Please explain how it does matter if it's inaudible.

3. The study did not back-up an audiophile claim, it did the exact opposite! If I claim that magic is real, that I'm an actual magician and then toss 10 coins 457 times and manage to get 8 heads once, have I proved magic is real and that I am a real magician? Would you honestly believe that?

4. Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly ... ignorant of school level statistics?

5. If you go to a science forum, contradict and argue with science that a 7th grader would be expected to know and understand, then yes, expect to get beaten up! If you don't want to get beaten up for doing that, then go to a forum where everyone else also doesn't know or understand 7th grader science! Isn't this really simple and obvious? Although, if someone doesn't have a 7th grader understanding of science maybe it's really complex and not obvious at all?

G


----------



## bigshot

It’s thoughtful for hifiearspeakers to throw a life preserver to maxx134, but I think it would have been better if the life preserver he was throwing wasn’t made of concrete.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> 2. That makes no sense. In a highly competitive service industry,
> delighting one's clients must be the goal!



And if a client's delight - their wishes, Gregorio! - demand that you master their song or album skippy loud, you either do it, or the client goes elsewhere.

You of all people should know this!


----------



## castleofargh (Aug 7, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> Since the majority here claim that most sonic  differences are inaudible, will anyone here claim than an Odac is as good as a Schiit yggdrasil?


could we stop with the off topics at some point?
your question is a strawman argument, not a question. we have hearing thresholds for most variables under a given set of conditions. if the differences go above those thresholds, chances are that we can notice the differences. if they are below, chances are that we won't. with DACs, the measured differences often suggest that we won't notice them. it's a pretty simple reasoning. when in doubt because we're dealing with something near those threshold levels, we perform controlled listening tests to try and determine under a set of conditions, if we can notice the measured differences, or whatever we thought sounded different under sighted listening. it's an extra step to increase confidence in our data. with DACs, I've failed to notice a difference many times. with amps, depending on circumstances, I've often noticed some differences. with headphones, I never felt that I needed to use a blind test to confirm audible difference. the measured differences are way above the known hearing threshold(just take FR and you're done proving that point). so we totally expect audible difference. it's just a matter of the magnitude of differences usually involved with different devices.

also while we're at it, what does "as good as" mean in your sentence? you mean price? look? subjective opinions? I did say that people would welcome honest questions, but if they make sense it might work better. and again, if you want to go discuss those stuff in the right topics, I really won't mind.


----------



## castleofargh

Hifiearspeakers said:


> @Maxx134 you don’t belong in this thread. These people are worse than religious zealots. Even when the tests actually show measurable differences, they say it doesn’t matter because it’s inaudible. Even when a study backs up an audiophile claim, they say it’s too small to represent anything other than a statistical average of basic odds and probability, or they say the study was biased or it was merely groupthink or it wasn’t a true double-blind, or it was blah blah blah.
> 
> Come out of the dark side and return to people who are mostly open-minded, albeit often misguided, too. Either way, you’ll get beaten up far less than in this masochistic cesspool of condescension.


if you want an opinion, any opinion is one. if you want to find an anecdote showing whatever result you want to exist, sure enough you can find some by chance or manufacture one. but when trying to find some general rule about cables behaviors(which is a mistake from the get go IMO), of course you need statistics and well controlled experiments. if you know an alternative to that, you're welcome to help by sharing it with us. but some anecdote is not going to be conclusive about cables in general. 

as for your criticism of people here, I've make several posts in this topic and others explaining how and why under certain circumstances some cables would be able to cause clear audible differences. I've never been shot down. but yes my anecdotes are too small to draw conclusions about cables in general. at best it can be used to say that cables will not always sound the same. but beyond that... not very informative. in any case, maybe they don't contradict me because they're biased by my moderator tag, but when I say something dumb on most topics, they don't hesitate to point it out when they notice, so I'm tempted to guess that they simply agree with my examples and the possible reasons for those changes in cables I mention.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 7, 2019)

bigshot said:


> my high end Oppo player and DAC/amp


I owned that dac/amp and thought it was above average in mid-fi gear.
I found it sweet with great soundstage.
The problem is, how can I measure this...



gregorio said:


> 3. The study did not back-up an audiophile claim, it did the exact opposite! If I claim that magic is real, that I'm an actual magician and then toss 10 coins 457 times and manage to get 8 heads once, have I proved magic is real and that I am a real magician? Would you honestly believe that?


The real issue is that it was one guy, on first try.
It wasn't 457 times
It was 457 people trying once, correct?
That makes the percentage conclusion an actual error.



bigshot said:


> It’s thoughtful for hifiearspeakers to throw a life preserver to maxx134, but I think it would have been better if the life preserver he was throwing wasn’t made of concrete.


OMG lol!
Its the thought that counts!
At the end of the day, we all hear to enjoy.




castleofargh said:


> could we stop with the off topics at some point?


Yes, I must apologize for not thinking how loaded.
Disregard the question please as it is not condusive to any positive solution.
My apologies, now lets focus on wire please.

So far, of all of the manufacturers claims of types of materials and windings, we have no types of measurements posted to back up their claims, correct?

My new question then is, how do they know? How are they testing it?


----------



## bigshot

In home audio electronics (DACs and amps) I haven't noticed much of a correlation at all between price and sound quality. More expensive usually means more power (in an amp) or more features. It's pretty much the same with cables. More money buys you better build quality or more bling.


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> And if a client's delight - their wishes, Gregorio! - demand that you master their song or album skippy loud, you either do it, or the client goes elsewhere. You of all people should know this!



Exactly, either way the client gets skippy loud, so how's that my fault?



Maxx134 said:


> The real issue is that it was one guy, on first try.
> It wasn't 457 times
> It was 457 people trying once, correct?
> That makes the percentage conclusion an actual error.
> OMG lol!



OMG lol indeed, you've got to be joking right? OK, so if instead of me tossing 10 coins 457 times, I get 457 different people off the street to toss 10 coins once each. By the law of averages it's almost certain that at least one of them will get 8 heads (on their one and only try) and then according to your logic you would honestly believe they are a real magician. That's staggering!

It doesn't matter whether it's 1 person throwing 10 coins 457 times or 457 different people throwing 10 coins once, the probability of at least one of those throws being 8/10 is exactly the same! Maybe I was being overoptimistic about a 7th Grader level of logic/understanding, maybe we should drop down to a 5th Grader or even lower? OMG indeed!

G


----------



## bigshot

Tossing 457 coins could become quite expensive.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Aug 7, 2019)

gregorio said:


> Exactly, either way the client gets skippy loud, so how's that my fault?




Who said it was your fault?

Step down off that high horse Greggy - you're not God, you're not always right - and the rest of us are not always wrong.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 7, 2019)

[deleted—disengaging]


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 11, 2019)

gregorio said:


> maybe we should drop down to a 5th Grader or even lower? OMG indeed!


Lol ok, ok..
but most won't do those laws of averages at 5th grade or 12th haha.
Edit**:
Rather talk about 457 strands of cotton woven inside an Uber thousand dollar headphone cable?!


----------



## gregorio

TheSonicTruth said:


> Who said it was your fault?



You said it was Bob Ludwig's fault, how it it any more his fault than it would be mine?



Maxx134 said:


> Lol ok, ok.. but most won't do those laws of averages at 5th grade or 12th haha.



OK, let's start at the beginning, grade school: If Jonny has 457 apples and Sally collects one apple from 457 different people, who has more apples? ... lol

G


----------



## oldmate

I got a new USB Cable the other day - here is my review,

Music played through the sufficiently warmed-up Oyaide d+ Class A USB cable flows gracefully, with a self-effacing, delicate, open, airy quality. Resolution is extraordinary, but with nary a hint of frequency-specific spotlighting. Tonal balance is coherent from top to bottom, without the added grunge and glare of most USB cables, nor the broad presence range dip and lispy, sparkly top end that euphonically color the sound of pure-silver USB cables.

I’ve never heard superior focus from any digital cable, regardless of format. Every note is reproduced with exceptional timing precision, yielding an unexpected sonic benefit: naturally rich timbres of disarmingly realistic substance, body, and density. This “emergent phenomenon” seems to be the serendipitous byproduct of unprecedentedly accurate temporal alignment of an instrument’s harmonics, which allows the listener’s auditory system to recognize and identify sounds with considerably less mental effort.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

gregorio said:


> You said it was Bob Ludwig's fault, how it it any more his fault than
> it would be mine?



Both Ludwig and Lord-Alge have personal mastering styles: Hot and compressed.  You would have to tell them in advance if you want more dynamics left in.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

oldmate said:


> I got a new USB Cable the other day - here is my review,
> 
> Music played through the sufficiently warmed-up Oyaide d+ Class A USB cable flows gracefully, with a self-effacing, delicate, open, airy quality. Resolution is extraordinary, but with nary a hint of frequency-specific spotlighting. Tonal balance is coherent from top to bottom, without the added grunge and glare of most USB cables, nor the broad presence range dip and lispy, sparkly top end that euphonically color the sound of pure-silver USB cables.
> 
> I’ve never heard superior focus from any digital cable, regardless of format. Every note is reproduced with exceptional timing precision, yielding an unexpected sonic benefit: naturally rich timbres of disarmingly realistic substance, body, and density. This “emergent phenomenon” seems to be the serendipitous byproduct of unprecedentedly accurate temporal alignment of an instrument’s harmonics, which allows the listener’s auditory system to recognize and identify sounds with considerably less mental effort.




This review sounds like describing a _recipe, _not sound through a cable, lol!  Are you sure you aren't piulling some poor audiophile's leg?


----------



## oldmate

TheSonicTruth said:


> Are you sure you aren't piulling some poor audiophile's leg?


----------



## gregorio

oldmate said:


> I’ve never heard superior focus from any digital cable, regardless of format. Every note is reproduced with exceptional timing precision ...



How does it achieve that? Do you insert it up the drummer's @ss? ... Sorry, this isn't the place for drummer jokes! 



TheSonicTruth said:


> Both Ludwig and Lord-Alge have personal mastering styles: Hot and compressed. You would have to tell them in advance if you want more dynamics left in.



How do you know that's their personal mastering style and not simply their clients' demands? Amateurs get to do exactly what they want, although IME they never have the experience, knowledge, resources or all three to achieve great results. On the other hand, professionals, particularly the top ones do have all three but pretty much never get to do "exactly what they want", they can do what they want ONLY WITHIN the confines of what their clients demand and with popular music genres, almost without exception, one of those confines is that it's louder (or at least not significantly quieter), than other specific examples of the genre. To answer my first question: Bob Ludwig is one of the top flight mastering engineers who has publicly campaigned against the loudness war, so clearly the typical "hot and compressed" is not his personal style/choice but a professional demand. And again, how's that any more Bob Ludwig's fault than it would be mine? 

G


----------



## Strat1117

I don’t understand the desperate ‘need’ to convince anyone of your personal point of view regarding audio equipment. Are you upset that someone might be having fun wrong?


----------



## gregorio (Aug 11, 2019)

Strat1117 said:


> [1] I don’t understand the desperate ‘need’ to convince anyone of your personal point of view regarding audio equipment.
> [2] Are you upset that someone might be having fun wrong?



1. It's not a "personal point of view" it's the actual facts/science!

2. Not at all, people can have fun however they want, there is no right or wrong way as long as they're not ripping-off or harming others. Many of the other forums here on head-fi are full of people advising others about the audible benefits of various audiophile cables and they are therefore, either deliberately or inadvertently, ripping-off others!

G


----------



## Strat1117 (Aug 11, 2019)

gregorio said:


> 1. It's not a "personal point of view" it's the actual facts/science!
> 
> 2. Not at all, people can have fun however they want, there is no right or wrong way as long as they're not ripping-off or harming others. Many of the other forums here on head-fi are full of people advising others about the audible benefits of various audiophile cables and they are therefore, either deliberately or inadvertently, ripping-off others!
> 
> G



1.  No, it’s not. 

2.  Hysterical.


----------



## gregorio

Strat1117 said:


> Hysterical.



The actual facts/science is "hysterical"? Ripping people off is "hysterical"? I and most other rational people would not call that "hysterical" but "ignorant" and "sociopathic" respectively!

G


----------



## PhonoPhi

Strat1117 said:


> 1.  No, it’s not.
> 
> 2.  Hysterical.



Shouting louder and more maliciously won't help to undermine opinion of professionals.

(I read the Science Forum regularly and hope as many other readers clearly see "who is who")


----------



## Strat1117

gregorio said:


> The actual facts/science is "hysterical"? Ripping people off is "hysterical"? I and most other rational people would not call that "hysterical" but "ignorant" and "sociopathic" respectively!
> 
> G



No, your delusion that you are somehow saving people from running off to buy expensive cables that they can’t afford because somebody’s said they liked them on an audio forum is hysterical.


----------



## Strat1117

PhonoPhi said:


> Shouting louder and more maliciously won't help to undermine opinion of professionals.
> 
> (I read the Science Forum regularly and hope as many other readers clearly see "who is who")



You obviously didn’t read my original post, but that’s par for the course.  Pretty sloppy thinking for a rigorous scientist.  I have not stated one way or the other on which side of the cable debate I stand.  I simply stated that I don’t understand the need to constantly beat this dead horse.


----------



## gregorio

Strat1117 said:


> No, your delusion that you are somehow saving people from running off to buy expensive cables that they can’t afford because somebody’s said they liked them on an audio forum is hysterical.



No, that's your delusion not mine. This isn't the "save people" sub-forum and I'm not trying to "save people", I'm only interested in the actual facts/science (and thereby not ripping others off). If someone wants to "run off to buy expensive cables they can't afford" that's entirely up to them.

G


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 11, 2019)

I like to post some my ideas on why we need measurements to back up sonic claims of anything.

Ever since I was questioned about my headphone mods, I appreciate the sound science threads more and more.

The more my mods were liked, the more members from another site ( SB*F ) questioned them.

So in my own "audiofile journey", I realized I needed proof of any improvements I made to any headphone mods.

So I learned more about measurements, and yet I am still trying to pin down certain measured effects, like the effects of soundstage depth in measurements.
I believe I am finding a clue in impulse responses and comparisons of them to loudspeakers.

Not going to bore you with details, but rather mention, in the case of my HD800 mod, it wasn't enough to have 3-4 hd800s on hand, or to have two other friends verifying any sonic changes percieved as improvements or not.

I needed solid measurements and data to record along the way.
Whether those changes were good or bad, I record them for knowledge.
Lots and lots of "REW" measurements.

 So although I play the fences on both sides in this thread, it is because I want everyone  to be able to explain it all.

I hope one day we could find some elusive measurement as to why so many hear  cable  differences, but for now, what I find that I tend to agree with general broad concensus on particular equipment, wether wire or component.

You will find in reading a thread, that in general, there will be a consensus of a particular impressions that the majority agree upon.
So I usually look for that.


----------



## castleofargh (Aug 11, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> I like to post some my ideas on why we need measurements to back up sonic claims of anything.
> 
> Ever since I was questioned about my headphone mods, I appreciate the sound science threads more and more.
> 
> ...


IMO there is not a single mystery as to why some cables used with some gears will affect the sound. of course from a purely theoretical scientific approach, we can never be totally sure that we've modeled everything and missed nothing. but in practice, when there is no trace of events contradicting what we know about electrical wires for decades, I believe we can start to accept the possibility that we have a pretty good understanding of what is really going on.
calculating the effect of a wire on the signal is not so simple because of course it varies with the signal, so instead of one answer we have functions. and the behavior of a wire can be effectively "simplified" into a long series of RLC components and the predictions from such a model are incredibly accurate, so long as the wire is accurately measured for each of its segments. of course we never do that, so instead we assume that the wire is made the same throughout its length, which is not going to be strictly true. so while there is not mystery, we do have difficulties depending on the degree of accuracy you're demanding, be it for the measurements or for the model predicting the same results. we can take the gauge value and predict something with a given signal and that information. or we could go crazy with the super complex model and ask our boys Fourier and Laplace to help us reach different practical answers to nightmarish equations. the end result(if done correctly!!! ^_^) is still going to turn out within the predicted range of accuracy associated with the methods.

cables having some impact on the signal is a consensus. most of us understand that there is probably a different sound coming from using an Ethernet cable as a speaker cable. the difference in electrical properties for those 2 types of cables is big. most of us will suggest not to use an Ethernet cable as speaker cable.  so just with that you can get that the all "cables don't make a difference" debate is not what some think it is. all those who say that cables don't make a difference(me), assume that at the very least the 2 cables you'll tests are up to standard for the specific use you'll make of them. that alone will greatly restrict the range of possible variations between the 2 cables. a USB cable has very strict specs depending on the version of USB it's associated with. if you're testing 2 USB cables and one has 1ohm of impedance, you may end up with a change in the sound(or just many errors, or no connection at all or...). but to us it is not a proper USB cable. same with coax stuff(there are 2 different standards but 2 that's not 500). for an IEM cable we expect a pretty standard length(like 1.2m or near that), below 1 ohm in impedance and no huge surprise in term of capacitance/inductance. we will find cables that aren't at the spec we expect them to be. we will even find cables that are not at the specs the sellers tell us they will be^_^. so of course if something strange is going on and a big difference is noticed, the first thing to do is to try and set up a listening test where we can't get tricked by "hearing" with our eyes. and if the difference remains, measure something, find out which of the 2 is a weirdo and throw it away. I've had a cable where the way I would place it down when measuring an IEM, would dramatically alter the impedance measured and slightly alter the subjective sound(mainly a small change in the signature). to me it was a crap cable. a near 200$ crap cable. but instead of worries when confronted to unexpected changes, audiophiles tend to embrace those changes. some actually spend their time looking for gears that will cause unexpected changes and adore anything exotic because of that potential to be different from everything and everybody else.of course even if those guys stopped testing things sighted, unplugging, plugging taking way too long for our short term memory to compare the 2 sounds. if they first checked that the big difference they get isn't mostly that one is louder. perhaps, people in this section would take their feedback more seriously.  but taking those testimonies and wondering why science and Ohm's law doesn't always explain them, that's really thinking backward when there is no legitimate reason to trust those testimonies in the first place.
first we make sure the facts are facts, then we can wonder why or how it happened. but searching for models until one looks like it could fit a sighted impression, that's just wrong.


----------



## SpeakerBox

castleofargh said:


> IMO there is not a single mystery as to why some cables used with some gears will affect the sound. of course from a purely theoretical scientific approach, we can never be totally sure that we've modeled everything and missed nothing. but in practice, when there is no trace of events contradicting what we know about electrical wires for decades, I believe we can start to accept the possibility that we have a pretty good understanding of what is really going on.
> calculating the effect of a wire on the signal is not so simple because of course it varies with the signal, so instead of one answer we have functions. and the behavior of a wire can be effectively "simplified" into a long series of RLC components and the predictions from such a model are incredibly accurate, so long as the wire is accurately measured for each of it's segments. of course we never do that, so instead we assume that the wire is made the same throughout its length, which is not going to be strictly true. so while there is not mystery, we do have difficulties depending on the degree of accuracy you're demanding, be it for the measurements or for the model predicting the same results. we can take the gauge value and predict something with a given signal and that information. or we could go crazy with the super complex model and ask our boys Fourier and Laplace to help us reach different practical answers to nightmarish equations. the end result(if done correctly!!! ^_^) is still going to turn out within the predicted range of accuracy associated with the methods.
> 
> cables having some impact on the signal is a consensus. most of us understand that there is probably a different sound coming from using an Ethernet cable as a speaker cable. the difference in electrical properties for those 2 types of cables is big. most of us will suggest not to use an Ethernet cable as speaker cable.  so just with that you can get that the all "cables don't make a difference" debate is not what some think it is. all those who say that cables don't make a difference(me), assume that at the very least the 2 cables you'll tests are up to standard for the specific use you'll make of them. that alone will greatly restrict the range of possible variations between the 2 cables. a USB cable has very strict specs depending on the version of USB it's associated with. if you're testing 2 USB cables and one has 1ohm of impedance, you may end up with a change in the sound(or just many errors, or no connection at all or...). but to us it is not a proper USB cable. same with coax stuff(there are 2 different standards but 2 that's not 500). for an IEM cable we expect a pretty standard length(like 1.2m or near that), below 1 ohm in impedance and no huge surprise in term of capacitance/inductance. we will find cables that aren't at the spec we expect them to be. we will even find cables that are not at the specs the sellers tell us they will be^_^. so of course if something strange is going on and a big difference is noticed, the first thing to do is to try and set up a listening test where we can't get tricked by "hearing" with our eyes. and if the difference remains, measure something, find out which of the 2 is a weirdo and throw it away. I've had a cable where the way I would place it down when measuring an IEM, would dramatically alter the impedance measured and slightly alter the subjective sound(mainly a small change in the signature). to me it was a crap cable. a near 200$ crap cable. but instead of worries when confronted to unexpected changes, audiophiles tend to embrace those changes. some actually spend their time looking for gears that will cause unexpected changes and adore anything exotic because of that potential to be different from everything and everybody else.of course even if those guys stopped testing things sighted, unplugging, plugging taking way too long for our short term memory to compare the 2 sounds. if they first checked that the big difference they get isn't mostly that one is louder. perhaps, people in this section would take their feedback more seriously.  but taking those testimonies and wondering why science and Ohm's law doesn't always explain them, that's really thinking backward when there is no legitimate reason to trust those testimonies in the first place.
> first we make sure the facts are facts, then we can wonder why or how it happened. but searching for models until one looks like it could fit a sighted impression, that's just wrong.



A well thought out and even handed response!


----------



## bigshot (Aug 11, 2019)

Strat1117 said:


> I don’t understand the desperate ‘need’ to convince anyone of your personal point of view regarding audio equipment. Are you upset that someone might be having fun wrong?



Perhaps you don't understand our intent. We aren't trying to convince anyone. We're simply pointing out misconceptions and explaining how sound reproduction works. It's up to the reader to absorb that and be convinced. Many people aren't capable of that. I don't know about other posters, but I tend to speak past those kinds of people to the lurkers. They might get benefit from the information, even if the person I'm replying to doesn't care. I don't need validation, but I'm always open to solid information that I don't know about yet.

Not all opinions are created equal. Some are backed up with facts, and others are completely made up. I make an effort to only speak about things that I know about. Not everyone is that careful.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Perhaps you don't understand our intent. We aren't trying to convince anyone. We're simply pointing out misconceptions
> and explaining how sound reproduction works. It's up to the reader to absorb that and be convinced. Many people
> aren't capable of that. I don't know about other posters, but I tend to speak past those kinds of people to the lurkers.
> They might get benefit from the information, even if the person I'm replying to doesn't care.




Actually, the only things you and Gregorio, and I, disagree about is the loudness wars and the necessity of remastering older albums.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 11, 2019)

Maxx134 said:


> I am still trying to pin down certain measured effects, like the effects of soundstage depth in measurements.
> I believe I am finding a clue in impulse responses and comparisons of them to loudspeakers.



That is going to be a very difficult thing to pin down. There is no such thing as soundstage depth with headphones, because the speakers are right over the top of your ears. With loudspeakers, there is a physical distance between the listener and the transducer. That is where the depth comes from. Soundstage depth is a physical acoustic reality. There are delays in sound reaching your ears, sound reflecting off walls and the ability to locate the source of a sound in space by turning your head. None of that exists with headphones. All you get with headphones are secondary depth cues... reverberation and echo and phase baked into the mix. And none of that has anything to do with the headphone design. Any headphone with high fidelity will reproduce that as well as any other headphone with high fidelity. Most of the discussion in headphone forums about soundstage is people focusing on secondary depth cues in the music until they convince themselves that their headphones are creating it.

This is something I didn't really think about until I got a 5.1 system. Multichannel is all about the interaction of multiple sound sources with the room to create a sound field... which is a fully dimensional type of sound stage. If you think about it, mono through headphones is sound coming from one point right in the middle of your skull. Stereo through headphones expands that to a straight line from left to right though your head. Stereo speakers is a plane of sound ten feet in front of you. 5.1 is a plane of sound extending left and right and front and back. Atmos is a cube of sound field all around you. Each one is a higher degree of directionality and space. You really can't go there without more speakers and physical space around you.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> That is going to be a very difficult thing to pin down. There is no such thing as soundstage depth with headphones, because the speakers are right over the top of your ears. With loudspeakers, there is a physical distance between the listener and the transducer. That is where the depth comes from. Soundstage depth is a physical acoustic reality. There are delays in sound reaching your ears, sound reflecting off walls and the ability to locate the source of a sound in space by turning your head. None of that exists with headphones. All you get with headphones are secondary depth cues... reverberation and echo and phase baked into the mix. And none of that has anything to do with the headphone design. Any headphone with high fidelity will reproduce that as well as any other headphone with high fidelity. Most of the discussion in headphone forums about soundstage is people focusing on secondary depth cues in the music until they convince themselves that their headphones are creating it.
> 
> This is something I didn't really think about until I got a 5.1 system. Multichannel is all about the interaction of multiple sound sources with the room to create a sound field... which is a fully dimensional type of sound stage. If you think about it, mono through headphones is sound coming from one point right in the middle of your skull. Stereo through headphones expands that to a straight line from left to right though your head. Stereo speakers is a plane of sound ten feet in front of you. 5.1 is a plane of sound extending left and right and front and back. Atmos is a cube of sound field all around you. Each one is a higher degree of directionality and space. You really can't go there without more speakers and physical space around you.



So are you saying that different headphone brands and models, as long as they’re high fidelity, won’t consistently produce a different size/depth of soundstage amongst one another because the speakers are too close to the ears?

So something like the Focal Utopia will cast the same soundstage depth as the Sennheiser 800/800S? Or am I misinterpreting what you said above?


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 11, 2019)

Hifiearspeakers said:


> So something like the Focal Utopia will cast the same soundstage depth as the Sennheiser 800/800S? Or am I misinterpreting what you said above?


I think we all agree the Utopia cast a smaller overall image than HD800.
I think he meant comparison of headphones to speakers,
as well as noting or aluding to distance as a factor.

It's not coincidentall that the drivers of the HD800 are further away than most headphones, causing a greater image and soundfield propagation within the cup space.




bigshot said:


> That is going to be a very difficult thing to pin down. There is no such thing as soundstage depth with headphones, because the speakers are right over the top of your ears


My mistake, I meant specifically image distance, or how "forward" the headphone sounds, not other soundstage aspects.


Do you have an HD800 or another open headphone? The image depth is more noticable on open cans.

I currently can manipulate this to a degree, but not fully control it yet.
Both my Dennon7200 & HD800  have more depth than stock.


----------



## CoryGillmore

I personally think soundstage is a meaningless word in regards to headphones. Pretty much every headphone I own, rather open or closed, sounds like it's coming from right next to my ears. It's one of those words people use to invent improvements when buying an expensive headphone cable etc. "Oh well it may not be a measurable difference but this totally subjective thing that isn't measurable (soundstage) is waaaay better since I bought this $500 cable.


----------



## Maxx134

CoryGillmore said:


> Pretty much every headphone I own, rather open or closed, sounds like it's coming from right next to my ears.


I feel these few headphones can make the sound most  away from your ears.
TH900
HD800
Susvara


----------



## bigshot (Aug 12, 2019)

Hifiearspeakers said:


> So are you saying that different headphone brands and models, as long as they’re high fidelity, won’t consistently produce a different size/depth of soundstage amongst one another because the speakers are too close to the ears?



Yes. I've heard a lot of headphones and every one of them all sound like the band is inside my head. Even with binaural recordings, the sound can't be located further than right in front of my head or right behind, usually flickering back and forth. (the shaver demo) Almost all of the distance cues with headphones are embedded as reverb or reflections captured in the recording or mix, not because of the headphones.

Do you have access to a good listening room with loudspeakers? Play the same recording in the room and then listen to the same thing with headphones and you'll clearly hear the difference. The same goes for the difference between 2 channel speakers and multichannel. It isn't a subtle difference at all.

I have Oppo PM-1s and Sennheiser HD-590s myself.


----------



## gregorio

Hifiearspeakers said:


> [1] So are you saying that different headphone brands and models, as long as they’re high fidelity, won’t consistently produce a different size/depth of soundstage amongst one another because the speakers are too close to the ears?
> [1a] So something like the Focal Utopia will cast the same soundstage depth as the Sennheiser 800/800S?


I can't speak for what bigshot meant but I'd like to answer this question anyway.

1. I am saying that no headphones, regardless of brands, models or fidelity, produce (reproduce) any soundstage at all! All headphones (and speakers) do is reproduce two audio signals simultaneously (left/right audio channels), that's it, nothing more, there is no soundstage. Soundstage isn't "produced" by HPs, it's entirely produced by the brain, it's an illusion, the result of the brain trying to make sense of the sensory input data. This sub-conscious calculation therefore has two parts, the sensory input data itself AND, what each individual's brain considers "make sense" to be/mean. In other words, the brain effectively takes the sensory input data (IE. From two eyes and two ears) analyses, correlates and compares it, and cross-references all this with a life-time's worth of memories/experience to create a resultant "image" (perception), which is effectively a best guess of "reality". There are a large number of variables at play here, for example, just the analysis of the input data from the two ears includes (amongst other things) identifying what are direct sounds within the signals and what are reflections, the relative level balance, phase/time and FR of both, comparing the input data from each ear and referencing all that against a life-time's worth of experience of real acoustic spaces. It's also worth noting that we're talking about the data input to the brain from each ear, not the actual sound entering the ears and this input data is different for each person because our ears are not all exactly the same distance apart (therefore the phase/timing is different) and we all have somewhat different pinnae, hearing and listening skills, each of which affects the FR of the data the brain then uses for it's "best guess"/"image"/"perception". Therefore ...
1a. Neither the Focal Utopia nor the Senn 800/800S cast ANY soundstage depth. However, they do have differences in FR, differences in driver distances (and therefore timing) from the ears and also differences in other input data (not just from the ears!), which in turn can have an effect on the final perception (of soundstage). Whether these differences do affect one's perception of soundstage and if they do, in what way and by how much, is dependant on each individual's perception ("best guess"). 



Maxx134 said:


> [1] So I learned more about measurements, and yet I am still trying to pin down certain measured effects, like the effects of soundstage depth in measurements.
> [2] I currently can manipulate this to a degree, but not fully control it yet.



1. For the reasons just explained, you'll never "pin down" soundstage depth from measurements of the sound output by your HPs because soundstage depth is not a property of sound, it's a result of perception and therefore, the measurement you'd need is a measurement of perception rather than sound. Such a measurement doesn't exist and even if it did, could/would be somewhat different for each person. Therefore ....

2. That's because you can only manipulate certain variables which can affect the perception of soundstage depth. If you're the one creating the music mix you can manipulate far more variables and to a greater extent but even then, it's still ultimately a perception, so you can only ever have some (rather than "full") control of it, some of the time, for some people. In other words, even if you achieve "full control" just from manipulating the output sound, it will only work for some, few or no others and even just for yourself, it may or may not work at a different point in time as other variables change. For example, if you use different headphones and/or, as your hearing, listening abilities, experience and perception biases all evolve over time.

G


----------



## castleofargh

I was going to complain that it's yet another off topic by max, but we do read about "improving" the soundstage with some fancy special cable all the time. usually the same guys who have no idea how to demonstrate that they're hearing a difference at all. if there is an audible difference in overall loudness or in FR, then subjectively we will probably feel a change in "headstage" and positioning. if crosstalk reaches ludicrous level, that will also become audible and also change where we imagine the instruments to be. 
for headphone and soundstage, please go ask in the relevant topic.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 12, 2019)

Use of the word "soundstage" when it comes to describing headphones is usually a good indication that the person has allowed placebo effect to color his judgement.

Soundstage with speakers requires careful setup, taking the placement and room acoustics into account, and it can be manipulated with DSPs.


----------



## Maxx134

castleofargh said:


> . if crosstalk reaches ludicrous level, that will also become audible and also change where we imagine the instruments to be.


I have an opinion that there is a plague amoung many uber expensive _*headphone*_ cables companies, which choose to follow the trend of containing many, many, countless braiding of wires...

 Both with the left and right channels twisting together, and also within each insulated cable, many winds between the positive and neg.. 

All that complexity unproven and allowing the detrimentall possibilities of both crosstalk and stray "RCL" along the way. 

These design choices are then promoted in a positive way because some unverified percieved change is mentioned


----------



## bigshot

You'd be able to tell if there was crosstalk if you just dial the balance control all the way over to one channel. I doubt that is the case though. Most wires sold for home audio are good enough to do the job they are intended for. Some are just fancier or built more sturdy than others.


----------



## old tech

This website is a good resource for cables.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## bigshot

I remember when I first found that website. I thought to myself, how could any audiophile continue to spout nonsense about cables after reading that. But apparently they do.


----------



## SilentNote

Between hi-res audio and light speed cable, seriously... I sometimes wonder if these "audiophiles" are just ignorance loving. Maybe we should call them idiophiles instead.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 15, 2019)

bigshot said:


> You'd be able to tell if there was crosstalk if you just dial the balance control all the way over to one channel. I doubt that is the case though.


I am thinking that wire, although transparent in itself, can be doing other things in the non-audio spectrum.

I see the wire as an extension of the amplification circuit, which, depending on design, can be affected.

Take an average 6foot headphone cable with so many braided strands we are looking at a field day of overall wire length.

 Maybe acting like a nice antenna (!) or how any capacitance, or inductance, or various interference (like RF), or contributing  oscillations to the circuit.

All that can happen in the non-audio spectrum, and can adversely affect a circuit.

Also it could be measured, so that would be a nice test to do .


----------



## Davesrose

One could always bring up the infamous blind test of Monster speaker cables vs coat hangers....and there not being a statistical difference.  I don't believe in the audiophoolery of spending hundreds to even thousands of dollars on interconnects and power cords.  To me, the main issue I run into is interference.  I know professional settings are likely to require XLR cables for long runs.  I'm in a metropolitan area and my house is near a radio tower: so I have a lot of RF interference.  I have had a home theater receiver that picked up the radio station until I got a power strip that had an appropriate RF filter.  My Single Power headphone amp will pick up the radio station if I raise its texture knob (best I can tell is that it's a feedback and my headphone cable acts as an antenna).  I have had to get a ground loop isolator for my subwoofer.  For my amplified speakers, regular 16 gauge speaker wire was fine....though recently when upgrading to 7.1.4 went ahead and got Amazon copper 14 gauge (as it was priced right and color coded).  Not sure I could tell any difference with old 16 vs current 14 for any audible reasons (general guidelines for them are how many feet for your rear surrounds): and I'm in a situation that accounts for less than ideal situations.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Davesrose said:


> One could always bring up the infamous blind test of Monster speaker cables vs coat hangers....and there not being a statistical difference.  I don't believe in the audiophoolery of spending hundreds to even thousands of dollars on interconnects and power cords.  To me, the main issue I run into is interference.  I know professional settings are likely to require XLR cables for long runs.  I'm in a metropolitan area and my house is near a radio tower: so I have a lot of RF interference.  I have had a home theater receiver that picked up the radio station until I got a power strip that had an appropriate RF filter.  My Single Power headphone amp will pick up the radio station if I raise its texture knob (best I can tell is that it's a feedback and my headphone cable acts as an antenna).  I have had to get a ground loop isolator for my subwoofer.  For my amplified speakers, regular 16 gauge speaker wire was fine....though recently when upgrading to 7.1.4 went ahead and got Amazon copper 14 gauge (as it was priced right and color coded).  Not sure I could tell any difference with old 16 vs current 14 for any audible reasons (general guidelines for them are how many feet for your rear surrounds): and I'm in a situation that accounts for less than ideal situations.



I have no trouble believing that a coat hanger may sound better than monster cable.


----------



## jarcher

I don't understand why there's such a need for some people in the audiophile enthusiast community to "convince" people.  It's a hobby, not scientific fact or religion.  Well, maybe "religion" for some.  

Re: cables - people are free to try them out, and if they can't (or don't wan't) to hear a difference or vice-versa, then that's really up to them and their wallet.  Spending a lot of time and effort fruitlessly trying to convince the "other camp" seems pointless and a recipe for frustration.


----------



## SilentNote

jarcher said:


> I don't understand why there's such a need for some people in the audiophile enthusiast community to "convince" people.  It's a hobby, not scientific fact or religion.  Well, maybe "religion" for some.
> 
> Re: cables - people are free to try them out, and if they can't (or don't wan't) to hear a difference or vice-versa, then that's really up to them and their wallet.  Spending a lot of time and effort fruitlessly trying to convince the "other camp" seems pointless and a recipe for frustration.



"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." 

That's the gist of this thread, and a large part of the audiophile community.


----------



## jarcher

SilentNote said:


> "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."
> 
> That's the gist of this thread, and a large part of the audiophile community.



Even if someone's been "fooled", they mostly they have to figure that out for themselves.  Trying to tell people they've been "fooled" I find is one of the less agreeable aspects of the audiophile community, especially when it comes from limited personal experience or expertise.  

There are so many thing that I've found over the last 5 years that can make substantial sound quality differences that I would never have thought possible. I've had the good fortune to try many of them out without having to buy them - so there's no "confirmation bias" because I spent my money on them.  And often times it is just that - "differences" - not always improvements.  Just a different sound, that I may or may not like at any given time, or may or may not be worth the money in my opinion.  But in most cases they HAVE made a DIFFERENCE, and so I haven't denied that, particularly in advance of actual direct experience with it.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

jarcher said:


> I don't understand why there's such a need for some people in the audiophile enthusiast community to "convince" people.  It's a hobby, not scientific fact or religion.  Well, maybe "religion" for some.
> 
> Re: cables - people are free to try them out, and if they can't (or don't wan't) to hear a difference or vice-versa, then that's really up to them and their wallet.  Spending a lot of time and effort fruitlessly trying to convince the "other camp" seems pointless and a recipe for frustration.



what's wrong with accurate, true information?  What if its a fact that expensive cables costing hundreds of dollars actually offer no benefit at all over decent $20 cables and the companies selling those expensive cables on the basis that they offer tangible benefits are lying in order to sell product?  Is there not value in at least having true information out there for people who may not be aware of the facts?  I mean this isn't religion.  It's science.  There is actual, real science behind the way wire conducts energy.  It can all be measured.  And there are relatively easy ways to test whether or not there are tangible benefits to these things - DBTs for instance.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

jarcher said:


> Even if someone's been "fooled", they mostly they have to figure that out for themselves.  Trying to tell people they've been "fooled" I find is one of the less agreeable aspects of the audiophile community, especially when it comes from limited personal experience or expertise.
> 
> There are so many thing that I've found over the last 5 years that can make substantial sound quality differences that I would never have thought possible. I've had the good fortune to try many of them out without having to buy them - so there's no "confirmation bias" because I spent my money on them.  And often times it is just that - "differences" - not always improvements.  Just a different sound, that I may or may not like at any given time, or may or may not be worth the money in my opinion.  But in most cases they HAVE made a DIFFERENCE, and so I haven't denied that, particularly in advance of actual direct experience with it.




So you've found cables that sound different from cheaper cables?  Have you done any actual testing to see if those differences were real or imagined?


----------



## bigshot

No one here is trying to convince anyone. They’re simply pointing out relevant facts. The main relevant fact is that perception is fallible. If you don’t put basic controls on your comparisons- specifically line level matching, direct A/B switching and blind testing- your conclusions are pretty much worthless to anyone but yourself. Bias is real. Perceptual error is real. Everyone is subject to them. If you do a sloppy comparison, you get incorrect results. Stack up a half dozen of these complete misconceptions, and reenforce them with your ego, and you can officially call yourself an audiophile.


----------



## SilentNote

jarcher said:


> Even if someone's been "fooled", they mostly they have to figure that out for themselves.  Trying to tell people they've been "fooled" I find is one of the less agreeable aspects of the audiophile community, especially when it comes from limited personal experience or expertise.
> 
> There are so many thing that I've found over the last 5 years that can make substantial sound quality differences that I would never have thought possible. I've had the good fortune to try many of them out without having to buy them - so there's no "confirmation bias" because I spent my money on them.  And often times it is just that - "differences" - not always improvements.  Just a different sound, that I may or may not like at any given time, or may or may not be worth the money in my opinion.  But in most cases they HAVE made a DIFFERENCE, and so I haven't denied that, particularly in advance of actual direct experience with it.



Some people don't find being agreeable to deception and deceit an option.

I don't think anyone here has any qualms about someone wanting to buy that placebo, but it's the dishonest marketing that annoys many here.

And no, you are not going to silence us with your "agreeableness".


----------



## jarcher

bigshot said:


> No one here is trying to convince anyone. They’re simply pointing out relevant facts. The main relevant fact is that perception is fallible. If you don’t put basic controls on your comparisons- specifically line level matching, direct A/B switching and blind testing- your conclusions are pretty much worthless to anyone but yourself. Bias is real. Perceptual error is real. Everyone is subject to them. If you do a sloppy comparison, you get incorrect results. Stack up a half dozen of these complete misconceptions, and reenforce them with your ego, and you can officially call yourself an audiophile.



The title of this thread is "How do I CONVINCE people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference".  So at least ONE person IS trying to convince someone. In fact many people are trying to convince people : i.e. that they have the "facts" or the scientifically accurate and rigid way to establish these things (i.e. the audibility of cable differences, etc).

But the "fact" is that ALL listening "tests" are ultimately subjective however supposedly rigid the experimental parameters are and that "bias" - for OR against - is going to factor prominently.  In one well known experiment speaker cables experiment - A/B / blind / etc - with "cable believers" and "non-believers", the actual experiment was to hook up the SAME speaker in and out of phase vs actually changing speaker cables, which is what attendees were told would happen.  The cable "non-believers" all said they could hear no difference, despite having a speaker hooked up out of phase is very noticeable to even most lay people.

Therefore "sloppy" comparisons are ok - because at the end of the day - that's all we really have and all we can really expect, PARTICULARLY from the lay enthusiast who can not honestly be expected to perform elaborate and supposedly "rigid" listening experiments, which ultimately are not going to satisfy anyone on either side of the fence, and therefore would be pointless.  

Furthermore, I contend that if enough people seem to have a similar opinion of the sound quality of say a particular cable, that's about as good a result as you can expect.  No elaborate DBTs etc required.


----------



## joesuburb

Can we ridicule people that think you have to break-in digital components in this thread or do we need a new one?


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (Aug 16, 2019)

jarcher said:


> The title of this thread is "How do I CONVINCE people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference".  So at least ONE person IS trying to convince someone. In fact many people are trying to convince people : i.e. that they have the "facts" or the scientifically accurate and rigid way to establish these things (i.e. the audibility of cable differences, etc).
> 
> But the "fact" is that ALL listening "tests" are ultimately subjective however supposedly rigid the experimental parameters are and that "bias" - for OR against - is going to factor prominently.  In one well known experiment speaker cables experiment - A/B / blind / etc - with "cable believers" and "non-believers", the actual experiment was to hook up the SAME speaker in and out of phase vs actually changing speaker cables, which is what attendees were told would happen.  The cable "non-believers" all said they could hear no difference, despite having a speaker hooked up out of phase is very noticeable to even most lay people.
> 
> ...



OK, then you don't need to hang around the SOUND SCIENCE forum then I guess.  It's not like we're venturing into other areas here trying to rain on peoples parade...

Oh, and introducing bias is no way to conduct a dbt btw.  All the experiment you refer to did was further prove the case that bias matters - which is one of the primary points being made here. (and that's aside from the fact that there's no actual proof anywhere that the experiment even happened.  It was an anecdote told by a salesman.)


----------



## bigshot (Aug 16, 2019)

jarcher said:


> The title of this thread is "How do I CONVINCE people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference".  So at least ONE person IS trying to convince someone..



You’ll have to take that up with the original poster.

As for your God given right to post your subjective impressions... No one is denying you that. You can type long winded diatribes to your heart’s content. No one is stopping you. We’re just exercising our right to point out the areas where you don’t know what you’re talking about. Lord knows you aren’t the only person on the internet claiming things that clearly aren’t true.

The thing you don’t seem to understand is that you’re posting in sound science right now. If you put your hand on your heart and make an impassioned speech defending the right to be ignorant, it might go over well in other parts of head-fi, but sound science is a different audience with different standards. If you aren’t willing to lurk and figure out the lay of the land before emitting your I’ll conceived rant, you shouldn’t expect that you won’t be brusquely contradicted.


----------



## castleofargh

jarcher said:


> I don't understand why there's such a need for some people in the audiophile enthusiast community to "convince" people.  It's a hobby, not scientific fact or religion.  Well, maybe "religion" for some.
> 
> Re: cables - people are free to try them out, and if they can't (or don't wan't) to hear a difference or vice-versa, then that's really up to them and their wallet.  Spending a lot of time and effort fruitlessly trying to convince the "other camp" seems pointless and a recipe for frustration.


I have a few ideas:
- not wanting this hobby that we love to remain the go to example of human gullibility for everybody around the world.
- trying to help someone when you see him ready to make a mistake.
- just having some basic interest in the truth.



jarcher said:


> Even if someone's been "fooled", they mostly they have to figure that out for themselves. Trying to tell people they've been "fooled" I find is one of the less agreeable aspects of the audiophile community, especially when it comes from limited personal experience or expertise.


then what is your alternative? when we read something false, should we grab some popcorn and just enjoy the show? is that what anybody with some understanding of a topic should do in your opinion? because people in general don't like being told that they're wrong or ignorant on a topic, we must be careful not to cause any discomfort? 
if I'm wrong about something and someone who knows it doesn't warn me, I might remain wrong about that for a long time. I might drag other people into believing me on this because they like me or whatever. what I can tell you is that I do not wish for this to happen to me. if one day I get to learn the truth, that you knew all along and didn't bother trying to convince me that I was wrong, I'll hate your guts for the rest of my life. I couldn't forgive someone who knew and left me in my own crap anyway.
that's just me and sure enough, other people will have other views on this. as a counter example, I know several people IRL who are deflecting masters. everything is someone else's fault, they're never wrong will never consider or admit being wrong no matter the circumstances. such people do not want others to point out when they're wrong on a subject. of course they do not care to see a solid demonstration of the facts. IRL I just limit my interactions with them. on a forum, I will from time to time react to their posts because I'm thinking about everybody else on the forum who doesn't deserve to get dragged into myths and legends by some guy who can't handle cognitive dissonance but loves to make claims anyway.



jarcher said:


> There are so many thing that I've found over the last 5 years that can make substantial sound quality differences that I would never have thought possible. I've had the good fortune to try many of them out without having to buy them - so there's no "confirmation bias" because I spent my money on them. And often times it is just that - "differences" - not always improvements. Just a different sound, that I may or may not like at any given time, or may or may not be worth the money in my opinion. But in most cases they HAVE made a DIFFERENCE, and so I haven't denied that, particularly in advance of actual direct experience with it.


 it's fine to value self experience, but as far as audio technology and understanding of audio, electricity, acoustic, or humans goes, if you didn't have the knowledge from previous generations to help you skip discovering it all on your own, right now your total understanding would be barely above that of a monkey. I don't need to try hundreds of audio cables to accept that the electrical rules as defined over the last century will apply to the circuit. making some things possible and other impossible. when someone claims that the impossible stuff is happening with his cable, I don't need to go purchase a ludicrous "audiophile" cable to try for myself before posting that he's wrong.  
you're giving way too much value to personal subjective experience here. even if all of that personal listening experience was acquired through well setup and well controlled experiments, you would still be wrong to assume that it's your best source of knowledge. it is one source, one with pretty poor value if you don't bother controlling anything. 



jarcher said:


> The title of this thread is "How do I CONVINCE people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference".  So at least ONE person IS trying to convince someone. In fact many people are trying to convince people : i.e. that they have the "facts" or the scientifically accurate and rigid way to establish these things (i.e. the audibility of cable differences, etc).
> 
> But the "fact" is that ALL listening "tests" are ultimately subjective however supposedly rigid the experimental parameters are and that "bias" - for OR against - is going to factor prominently.  In one well known experiment speaker cables experiment - A/B / blind / etc - with "cable believers" and "non-believers", the actual experiment was to hook up the SAME speaker in and out of phase vs actually changing speaker cables, which is what attendees were told would happen.  The cable "non-believers" all said they could hear no difference, despite having a speaker hooked up out of phase is very noticeable to even most lay people.
> 
> ...


you're wrong and what's sloppiest here is your reasoning. but instead of trying to convince you as you clearly do not care for it, or proper demonstration, or truth. I'll simply ask, why do you feel the need to try and convince people that they shouldn't try to convince people?


----------



## gregorio (Aug 16, 2019)

jarcher said:


> It's a hobby, not scientific fact or religion.



No it's not. It might be a hobby to you but for others it's a profession and/or a business. You think maybe Sennheiser make audiophile headphones for a hobby? Whether you like it or not, it's all based on science.


jarcher said:


> [1] So at least ONE person IS trying to convince someone.
> [2] But the "fact" is that ALL listening "tests" are ultimately subjective however supposedly rigid the experimental parameters are and that "bias" - for OR against - is going to factor prominently.
> [3] Therefore "sloppy" comparisons are ok - because at the end of the day - that's all we really have ....
> [4] Furthermore, I contend that if enough people seem to have a similar opinion of the sound quality of say a particular cable, that's about as good a result as you can expect.



1. Yes, one person was but if you actually read the thread, you'll see the OP was quickly told that you can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced, so there's no point trying anyway.

2. But the fact is, all chocolate bars taste good. You see, it's easy to just make up a false and/or completely unrelated "fact"! Firstly, you don't seem to understand that the whole point of a DBT is to remove bias. There can be no "for" or "against" bias if you don't know when/if there is a change. With a half decent DBT both those "for" and those "against" perform the same! Secondly, your false "fact" is irrelevant anyway because...

3. This too is false. We have actual objective measurements!

4. That might be as good you as you expect but it's absolutely no where near as good as we or science expects. This is the "sound science" forum, not the "what jarcher (falsely) contents or expects" forum!

G


----------



## baskingshark

Hi I'm not very experienced with cables and measurements, but would like to ask a few questions:

1) Does the number of cores of a cable make a difference eg 4, 8, 16? I know it affects impedence but is it that significant in real life to cause a perceivable difference in sound?

2) Why do some audiophiles buy cables that cost $1000+? One of my audiophile friends was showing me his $1K cable a few days ago and I was stunned (of course his IEM cost $2K). Personally, I won't spend more than $20 USD on cables. I know the look and feel are different but $1K?? I could get some TOTL IEMs/headphones with that amount of cash.

TIA!


----------



## jarcher

Woah : didn't know I had walked into the hornets nest of the empiricist wing of audiophiledom! 

Look - neither I nor anyone else should be expected to wade through  over 100 pages to this thread and "lurk" for however long for the "privilege" of responding to a thread title that makes the arrogant and moronic assertion "how do I convince people that audio cables do not make a difference". Understand that If something like that is up : it's click bait, particularly for a newbie.  And it's going to attract dissent, not just people who want to join in the circle jerk.

I've already spent too much time and effort providing detailed and scientifically valid reasons why cables can and do make an audible difference - and even beyond the usual LCR reasons. I even offered to put those doubters directly into contact with cable designers so they can raise their doubts and questions DIRECTLY to the people they are questioning.  I've yet to have any of those people taken me up on that offer.  

Usually the responses devolve instead into ad hominen attacks, straw "snake oil" merchant claims and / or shifting goal posts of what is considered sufficient proof to "satisfy" the "prosecution", and from the same people who claim to be motivated by the pursuit of "truth" and "science" as they narrowly understand it.  I'm not interested anymore in engaging the armchair junior electrical engineer who thinks they understand all the principles and what's relevant or not to understanding what real "audio science" or not. 

All of which is reason why I"m not going to try and start down that road again here and now.  

Frankly with very rare exceptions hardly anyone in the hifi business is trying to make a living actively peddling lies and deceptions.  If you really want to make a living doing that or get rich, there are frankly a thousand easier tried and true ways to do that than "audiophile snake oil merchant".  So many "audio science truth warriors" simply slashing their swords around at straw men.

Which is why the point of my first post was to say : we don't need "convincing" from "audio truth saviors".  We are adults and are allowed to spend our money how we like - and yes - even to make mistakes.  And better yet - to share those subjective experiences, positive and negative. THAT'S why we go on forums such as this one. Ie to share experiences about what we are interested in.  NOT to have someone so called "expert" try to convince me in the name of holy science that I or others cant possibly be experiencing what we have and need to be brought to "truth" PARTICULARLY by many people who actually have very limited understanding of the science they think they understand fully.

My suggestion: if you don't want to invite discussion and dissension on the ridiculous premise of this thread, then this whole thread should be binned permanently.  Otherwise don't be surprised if I and others again in the future do walk in and call out the BS.


----------



## Davesrose

jarcher said:


> Woah : didn't know I had walked into the hornets nest of the empiricist wing of audiophiledom!



So in your opinion, is there an audible difference between a $1,000 power cable vs $10 one?


----------



## SilentNote

jarcher said:


> The title of this thread is "How do I CONVINCE people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference".  So at least ONE person IS trying to convince someone. In fact many people are trying to convince people : i.e. that they have the "facts" or the scientifically accurate and rigid way to establish these things (i.e. the audibility of cable differences, etc).
> 
> But the "fact" is that ALL listening "tests" are ultimately subjective however supposedly rigid the experimental parameters are and that "bias" - for OR against - is going to factor prominently.  In one well known experiment speaker cables experiment - A/B / blind / etc - with "cable believers" and "non-believers", the actual experiment was to hook up the SAME speaker in and out of phase vs actually changing speaker cables, which is what attendees were told would happen.  The cable "non-believers" all said they could hear no difference, despite having a speaker hooked up out of phase is very noticeable to even most lay people.
> 
> ...



That is not a well designed study. That is deliberately introducing bias into the study. The only conclusion you can draw from that study is that bias affects people's perception.

Double blinded ABX conducted by yourself is mostly for YOURSELF to learn about what you can and cannot appreciate.

If you're proving for the general public, a proper study is required with control group and other considerstions - I'm no audio scientist so I don't know how to design one but I know that a simple self administered ABX won't bring about a conclusion for the general public.


----------



## SilentNote (Aug 17, 2019)

jarcher said:


> I've already spent too much time and effort providing detailed and scientifically valid reasons why cables can and do make an audible difference - and even beyond the usual LCR reasons. I even offered to put those doubters directly into contact with cable designers so they can raise their doubts and questions DIRECTLY to the people they are questioning.  I've yet to have any of those people taken me up on that offer.



No you have not. You did not even leave a link for us to follow where you have placed these efforts of yours. You can't expect us to be able to find that ourselves, or expect us to believe you have did such things by just stating them.



jarcher said:


> Usually the responses devolve instead into ad hominen attacks, straw "snake oil" merchant claims and / or shifting goal posts of what is considered sufficient proof to "satisfy" the "prosecution", and from the same people who claim to be motivated by the pursuit of "truth" and "science" as they narrowly understand it.  I'm not interested anymore in engaging the armchair junior electrical engineer who thinks they understand all the principles and what's relevant or not to understanding what real "audio science" or not.
> 
> All of which is reason why I"m not going to try and start down that road again here and now.


You are doing exactly just that, devolving into ad hominem and straw man arguments here.



jarcher said:


> Frankly with very rare exceptions hardly anyone in the hifi business is trying to make a living actively peddling lies and deceptions.  If you really want to make a living doing that or get rich, there are frankly a thousand easier tried and true ways to do that than "audiophile snake oil merchant".  So many "audio science truth warriors" simply slashing their swords around at straw men.


You are entitled to your opinion. There's no "audio science truth warriors" here, so another straw man.



jarcher said:


> Which is why the point of my first post was to say : we don't need "convincing" from "audio truth saviors".  We are adults and are allowed to spend our money how we like - and yes - even to make mistakes.  And better yet - to share those subjective experiences, positive and negative. THAT'S why we go on forums such as this one. Ie to share experiences about what we are interested in.  NOT to have someone so called "expert" try to convince me in the name of holy science that I or others cant possibly be experiencing what we have and need to be brought to "truth" PARTICULARLY by many people who actually have very limited understanding of the science they think they understand fully.



Sure, just keep that idiocy loving attitude to yourself and not rub off someone else. We certainly don't need you "convincing" people to be ignorant. We have enough idiophiles as it stands and could use more audiophiles. Seeing that this is an audiophile forum.

And by the way, another straw man, and perhaps some ad-hominem here.



jarcher said:


> My suggestion: if you don't want to invite discussion and dissension on the ridiculous premise of this thread, then this whole thread should be binned permanently.  Otherwise don't be surprised if I and others again in the future do walk in and call out the BS.


My suggestion: if you don't want to be open and receptive of other's perspectives, and just want to shove down ridiculous ideas you have preconceived, don't expect people to be "agreeable" and just accept what you say; and when people don't, accusing them of not listening when you are the one who is so held on to your own beliefs, is not going to go anywhere.

In my humble opinion, you are ridiculous and hypocritical. When you say we should not be convincing people, here you are doing the exact same thing to convince us of your opinion, and not even doing it nicely.


----------



## Sonic Defender (Aug 17, 2019)

I think we should crowd fund enough money to fly some of these cable believers somewhere to have proper blind listening tests done. Sorry, I love this hobby, but if any of you think that your hearing brain is sensitive enough to tell the difference between cables, well, you are quite deluded. Seriously people, blind listening, multiple trials, level matched volume, you couldn't tell the difference between a $1000 cable and a properly constructed $30 cable. Not a chance, not ever. Additionally, in order to have any confidence in the results, subjects would need to correctly identify the "special" cables with at least 90% accuracy over many trials.


----------



## LaughMoreDaily

So you are saying all audio cables make recorded music sound the same? The different metals, varying amounts of quality, different lengths, etc?


----------



## Sonic Defender (Aug 17, 2019)

LaughMoreDaily said:


> So you are saying all audio cables make recorded music sound the same? The different metals, varying amounts of quality, different lengths, etc?


Yes, there is ABSOLUTELY NO audible difference made by the metal type. Length of cable? Do you mean like the long runs in a studio setting? You really can't be suggesting that your hearing brain is so incredibly sensitive to the point that these infinitesimally small measurable differences that can be seen (seen not heard) somehow become suddenly audible just because of the length of the wire? All of these notions of audible differences seem to suggest that you could possibly discern the inaudible while your brain is engage with decoding the actual signal, the music.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

jarcher said:


> Woah : didn't know I had walked into the hornets nest of the empiricist wing of audiophiledom!
> 
> Look - neither I nor anyone else should be expected to wade through  over 100 pages to this thread and "lurk" for however long for the "privilege" of responding to a thread title that makes the arrogant and moronic assertion "how do I convince people that audio cables do not make a difference". Understand that If something like that is up : it's click bait, particularly for a newbie.  And it's going to attract dissent, not just people who want to join in the circle jerk.
> 
> I've already spent too much time and effort providing detailed and scientifically valid reasons why cables can and do make an audible difference - and even beyond the usual LCR reasons. I even offered to put those doubters directly into contact with cable designers so they can raise their doubts and questions DIRECTLY to the people they are questioning.  I've yet to have any of those people taken me up on that offer.



Hey we're here to learn.  Point us to a study somewhere (other than a sales pitch by a cable manufacturer) that shows the merit of boutique cables over standard (non-defective of course) cables.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 17, 2019)

jarcher said:


> Frankly with very rare exceptions hardly anyone in the hifi business is trying to make a living actively peddling lies and deceptions.



I take it you are a high end audio salesman of some sort? You seem to have knowledge of how high end audio salesmen think and operate. And you're in direct contact with high end cable manufacturers?


----------



## SpeakerBox

Waiting for the next flogging.  Great entertainment.  Get some popcorn and make a day of it!


----------



## castleofargh

Sonic Defender said:


> Yes, there is ABSOLUTELY NO audible difference made by the metal type. Length of cable? Do you mean like the long runs in a studio setting? You really can't be suggesting that your hearing brain is so incredibly sensitive to the point that these infinitesimally small measurable differences that can be seen (seen not heard) somehow become suddenly audible just because of the length of the wire? All of these notions of audible differences seem to suggest that you could possibly discern the inaudible while your brain is engage with decoding the actual signal, the music.


that's incorrect. you can find many instances where we'll be able to perceive a difference. of course it will depend on many variables and those variables will usually have no reason to be significantly different in the first place. like if 2 devices are 800m away from one another, the conversation about how a 1m cable might result in audible differences compared to the 900m cable is pointless. same with how a given interconnect has no reason to be vastly different from the standard of that particular type of cable(unless done wrong on purpose), so wondering if a 6000ohm USB cable would affect the sound is also irrelevant in practice because a USB cable should not have that impedance. 
this makes for a sort of self prophecy where cables within the standard will not significantly affect the sound compared to other similar cables for the very simple reason that they will have similar electrical specs. in that respect, I'm with you that worrying about cables is often a waste of time, and spending big money on cable is almost always a waste of money. 
but I've had IEM cables causing clearly audible differences, starting by the most obvious, a difference in overall loudness, or if the IEM has a chaotic impedance curve, a difference in the FR. that is helped by how little standards we have for such cables, and how we have even fewer standards for DAP outputs and IEM specs. the bigger the mess, the more likely we are to end up with something acting up in a more significant way. it can and does happen. it probably shouldn't and will usually not amount to anything more than inserting my IEM slightly deeper or changing the tips, but audibility is not out of the picture all the time. 

about all the nonsensical claims of causality between the metal and a certain way the sound is going to be affected, I'm fed up with it. although it's certainly a very good example of a popular logical fallacy where a vague sense of correlation suddenly implies causation.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

castleofargh said:


> that's incorrect. you can find many instances where we'll be able to perceive a difference. of course it will depend on many variables and those variables will usually have no reason to be significantly different in the first place. like if 2 devices are 800m away from one another, the conversation about how a 1m cable might result in audible differences compared to the 900m cable is pointless. same with how a given interconnect has no reason to be vastly different from the standard of that particular type of cable(unless done wrong on purpose), so wondering if a 6000ohm USB cable would affect the sound is also irrelevant in practice because a USB cable should not have that impedance.
> this makes for a sort of self prophecy where cables within the standard will not significantly affect the sound compared to other similar cables for the very simple reason that they will have similar electrical specs. in that respect, I'm with you that worrying about cables is often a waste of time, and spending big money on cable is almost always a waste of money.
> but I've had IEM cables causing clearly audible differences, starting by the most obvious, a difference in overall loudness, or if the IEM has a chaotic impedance curve, a difference in the FR. that is helped by how little standards we have for such cables, and how we have even fewer standards for DAP outputs and IEM specs. the bigger the mess, the more likely we are to end up with something acting up in a more significant way. it can and does happen. it probably shouldn't and will usually not amount to anything more than inserting my IEM slightly deeper or changing the tips, but audibility is not out of the picture all the time.
> 
> about all the nonsensical claims of causality between the metal and a certain way the sound is going to be affected, I'm fed up with it. although it's certainly a very good example of a popular logical fallacy where a vague sense of correlation suddenly implies causation.



Wow! A leveled response that doesn’t sound ideologically driven! Color me pleasantly shocked.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> that's incorrect. you can find many instances where we'll be able to perceive a difference. of course it will depend on many variables and those variables will usually have no reason to be significantly different in the first place. like if 2 devices are 800m away from one another, the conversation about how a 1m cable might result in audible differences compared to the 900m cable is pointless. same with how a given interconnect has no reason to be vastly different from the standard of that particular type of cable(unless done wrong on purpose), so wondering if a 6000ohm USB cable would affect the sound is also irrelevant in practice because a USB cable should not have that impedance.
> this makes for a sort of self prophecy where cables within the standard will not significantly affect the sound compared to other similar cables for the very simple reason that they will have similar electrical specs. in that respect, I'm with you that worrying about cables is often a waste of time, and spending big money on cable is almost always a waste of money.
> but I've had IEM cables causing clearly audible differences, starting by the most obvious, a difference in overall loudness, or if the IEM has a chaotic impedance curve, a difference in the FR. that is helped by how little standards we have for such cables, and how we have even fewer standards for DAP outputs and IEM specs. the bigger the mess, the more likely we are to end up with something acting up in a more significant way. it can and does happen. it probably shouldn't and will usually not amount to anything more than inserting my IEM slightly deeper or changing the tips, but audibility is not out of the picture all the time.
> 
> about all the nonsensical claims of causality between the metal and a certain way the sound is going to be affected, I'm fed up with it. although it's certainly a very good example of a popular logical fallacy where a vague sense of correlation suddenly implies causation.



The math showing how a cable can make an audible difference is no mystery with analog signals.  If the measurements can be provided, the difference can be calculated. 

https://www.electrovoice.com/cableloss.php

For digital signals, there are specifications that should be adhered to for the specific application.  Again, all of these parameters can be measured and verified. 

The problem I see is mostly with perspective.  Most people refer to the cable as changing the sound when something is noticeably different, but it is typical that some distortion is already present, only that perhaps some cables allow this distortion to be audible.  The distinction is important when discussions are made concerning how different cables can improve sound quality.  Is the problem the cable or the source of the distortion?


----------



## Sonic Defender

castleofargh said:


> that's incorrect. you can find many instances where we'll be able to perceive a difference. of course it will depend on many variables and those variables will usually have no reason to be significantly different in the first place. like if 2 devices are 800m away from one another, the conversation about how a 1m cable might result in audible differences compared to the 900m cable is pointless. same with how a given interconnect has no reason to be vastly different from the standard of that particular type of cable(unless done wrong on purpose), so wondering if a 6000ohm USB cable would affect the sound is also irrelevant in practice because a USB cable should not have that impedance.
> this makes for a sort of self prophecy where cables within the standard will not significantly affect the sound compared to other similar cables for the very simple reason that they will have similar electrical specs. in that respect, I'm with you that worrying about cables is often a waste of time, and spending big money on cable is almost always a waste of money.
> but I've had IEM cables causing clearly audible differences, starting by the most obvious, a difference in overall loudness, or if the IEM has a chaotic impedance curve, a difference in the FR. that is helped by how little standards we have for such cables, and how we have even fewer standards for DAP outputs and IEM specs. the bigger the mess, the more likely we are to end up with something acting up in a more significant way. it can and does happen. it probably shouldn't and will usually not amount to anything more than inserting my IEM slightly deeper or changing the tips, but audibility is not out of the picture all the time.
> 
> about all the nonsensical claims of causality between the metal and a certain way the sound is going to be affected, I'm fed up with it. although it's certainly a very good example of a popular logical fallacy where a vague sense of correlation suddenly implies causation.


I don't agree, I am talking about in real-life audio listening, not research based experiments of length of cable runs that exceed what any reasonable person will ever encounter in home audio. And to be very clear, my all in caps absolutely no difference was referring specifically to metal types.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sonitus mirus said:


> The math showing how a cable can make an audible difference is no mystery with analog signals.  If the measurements can be provided, the difference can be calculated.
> 
> https://www.electrovoice.com/cableloss.php
> 
> ...


That doesn't mean a calculated difference is audible. Think about the sensitivity of the hearing system and the concept of minimal difference thresholds for detection. In your hand hold a single baby bird down feather. Can you really feel the weight? Add a second one, then a third. Each new feather adds weight that can be measured, but your brain is less sensitive to these tiny changes and only at a certain threshold can a difference be detected by the brain. Hearing is like that as well. Very, very, very small differences can be measured by devices, that does not imply our hearing brain is equally sensitive and it is a common fallacy to assume that it is. Just because you can measure it, doesn't mean that you can hear it.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Sonic Defender said:


> That doesn't mean a calculated difference is audible. Think about the sensitivity of the hearing system and the concept of minimal difference thresholds for detection. In your hand hold a single baby bird down feather. Can you really feel the weight? Add a second one, then a third. Each new feather adds weight that can be measured, but your brain is less sensitive to these tiny changes and only at a certain threshold can a difference be detected by the brain. Hearing is like that as well. Very, very, very small differences can be measured by devices, that does not imply our hearing brain is equally sensitive and it is a common fallacy to assume that it is. Just because you can measure it, doesn't mean that you can hear it.



I completely agree.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I was attempting to show that any audible changes would require a significantly different cable with regards to its physical properties.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Aug 17, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> that's incorrect. you can find many instances where we'll be able to perceive a difference. of course it will depend on many variables and those variables will usually have no reason to be significantly different in the first place. like if 2 devices are 800m away from one another, the conversation about how a 1m cable might result in audible differences compared to the 900m cable is pointless. same with how a given interconnect has no reason to be vastly different from the standard of that particular type of cable(unless done wrong on purpose), so wondering if a 6000ohm USB cable would affect the sound is also irrelevant in practice because a USB cable should not have that impedance.
> this makes for a sort of self prophecy where cables within the standard will not significantly affect the sound compared to other similar cables for the very simple reason that they will have similar electrical specs. in that respect, I'm with you that worrying about cables is often a waste of time, and spending big money on cable is almost always a waste of money.
> but I've had IEM cables causing clearly audible differences, starting by the most obvious, a difference in overall loudness, or if the IEM has a chaotic impedance curve, a difference in the FR. that is helped by how little standards we have for such cables, and how we have even fewer standards for DAP outputs and IEM specs. the bigger the mess, the more likely we are to end up with something acting up in a more significant way. it can and does happen. it probably shouldn't and will usually not amount to anything more than inserting my IEM slightly deeper or changing the tips, but audibility is not out of the picture all the time.
> 
> about all the nonsensical claims of causality between the metal and a certain way the sound is going to be affected, I'm fed up with it. although it's certainly a very good example of a popular logical fallacy where a vague sense of correlation suddenly implies causation.




Hold on:  If I am sitting in an equilateral triangle with two speakers(8 feet beween the speakers, and eight feet from my seated position from both speakers), the amp/receiver sitting in between the speakers, with almost an entire 50' roll of AWG18 basic speaker wire going to the left speaker, and a more reasonable 10' of that same AWG18 wire to the right speaker, you'd dam well better believe I expect the right speaker to be at least a couple dB louder.

On the other hand, if I wire the left speaker with 10' of boutique cable cost me at least $10/foot, and 10' of the same AWG18 basic wire to the right speaker, as above, I'd probably be hard-pressed to measure - let alone hear - any difference(volume, tonal quality, etc.) whatsoever.


----------



## Sonic Defender

sonitus mirus said:


> I completely agree.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I was attempting to show that any audible changes would require a significantly different cable with regards to its physical properties.


Gotcha, my bad. Cheers.


----------



## castleofargh

Sonic Defender said:


> I don't agree, I am talking about in real-life audio listening, not research based experiments of length of cable runs that exceed what any reasonable person will ever encounter in home audio. And to be very clear, my all in caps absolutely no difference was referring specifically to metal types.


but it is real life. we're at a point with portable gears where IEMs can have the impedance of a pair of speakers while going loud with 2mV. it's a mess. my very first experience of cables(beside defective ones) making a noticeable difference was with a security door at my local grocery store. out of 2 cables for my overly sensitive customs, one would end up causing a significantly louder noise when passing that door(to the point that I got scared of passing it with my IEM in my ears, so.... louder!). I can only make educated guesses as to why, with a different DAP all was almost completely quiet. yes it's a weird anecdote and it most certainly involved weird gears. but it was with pretty famous gear discussed on headfi and it definitely was real life stuff. 
the first 1000$ IEM cable I got to try, was especially made for a given IEM, and to this day I don't know what the hell it was or what were the electrical specs, but the change in loudness and frequency response was so obvious, I'm talking several dB without a doubt. it was a literal EQ cable for that IEM. was it worth the price? of course not. plus it was on the fat side, and it was super stiff. you'd have to pay me to go out with that mess plugged to my IEM. and again, yes it's just a super weird anecdote, but again it's a weird anecdote about a popular product. and I'm me, by that I mean that I didn't actively seek differences or weirdo... I mean audiophile cables. I can only imagine the strange stuff that regular consumers of that type of gears came to experience over the years.

I'm obviously not trying to make a case for expensive cables and saying "go get that cable it will expend your soundstage and tighten your bass". you can see how weird my examples are on purpose. my point is simply that audible differences are possible even with readily available audio gears. and because of that, we shouldn't act like those cases do not exist. and that's really as far as I plan to go. to me cables are just cables, I want them to have about the right specs for my use and I'm happy. if I'm being honest, I also tend to care about the plugs more than the rest of the cable. but my concerns with plugs aren't audibility so it's irrelevant.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 18, 2019)

Sonic Defender said:


> I don't agree, I am talking about in real-life audio listening, not research based experiments of length of cable runs that exceed what any reasonable person will ever encounter in home audio. And to be very clear, my all in caps absolutely no difference was referring specifically to metal types.



I'm with Sonic Defender on this. When someone asks if cables with different kinds of metal (copper, silver, gold, unobtanium, etc.) sound different, the answer is clearly no. Arguing that there might be an audible difference if the cable is 800 feet long, or if it is used in a manner it was never intended to be used just muddies the water and confuses people. The question is being asked in the context of a home audio system. They are really asking, "If I buy a silver three meter mini jack interconnect, will it sound different than a copper one?" The answer to that question is an emphatic all caps NO. Full stop. That's all you really need to say.

If they want to clarify their use to let us know that they plan to use the interconnect to play their iPod on Earth using headphones on the moon, then they can let us know and then we can explain all the trivial exceptions to the rule. But it isn't being "un-scientific" or "sloppy" or flat out wrong to assume that people are talking about typical home audio components in typical application. And spewing out a laundry list of irrelevant details isn't being more thorough and it definitely isn't being helpful.

If there might be an exception with deliberately out of spec IEMs or something, we can ask for the precise situation and equipment list up front, so we can give a definitive answer and not force them to parse it all out themselves from bits and pieces of answers to questions they never asked.

Clarity is a virtue.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> I'm obviously not trying to make a case for expensive cables and saying "go get that cable it will expend your soundstage and tighten your bass". you can see how weird my examples are on purpose. my point is simply that audible differences are possible even with readily available audio gears. and because of that, we shouldn't act like those cases do not exist.



But we don't act like those cases don't exist. A condition of the statement "different cables don't make any difference" is the assumption that both cables are actually appropriate for the task. Isn't it self evident that you wouldn't try to use 20ft of ethernet cable as speaker cable? You're IEM example is the same, although admittedly not as self-evident: If your IEMs have a particularly low impedance then the appropriate cable is one with an appropriately low resistance, it's still exactly the same situation/condition, the only difference is that it's not as self-evident because a cable designed/intended as an actual IEM cable might have too high a resistance for those particular IEMs.

G


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> But we don't act like those cases don't exist. A condition of the statement "different cables don't make any difference" is the assumption that both cables are actually appropriate for the task. Isn't it self evident that you wouldn't try to use 20ft of ethernet cable as speaker cable? You're IEM example is the same, although admittedly not as self-evident: If your IEMs have a particularly low impedance then the appropriate cable is one with an appropriately low resistance, it's still exactly the same situation/condition, the only difference is that it's not as self-evident because a cable designed/intended as an actual IEM cable might have too high a resistance for those particular IEMs.
> 
> G


of course. it's not like the little red arrow on the super expensive cable is going to break the laws of physics anytime soon. but take the average Joe, he tried different cables, and at some point, found one that made a dramatic change for whatever reason like the weird stuff that happened to me. that's all he knows, that cables sometimes do make a difference. and this is even more likely if we add almost anybody who "tested" 2 cables the typical sighted way with a long pause between each samples and some distracting manipulations, which resulted in him "hearing" a difference with his eyes. if you take this community at large they have or think they have experienced cables making audible changes. if I was still in their shoes, when reading "different cables don't make any difference", I'd go "ok so this guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about". and nothing you guys would say after that would have any chance to be accepted by me.
it's not a new disagreement we have, @bigshot is the all time king of such one liners. I'm naturally tempted to stick to facts as much as I can and assume that people reading the forum aren't all idiots so they'll be able to draw their own conclusions. sometimes I admit that an oversimplification can help carry a message across, even more so if the alternative is a 2 pages research paper that most people will not bother to read. but in this specific case, I don't think this is helping or convincing anybody because the statement contradicts the one thing they believe they know for sure. it's a bad approach IMO. 
it would be better to acknowledge differences and explain clearly how they probably are negative changes. which is usually going to be true and will without a doubt get an audiophile interested. then the guy who just cares about how he feels can still get high on weirdo silver single core garden hose with a battery stuck to the side for no reason. while others can start to consider that when they do get significant changes in sound, one of the cables is probably bad for the task at hand. that would be a massive step in the right direction compared to assuming that all changes are objective improvements if we subjectively like them.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 19, 2019)

I cut to the chase because if I don't the explanations end up spending more paragraphs on the rare exceptions to the rule than the simple and direct answer that is what the person is looking for 99% of the time. You have to think of the psychology of the average audiophile... High end audio salesmen have already worked on them, planting seeds of doubt... "Is .05% THD too much? Will .02% THD sound better?" "The word 'lossy' worries me. I don't want to be "losing" anything from my music!" "Have I achieved 'synergy' between my cables and my DAC?"... They have been trained carefully to exhibit symptoms of OCD. When they ask a question, they don't want a bunch of caveats and footnotes, they just want to know if buying a new cable will make a difference with no ifs ands or buts. I answer that question directly. It's the correct answer 99% of the time.

If they offer more information about their particular equipment, we can take that into consideration. We had a guy in here with IEMs that required a non-standard amp. He didn't indicate up front what he was using so he got a generic answer. As he offered more information, the recommendation got more specific, until he knew what kind of amp he needed to get. We get there eventually if we need to. Every answer doesn't need to consider every possibility. That just results in dense paragraphs of "if statements" that make people's eyes glaze over.

Concise is better to start with. If someone wants to dig deeper and understand more, that is for the second or third round of posts.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> I cut to the chase because if I don't the explanations end up spending more paragraphs on the rare exceptions to the rule than the simple and direct answer that is what the person is looking for 99% of the time. You have to think of the psychology of the average audiophile... High end audio salesmen have already worked on them, planting seeds of doubt... "Is .05% THD too much? Will .02% THD sound better?" "The word 'lossy' worries me. I don't want to be "losing" anything from my music!" "Have I achieved 'synergy' between my cables and my DAC?"... They have been trained carefully to exhibit symptoms of OCD. When they ask a question, they don't want a bunch of caveats and footnotes, they just want to know if buying a new cable will make a difference with no ifs ands or buts. I answer that question directly. It's the correct answer 99% of the time.



Generalize much? Maybe you should listen to me more, since I’m Asian, specifically Oriental, and you know we’re good at STEM. 

Maybe you should just take a break for a while because you sound jaded, worn/out, and awfully haughty. It’s quite amazing how accurately your self-given nickname describes your demeanor.


----------



## bigshot

Hifiearspeakers said:


> Generalize much? Maybe you should listen to me more, since I’m Asian, specifically Oriental, and you know we’re good at STEM. Maybe you should just take a break for a while because you sound jaded, worn/out, and awfully haughty. It’s quite amazing how accurately your self-given nickname describes your demeanor.



What's your problem?


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

castleofargh said:


> of course. it's not like the little red arrow on the super expensive cable is going to break the laws of physics anytime soon. but take the average Joe, he tried different cables, and at some point, found one that made a dramatic change for whatever reason like the weird stuff that happened to me. that's all he knows, that cables sometimes do make a difference. and this is even more likely if we add almost anybody who "tested" 2 cables the typical sighted way with a long pause between each samples and some distracting manipulations, which resulted in him "hearing" a difference with his eyes. if you take this community at large they have or think they have experienced cables making audible changes. if I was still in their shoes, when reading "different cables don't make any difference", I'd go "ok so this guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about". and nothing you guys would say after that would have any chance to be accepted by me.
> it's not a new disagreement we have, @bigshot is the all time king of such one liners. I'm naturally tempted to stick to facts as much as I can and assume that people reading the forum aren't all idiots so they'll be able to draw their own conclusions. sometimes I admit that an oversimplification can help carry a message across, even more so if the alternative is a 2 pages research paper that most people will not bother to read. but in this specific case, I don't think this is helping or convincing anybody because the statement contradicts the one thing they believe they know for sure. it's a bad approach IMO.
> it would be better to acknowledge differences and explain clearly how they probably are negative changes. which is usually going to be true and will without a doubt get an audiophile interested. then the guy who just cares about how he feels can still get high on weirdo silver single core garden hose with a battery stuck to the side for no reason. while others can start to consider that when they do get significant changes in sound, one of the cables is probably bad for the task at hand. that would be a massive step in the right direction compared to assuming that all changes are objective improvements if we subjectively like them.



Stay classy! You represent your side very well. If there were more in here like you, with your patience and lack of contempt towards new participants in this thread, I’d peruse this thread often. Unfortunately, you’re clearly a highly outnumbered minority. So I’ll show myself out now. I’m not into floggings and group abasement anymore.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> What's your problem?



You and people like you. @castleofargh is the one guy that is trying to build bridges not walls, and you can’t even let him be even though he represents your side. I mostly agree with you all here but would never want to be associated with you all because of the blatant, contemptuous overtones that permeate all of your replies to anyone who isn’t a member of your tribe. 

Not all audiophiles are audiofools who have been “groomed by salesman”. We’re not all 15 year old children who live in our parent’s basement. The sad part is that I really believe you don’t even recognize your own condescension.


----------



## bigshot

Hifiearspeakers said:


> You and people like you.



Me and my ilk are everything that is wrong in this world?! Just listen to yourself. Castle and I are just fine. In fact we're pals. Wanna join the party? Just hush this kind of talk and you and I will be fine too.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> Me and my ilk are everything that is wrong in this world?! Just listen to yourself. Castle and I are just fine. In fact we're pals. Wanna join the party? Just hush this kind of talk and you and I will be fine too.



No. Not everything wrong in this world; everything wrong in this thread, lol! You might be a great guy as long as no one brings up topics like sine waves and crosstalk.


----------



## bigshot

I'm just going to answer with facts. I won't feed your emotion back to you.

Square waves are illegal signals in digital audio. You can't judge sound quality using a sine wave that isn't even allowed under digital audio spec. That would be like judging a car by how well it

Crosstalk was an issue back in the analog days. LPs and cassette tapes had relatively high amounts of bleed between channels. With digital audio, the level of crosstalk has been reduced to levels that are far below the threshold of audibility. In my sig file there is a link to a video where Ethan Winer takes an obnoxious buzzing sound and drops it in at different levels under music. By the time the buzzer reaches -40dB, it can't be heard through the music any more. A buzzing sound is the worst kind of noise. Stereo channels are different because they are related to each other. If you mix channels, it will become inaudible long before -40dB. CD players generally have crosstalk ratings well below -70dB. Crosstalk really isn't an issue with home audio any more.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

bigshot said:


> I'm just going to answer with facts. I won't feed your emotion back to you.
> 
> Square waves are illegal signals in digital audio. You can't judge sound quality using a sine wave that isn't even allowed under digital audio spec. That would be like judging a car by how well it
> 
> Crosstalk was an issue back in the analog days. LPs and cassette tapes had relatively high amounts of bleed between channels. With digital audio, the level of crosstalk has been reduced to levels that are far below the threshold of audibility. In my sig file there is a link to a video where Ethan Winer takes an obnoxious buzzing sound and drops it in at different levels under music. By the time the buzzer reaches -40dB, it can't be heard through the music any more. A buzzing sound is the worst kind of noise. Stereo channels are different because they are related to each other. If you mix channels, it will become inaudible long before -40dB. CD players generally have crosstalk ratings well below -70dB. Crosstalk really isn't an issue with home audio any more.



Seriously? Please tell me this entire reply to me was you being sarcastic and/or humorous! Because my last reply to you was completely tongue in cheek. Come on man! Relax! You don’t have to take everything so seriously!


----------



## bigshot

Tongue in cheek doesn't carry well in text. In any case, even if you already knew all that, maybe someone else will benefit from it.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Me and my ilk are everything that is wrong in this world?! Just listen to yourself. Castle and I are just fine. In fact we're pals. Wanna join the party? Just hush this kind of talk and you and I will be fine too.


Worked for me


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

This has likely been posted at some point but just in case...

it's pretty interesting.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Castle and I are just fine. In fact we're pals.


@castleofargh the forum members wishes to say that he's glad to be your pal and felt the same way for a few years now. 
@castleofargh the modo does hate you a little bit, because you're not making the modo task easier.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Bet you guys all have cable lifters for your speaker cables.  An essential part of any audio system.


----------



## taffy2207 (Mar 16, 2020)

SpeakerBox said:


> *Bet you guys all have cable lifters* for your speaker cables.  An essential part of any audio system.



Only if they're made of Silver


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SpeakerBox said:


> Bet you guys all have cable lifters for your speaker cables.
> An essential part of any audio system.



Lifters?  as in, keeping them elevated off the floor?


----------



## SpeakerBox

TheSonicTruth said:


> Lifters?  as in, keeping them elevated off the floor?



Yup!


----------



## hkpants

TheSonicTruth said:


> Lifters?  as in, keeping them elevated off the floor?



I do find that my sound quality degrades terribly if someone trips and yanks my cables out.


----------



## SpeakerBox

hkpants said:


> I do find that my sound quality degrades terribly if someone trips and yanks my cables out.



That might require a blind listening test.


----------



## hkpants

SpeakerBox said:


> That might require a blind listening test.


I'd probably be able to tell the difference, but only because the person tripping over the cable would be yelling in pain.


----------



## Maxx134 (Mar 16, 2020)

We would have to separate the headphone cables, from the interconnect cables, from the speaker cables, from the USB cables, from the Data Cat7 cables, from the "XYZ" (etc.) cables, because due to this broad spectrum, any past tests are just too ambiguous to apply to a specific purpose other than that which they were applied...


----------



## bigshot

For the purposes the cable was designed to be used, you can't hear a difference between cables. If you want to use a thin little wire to transmit trans-Atlantic data under the ocean, you may run into trouble. If you don't know what kind of cable to use, just ask, and then shop for one that doesn't cost much.


----------



## SpeakerBox

bigshot said:


> For the purposes the cable was designed to be used, you can't hear a difference between cables. If you want to use a thin little wire to transmit trans-Atlantic data under the ocean, you may run into trouble. If you don't know what kind of cable to use, just ask, and then shop for one that doesn't cost much.



We are so lucky to have smart people like you to enlighten us dim wits.  Thank you so much!


----------



## Maxx134

Still ambiguous so not convincing both sides.
We can try.

We need to decribe what is this  debatable condition, where users "believe" there is a change..

  specify what exactly is the sonic trait that is "said" to be the most detected.

Or, also what is the brain mechanism wherebye a person feels a wire can sound different,  while measuring no change??

Is there any explanation to this phenomena, besides some form of placibo, or mental bias?

Mayne we can speculate some possible ideas.

I am thinking:
**mental alertness,
**Room brightness
**Time of day
**External influences.

But what about the wire itself?
Why does it "have" to be mental?

In headphone cable, I feel the wire differences have the largest chance to make any difference.

What do the manufacturers say?
Why hasn't this thread approached the explanations that manufacturers say?

Because they would be the obvious ones to ask..


----------



## bigshot (Mar 18, 2020)

Just do a blind test and find out for sure. If you hear a difference, check to see what the problem is. A wire either conducts without an audible difference, or it degrades the sound. A wire can't make sound better than the source, so if it is designed for the purpose you are using it for, one proper cable should sound exactly like any other.

The fact is, this HAS been properly tested and explained. The fact that people keep coming back to imagining differences between cables just shows the power of expectation bias and the pitfalls of sighted comparisons. You'll have to forgive people for not engaging fully with the topic. Honestly, it just isn't worth the time it takes to discuss. Just do the test. Cut out the bias and self-validation. Do the research. Figure it out. You'll end up at the same place we have.


----------



## Maxx134

I did blind testing with tubes, but only normal visual with cable.

Blind testing with headphone cable is extremely hard, as you have to physically swap  the cable.
No switcher for that.



bigshot said:


> Just do a blind test and find out for sure


I know this good for other cable.
Headphone would be hard.
Have you tried with headphone cables?


----------



## bigshot (Mar 18, 2020)

Get a switch box. They are cheap.

Tubes would probably be better measured. It's a lot more likely that tubes sound different. The important thing to determine would be which one is more accurate.

Headphone cables are so short, there's not much reason to expect that there would be any problem.


----------



## gregorio (Mar 19, 2020)

Maxx134 said:


> We would have to separate the headphone cables, from the interconnect cables, from the speaker cables, from the USB cables, from the Data Cat7 cables, from the "XYZ" (etc.) cables, because due to this broad spectrum, any past tests are just too ambiguous to apply to a specific purpose other than that which they were applied...



No, that is completely incorrect. Past tests are not even the slightest bit ambiguous. In fact, past tests are so numerous, so conclusive and so UN-ambiguous that science can actually accurately predict the performance of cables before they're even manufactured and has been able to do so for well over a century! When some new standard/protocol is developed, say 25 or 40 Gigabit ethernet for example, that requires a new signal, 2GHz instead of the previous 500MHz (for 10Gbit ethernet), a new specification of cable is also required (Cat 8), the construction of which is predicted (by science). Then of course, the proposed ethernet standard, including the cable performance, is thoroughly tested before it's submitted for ratification and thoroughly tested again by some of the countries responsible for ratification. Once ratified, compliant products become available and are installed in commercial/industrial applications by certified network engineers who yet again thoroughly test performance and then of course, the system is actually used on a daily basis and the performance is demonstrated to work as predicted. And finally, some time later, products which implement the new standard become available to the public. "Past tests" just don't get any less ambiguous than that!

The above is only true for digital data transfer protocols and is not applicable to analogue audio because the signal specification for analogue audio signals have never changed!



Maxx134 said:


> [1] Still ambiguous so not convincing both sides.
> We can try.
> [2] We need to decribe what is this  debatable condition, where users "believe" there is a change..
> [3] specify what exactly is the sonic trait that is "said" to be the most detected.
> ...


1. Not if you accept the science/simple facts that have been proven for over a century and demonstrated in practice by millions ever since. Also, there really isn't a "both sides", there are numerous "sides", for example: There's the scientific side, there's the electrical engineering side, the pro-audio side, the sound engineer side, the music engineer side, the network engineer side, etc. The ONLY "side" who think it's "still ambiguous and not so convincing" is a tiny number of audiophiles!

2. Again, it's not a rationally "debatable condition", it's only debated by a tiny number of audiophiles and even then, is not a rational debate!

3. Generally, the perceived "sonic trait" matches the perceived visual trait. So copper is a redder/warmer colour than silver and therefore is perceived by some to sound warmer relative to the brighter/whiter appearance of silver.

4. The process by which our brains' create a perception is extremely complex and not entirely understood or predictable. However, many aspects of it are extremely well demonstrated, even if they're not fully explained.
4a. Some form of placebo or mental bias is required in order to even experience music in the first place, so there can't be a rational argument that audiophiles are not subject to such mental biases. To more directly answer your question, "No", there is no other rational explanation. Which is why all the alternative audiophile explanations are irrational, they ultimately depend on some form of magic and/or super-human ability.
4b. All of those can (but might not) affect perception but they're obviously not constant, whereas audiophile claims of audible cable differences are.

5. If you mean "metal", because metals have relatively high conductivity.

6. Actually it's exactly the opposite, headphone or speaker cable have the least chance to make any difference! For example, the cable from say your DAC to your amplifier carries a signal at a much lower level, so any differences the cable makes will be amplified (by your amplifier), whereas the signal in your headphone or speaker cable will not be further amplified and therefore neither will any differences the cable makes. The wire with the "_largest chance of making a difference_" is at the exact opposite end of the chain, microphone cables: They're typically 10m or more in length, the tiny microphone output signal typically has to be amplified by 10-1000 times before you can even start using it for anything, then during the mixing and mastering process it's likely to be amplified by another 2-10 times and then of course when you play it back, your amplifier will amplify it yet again!

7. Sorry but again that's pretty much the exact opposite, manufacturers would be pretty much the last ones to ask! Even if you don't believe it, assume for a moment that audiophile cable manufacturers are selling snake oil by making up marketing BS: Obviously you're not going to be given any information that contradicts their marketing. Even if the wire is manufactured by some third party in say China, they're not going to give you an honest answer or probably any answer at all because they're either contractually obligated not to and/or don't want to loose their client. The obvious ones to ask are independant scientists/metallurgists and those who professionally use and measure cable performance.


Maxx134 said:


> Blind testing with headphone cable is extremely hard, as you have to physically swap  the cable. No switcher for that.
> I know this good for other cable. Headphone would be hard. Have you tried with headphone cables?



Well yes, double blind testing is often extremely difficult to get right and even expensive scientific double blind tests with a large sample size are not 100% conclusive (though some get reasonably close) and this is why double blind testing is a last resort. The first resort is to measure the difference, which is relatively cheap, easy and inherently devoid of human biases. All you need is a decent (but not expensive) ADC and some free software, although in the case of headphone cables you'd also need an adapter to connect the HP cable output to the input of the ADC.

G


----------



## castleofargh

SpeakerBox said:


> We are so lucky to have smart people like you to enlighten us dim wits.  Thank you so much!


There is really no need to react like this. Most people in my family fit this meme:




As for common audiophile knowledge about cables, for every other relevant information, we get a complete nonsense free of charge. So it can be very hard to differentiate a captain obvious comment from information that some people had not yet considered.
Also coming from @bigshot, this is about as much acknowledgement of significant cable differences as you're going to get. he's making an effort here. 



bigshot said:


> Get a switch box. They are cheap.
> 
> Tubes would probably be better measured. It's a lot more likely that tubes sound different. The important thing to determine would be which one is more accurate.
> 
> Headphone cables are so short, there's not much reason to expect that there would be any problem.


There is no readily available solution to test headphone cables as we need both cables plugged into the headphone(testing the cables alone is useless to check audibility into that one headphone). I made myself a little something for one type of IEM plugs once, so I could have both cables plugged into the switch near my neck and then some short cabling going the rest of the way to the IEM. I broke it the same day, and as it was compatible with only 1 of my IEMs because of the special plugs that I had to hunt on the internet for days, I never bothered again.
Doable, sure. Getting even 5 people on the entire forum to do it... A real challenge IMO. And I'm sure many audiophiles would reject the results complaining about the added cabling(like 25cm) changing the sound.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 19, 2020)

There is more chance of an impact on the sound with speaker cables than interconnects, and more of a chance of difference between interconnects than headphone cables. I'd suggest he get a switch box and go to town trying to find a difference with interconnects. Try cheap ones, expensive ones, silver, gold, unobtanium... If he finds no difference there, I think he could safely extrapolate that for headphone cables. The people claiming night and day differences with patch cords are the same ones touting fancy headphone cables. Consider the source. The only important issues I've found with headphone cables are convenience and microphonics.


----------



## fjf

I know I will not convince anyone, but here you can see a blind test:  http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm


----------



## Maxx134

I know people that have $1k cables...

I always had impression that silver cables always best, and silver plated was harsh or fatiguing in some way, and copper was neutral or dull...

But those old cliche ideas don't hold up.

I now have heard dull silver cable, and nice copper cable and only one time excellent silver plated (wireworld). Otherwise, regardless of the silver or copper brand, I always hear problems with silver plated...

So the reason I point this all out, is that, regardless of propfa or blind tests, I do tend to agree here that the brain has to do with it.
The brain either help or sabotage the things 100%

or its coronavirus...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Maxx134 said:


> I know people that have $1k cables...
> 
> I always had impression that silver cables always best, and silver plated was harsh or fatiguing in some way, and copper was neutral or dull...
> 
> ...



Or the mastering!


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> I now have heard dull silver cable, and nice copper cable and only one time excellent silver plated (wireworld). Otherwise, regardless of the silver or copper brand, I always hear problems with silver plated...



Level matched, direct A/B switched blind test or it doesn't count!


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> I know people that have $1k cables...
> 
> I always had impression that silver cables always best, and silver plated was harsh or fatiguing in some way, and copper was neutral or dull...
> 
> ...


Silver having its own sound is a logical fallacy. There is no debate to be had on this matter, whatever vague idea of a cause for a silver sound, it's wrong and can be disproved with some counter examples. Maybe the person believing it, is high on placebo and feels whatever he wants to feel. Or maybe he only had so many experiences that happened to give a similar result by chance because he keeps using those cables on the same rig. Or maybe he's just lazy and jumps to conclusion without fact checking much of anything. It doesn't really matter because an electrical circuit and the sound coming out of it will not be fully defined by a metal switched in a cable. The cable alone isn't fully defined by its metal. So thinking that if it's silver then it's always better and it always has that type of 'silver sound', that's the point of view of ignorance. That's Lego thinking, not electricity and not the real world.

There are several ways to lower impedance, the metal used is merely one of them. Not even the one with the most potential. That would be increasing the diameter or multiplying the wires in parallel. Or in some cases with already crazy low impedance, getting rid of the plugs for maximum contact surface like the OP of another thread did. No matter how it's achieved, lowering the impedance will not always have the same impact on all playback systems. So why would the sound characteristics remain the same anytime we use silver? Is it because it has special 'silver electrons' that smell different in the 9nth dimension of audio? I have seen evidence supporting that idea ^_^.

Then there is the joke of considering digital cables. Do they also give the silver sound to digital bits? 
And icing on the silver cake, or maybe we should have started here: not all cables need to have the lowest impedance possible. Lowering the impedance of a fine copper cable well within specs by simply replacing copper with silver, that's a potential issue for all connections involving impedance matching. 
Thinking that silver magically appearing somewhere will give universal consistency and automatic improvement to sound, is a belief divorced from reality for all those reasons. Some silver in a cable is not a sign of a good cable, just like an expensive cable is not the sign of a good cable. People can decide to see those relations if they want, but it's a very poor way of shopping for audio cables IMO.

I'm not trying to piss on silver. It's a very good electrical conductor so I could get hurt. Silver is a little better than copper as a conductor and can certainly do a very good job if used properly. I'm just against jumping to conclusion and making up facts.

On the matter of audible differences, sighted experiences are inconclusive unless the audible difference is huge. But with audiophiles giving subjective feedback, how do you know if the difference is really huge or if they exaggerate or even maybe make it up with placebo? In audio reviews, it's not rare to have someone describe an ant of a change as if it was a Godzilla size monster but with more legs. So we can't just take those feedbacks at face value(even less so when it's on the web). Skepticism is the only answer to sighted impression IMO. And too bad if someone gets mad because of his own overconfidence. The one thing I trust from a sighted impression is when someone tells me that he enjoyed the experience. I most certainly have cables that make me enjoy music more. Not because of how they sound(because I usually have no evidence that they sound like anything), but because they're super pretty, or more practical to use(like some headphone cables). Cables do make a difference to me. but sound is rarely involved.


----------



## pinnahertz

Silver wire initially has a bright and shiny sound, then over time, it dulls.  925 Sterling wire sounds richer, but only for a while. 
Copper wire has a warmer sound, kind of orange tone.  Oxegen-free copper wire sounds less airy, and less polluted.
Steel wire sounds cold and rigid.  Steel coat-hanger wire sounds very rigid, quite cold, but not very rich. 
Aluminum wire sounds light but dull.
14K Gold wire sounds rich and soft.  24K gold wire sounds even richer, and softer, and changes with time.  Gold wire sounded really rich earlier this month, not so much now.

Need any more expectation bias input for your uncontrolled sighted test?  And do I have to clearly state that I'm being facetious? 

ABX/DBT on cables, headphone, interconnects and speaker, is just a construction project, and not all that difficult.   Or pony-up for an ABX comparator.  I actually thought about producing and marketing a cable comparator, then sanity returned and I resumed productive thought.


----------



## bigshot (Mar 20, 2020)

My favorite fallacy is the one... "Think of your interconnects like the plumbing in your house..."

"It's a night and day difference! Even my wife can hear it!"


----------



## pinnahertz

bigshot said:


> My favorite fallacy is the one... "Think of your interconnects like the plumbing in your house..."


Half of the plumbing carries clean water, the other half....not.


----------



## ubs28

Some of those Van Hul interconnect cables creates buzzing noises on my system. So that is an easy way to show that interconnect cables do make a difference.


----------



## bigshot

Ground loop. Get Amazon Basics cables. They work as well as could ever be hoped for.


----------



## motberg

ubs28 said:


> Some of those Van Hul interconnect cables creates buzzing noises on my system. So that is an easy way to show that interconnect cables do make a difference.


Most unshielded rca interconnects , any length, in my system result in a 7kz 15db intermittent whistle. May be related to tube gear. Sounds like it is coming from a computer monitor. Is measurable from the front of the speaker. Some shielded cables eliminate this completely.


----------



## Maxx134 (Mar 21, 2020)

I heard a very very expensive (over $2k) headphone cable next to a cheaper one...

The expensive one was so very extranagantly elegant and complex twisted and beautiful...

Then I listen to this "top" wire, and I could tell the ambiant air (treble area) actually sounded a touch diffuse or less focused.

Then another time I heard a fancy wound cable actually give a false ambiance to it.

I dunno what they doing with wire, but I am wondering if they actually created capacitance in it, with so much strands and proximity and thin insulation...
Maybe painted insulation, like in transformers...
..


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> I heard a very very expensive (over $2k) headphone cable next to a cheaper one...



Tell us about your testing method. Your description of your results points to bias with a big blinking neon sign.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Tell us about your testing method. Your description of your results points to bias with a big blinking neon sign.



He's being sarcastic, as are most of us that know better..!


----------



## bigshot

I'm quite sure he's serious.


----------



## Whazzzup

Don't worry wealth destruction is the best way to make sure the audio market doesn't matter especially value added components


----------



## bigshot

When black friday comes, you can't eat your wires!


----------



## Whazzzup

Im sticking to food, cheers


----------



## bigshot

Someday we'll all be oxygen free!


----------



## Maxx134 (Apr 17, 2020)

I like cheap wire...
But I own expensive ones instead..



My Bias...

I'm Sad


----------



## Maxx134 (Apr 16, 2020)

Maxx134 said:


> I like cheap wire...
> But I own expensive ones instead..
> 
> 
> ...


I am currently making a cheap  headphone cable, using some highly insulated "Cat 7" Ethernet cable,


as I am experimenting with the idea of this type cable, being somewhat similar in design layout, to my expensive wireworld cable..

I am thinking this is a perfect (and cheap!) cable for headphones, while also being highly insulated.

Will bias will prevail?


----------



## pinnahertz

Maxx134 said:


> Will bias will prevail?


Always.


----------



## F208Frank

Why do people feel the need to try to convince each other regarding this topic. You just do as what you believe, buy them if you believe in them, do not buy them if you do not. For me personally, I do feel they have heavy diminishing returns, but I do feel they make a difference depending on situation/set up/combinations.


----------



## old tech

F208Frank said:


> Why do people feel the need to try to convince each other regarding this topic. You just do as what you believe, buy them if you believe in them, do not buy them if you do not. For me personally, I do feel they have heavy diminishing returns, but I do feel they make a difference depending on situation/set up/combinations.


Perhaps because it is a sound science forum ? If I wanted to claim saying a prayer before playing my stereo improves the sound quality surely in a science forum I need to provide objective evidence rather than just saying I feel it makes a difference. There are other forums that cater to non scientific beliefs.


----------



## gregorio

F208Frank said:


> [1] Why do people feel the need to try to convince each other regarding this topic.
> [2] You just do as what you believe, buy them if you believe in them, do not buy them if you do not.
> [3] For me personally, I do feel they have heavy diminishing returns, but I do feel they make a difference depending on situation/set up/combinations.



1. Because the actual facts matter. As old tech stated, this is the Sound Science forum and the whole point of Science is the actual facts, separating them from false beliefs/myths/marketing BS. On the other side of the coin, those who ignore the actual facts and subscribe to the myths often try to convince others for a variety of reasons, most commonly to justify their expenditure and/or effectively massage their ego.

2. That would be fine if those who "believe in them" and "buy them" had no affect on those who don't. However, that's not the case. Belief can be manipulated (which is the WHOLE point of marketing) and audiophile manufacturers develop and make products that cater to what people believe they want. So we have a sort of feedback loop that affects the choice of those who who rely on the actual facts rather than the marketing BS. Our choice is often restricted, more expensive than it should be or sometimes, eliminated entirely!

3. You are of course entitled to feel whatever you want but the actual facts/science prove that typically the returns are not "heavily diminishing", they are typically no returns (the same fidelity/performance) or in some cases, actually a negative return (lower fidelity/performance)! Stating that there is an audible difference, without any reliable supporting evidence, is effectively an attempted perversion of science (and this subforum) which is of course likely to be viewed as an insult, even though I'm sure you didn't intend it to be.

G


----------



## F208Frank (Apr 21, 2020)

Well broken down and fair statements. With that though, would it be fair to say companies who make great headphones such as the Abyss 1266, according to the logic you wrote should be shamed for having a line up of cables then?

They sell a great headphone but they also cables in wide range of prices (from 400 ish to 1500 ish on average excluding the top top line). Are you basically stating Abyss is knowingly selling "snake oil" then since they should know better?

I'm not trying to argue with you I'm genuinely trying to understand.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 21, 2020)

F208Frank said:


> Are you basically stating Abyss is knowingly selling "snake oil" then since they should know better?



Cables are traditionally an upsell item. They cost little to make and can be sold at a terrific mark up. Headphones have a much smaller profit margin. So they create branded cables and tell people, "these cables are designed to work with our headphones." That isn't a lie. They are color co-ordinated and have the proper jacks to plug into their particular cans. But do they make an audible difference? Nope. Does the stick shift knob with the Porsche logo on it shift gears better than any other similarly shaped hunk of wood? Nope. But go to your Porsche dealership and buy one and see how much they charge you for it. But if you already own the Porsche, you want the proper brand of shift knob regardless of cost, right?

Cables either work or they don't. As long as you get the right cable for the purpose, it doesn't matter if it is a $1500 cable or a $3 Amazon Basics cable. They all should sound the same. If they don't, either you are using the wrong cable for the job, or the cable is defective.

Oppo sent me a set of PM-1s to evaluate when they were first testing them. They came with a fancy braided cable that had all kinds of fancy specs. They also included a cheap lightweight cable that was intended for plugging into the phone in your pocket if you are walking around. Both cables sounded exactly the same.


----------



## F208Frank (Apr 21, 2020)

That is fair enough, once again I'm not here to argue but to have interesting discussion.

In the YouTube videos of Abyss, they outright say cables do matter. If they truly felt to the core that they do not, wouldn't they be hesitant to make that claim since they have been in the audio biz for a LONG time and know non cable believers exist and would be offending a portion of the potential buyers plus the possibility of non believers to not buy their headphones since they are making debatably false claims? What is your take that?

I just find it hard to see them saying something they do not believe in to potentially offend a certain group if they did not believe in it themselves. It is not like they have not been around long enough to know that non believers would be extremely resistant to hear that. Not only that, non believers would then be supporting a company giving false information if they bought their headphones. 

I hope you see what I'm trying to get at and I hope this brings interesting productive discussion.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 21, 2020)

You have to understand that companies don't speak with one voice. The marketing department might say something different than the engineering department would. The purpose of a salesman is to convince you that you absolutely need his product. They just have to tell you *their* truth, not the whole truth. In audiophile circles, there's plenty of unverified anecdotal claims that cables make a difference. There's also plenty of scientific evidence to show that if you are using a cable the way it was intended, they don't make a lick of difference. A salesman is free to choose whichever opinion he wants as a selling point. He doesn't have to always say exactly what the engineers say. He picks and chooses the evidence he thinks will convince you to make a purchase. That's why so many audiophile websites are wallpapered with testimonials. Customers can make any kind of crazy claim they want. All a salesman has to do is pick and choose the testimonials he likes, and point at them and say, "Look at what our customers are saying about our product!" The salesman isn't lying to you. He is just selectively sculpting what he wants you to think by presenting only the info that suits his purpose. It's up to you to get information from less biased sources to make an informed decision. And you are doing that right here, right now! Good job!

Most of us here in Sound Science are aware of this site, but I'll share it with you. This is an in-depth look at cables by one of the top engineers at McIntosh. You don't get more high end than that. Check out what he has to say about wires. http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm There's also a lot of good info here... https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ I'd also encourage you to read the links in my sig file below. There are two great videos from the Audio Engineering Society on audiophile myths, and a great article on HD audio vs CD quality sound.


----------



## SpeakerBox (Apr 21, 2020)

gregorio said:


> 3. You are of course entitled to feel whatever you want but the actual facts/science prove that typically the returns are not "heavily diminishing", they are typically no returns (the same fidelity/performance) or in some cases, *actually a negative return (lower fidelity/performance)!* Stating that there is an audible difference, without any reliable supporting evidence, is effectively an attempted perversion of science (and this subforum) which is of course likely to be viewed as an insult, even though I'm sure you didn't intend it to be.
> 
> G



Then cables can impact the sound.


----------



## koven

I don't really believe in cables impacting SQ but I still buy them because they look better than generic black cords. Need me some bling bling, baby. Actually I've nearly convinced myself that power cables do make a subtle difference but it's not something I would bet money on in a double blind test.


----------



## castleofargh

how do I know which cable to purchase for my audio needs? I've checked "audiophile" brands on occasion trying to see electrical specs to find out what was so special about their cables:



Sometimes, I couldn't even find a clear gauge value. And quite often they'd simply not follow the standard for the given cable type... So every engineer works hard to design a product that will be best and be most stable under a given set of conditions and standards, and then some "audiophile" cable maker arrives and declares that he knows better. Well, ok. Good luck to them and I'll get a standard conductor somewhere else.

 If that's how I can get my cables to sound noticeably different, I'd rather have them all sound the same TBH. Not that I wished for electrical conductors to take on the role of EQ and sound processors in the first place.


----------



## Yuurei

Well. Cables sure matter as the electrical conductor. But if people are claiming that "this or that cable sounds amazing" why do they even bother to connect speakers or headphones to them?


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> it doesn't matter if it is a $1500 cable or a $3 Amazon Basics cable


I finished my cheapo 3-pack cat7 cable into a headphone cable!
Now I can test and compare against my expensive ones!

Also made one adapter. Have to make next one later.




bigshot said:


> it doesn't matter if it is a $1500 cable or a $3 Amazon Basics cable. They all should sound the same.


There is an prevailing issue with Headphone cables.

I am thinking they should be separated from general threads like this.

I am of opinion we need specific testing for Headphone cables, simply because of the insanely complex wiring/insulation/braiding going on.

So far, my low cost headphone cable made of a cat7 cable is proving that either  insulation or shielding matters, as I hearing more spacial info than a stock headphone cable.

So I feel there are  bigger problems and rip-offs in this market, than all the other wire markets currently...

Users need help, regardless our positions either way.



bigshot said:


> they were first testing them. They came with a fancy braided cable that had all kinds of fancy specs. They also included a cheap lightweight cable that was intended for plugging into the phone in your pocket if you are walking around. Both cables sounded exactly the same


I also owned the oppo amp, and PM1 & also PM2, and can say the thicker oppo cable actually was truly an excellent cable, and better than others when I compared.
But I never compared the portable cable.

You remain an enigma to me, for not having hearing any difference in anything wire related at all. 

Why because,  like everyone posts, we all have integral bias in our perceptions.
Maybe your bias is to actually not hear?
Bias still the enemy!
Hehe!


----------



## gregorio

F208Frank said:


> [1] I just find it hard to see them saying something they do not believe in to potentially offend a certain group if they did not believe in it themselves. It is not like they have not been around long enough to know that non believers would be extremely resistant to hear that. Not only that, non believers would then be supporting a company giving false information if they bought their headphones.
> [2] I hope you see what I'm trying to get at and I hope this brings interesting productive discussion.



1. From a business survival/success perspective, what's better: "Potentially offend a [small] certain group, that they did not believe in themselves" and sell a product that's quick, easy and cheap to make, store and transport but has a huge profit margin or be completely honest and not sell such a product? 

Also it's not just "hard to see them saying" this marketing BS, it's very hard! It's not just Abyss saying this sort of thing but companies like Audioquest, Chord, Monster and countless others. Is there really a global cable conspiracy going back decades, that no one has ever stopped? I for one do not subscribe to all the ridiculous conspiracy theories out there. However, the objective facts/measurements speak for themselves, or rather they do, if/when you can find them. And, it's not really a conspiracy, it's not like all the manufacturers had a secret meeting and agreed to deceive the whole world. A company started selling/marketing ridiculously expensive "audiophile" cables that made no actual audible difference, made an easy profit and another company noticed and decided to get a bit of that action themselves and then another did, and as the market grew, so did the number of companies trying to get a piece of that extremely tasty pie. So although it's not really an actual global conspiracy, it's effectively the same as one. So why hasn't it been stopped? Simply because there's not enough people complaining about the scam and it's not serious enough, unlike with say falsely advertised drugs, it doesn't kill or seriously harm anyone. They are occasionally acted against, for example Chord were found guilty of falsely advertising a cable by the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) but there is no fine or other punitive cost or consequence, the advert simply had to be removed and Chord were not even required to tell anyone they'd be found guilty. All they did was put out the same advert again, with slightly different wording that implied better fidelity rather than making the direct claim. 

2. We do get audiophile trolls/shills here sometimes but untill we're pretty sure you are one, we'll take your posts at face value, that you're just trying to make sense of the information you've come across.



SpeakerBox said:


> Then cables can impact the sound.



Sure, they can impact the sound. In some rare and very specific circumstances they can even "impact the sound" enough to be audible but in virtually all cases the fidelity is affected at such a low level that it can't even be reproduced by speakers or headphones, so doesn't "impact the sound" . 



koven said:


> [1] I don't really believe in cables impacting SQ but I still buy them because they look better than generic black cords. Need me some bling bling, baby.
> [2] Actually I've nearly convinced myself that power cables do make a subtle difference but it's not something I would bet money on in a double blind test.



1. I don't have any problem with that and I don't think anyone else here does either. Spending considerably more on bling, say brand name and/or appearance, is fine. However, the vast majority of audiophiles who buy expensive cables aren't just doing it for the bling, they think/believe they're also getting an actual audio improvement that's audible. They've been scammed and are deluded!

2. Wise move, it would be bad enough to waste money on an audiophile power cable and worse still to waste even more on loosing a bet! 

G


----------



## bigshot (Apr 22, 2020)

Maxx134 said:


> You remain an enigma to me, for not having hearing any difference in anything wire related at all.



Perhaps that's because I do blind listening tests and you make up your mind based on sighted listening.

It is possible for cables to sound different- If they are defective, either by manufacture or design, or if they are the wrong cable for the purpose- then they can definitely produce inferior signals. But it is simple to create a cable to use for an interconnect or speaker wire or headphone cable that works as good as any other cable. There is absolutely no correlation between cost and sound quality when it comes to cables. A four dollar cable can sound just as good as a $4000 one.


----------



## Maxx134 (Apr 22, 2020)

bigshot said:


> A four dollar cable can sound just as good as a $4000 one




considering I have a 3 pack of this low-cost cable,
that is literally the same price you're stating for each LOL.

Going to need to test blind like you, because I'm biased to think my $4 cable is better!


----------



## koven

Maxx134 said:


> I finished my cheapo 3-pack cat7 cable into a headphone cable!
> Now I can test and compare against my expensive ones!
> 
> Also made one adapter. Have to make next one later.



That's a nice lookin' cable. One marketing copywriter, one packaging designer, one paid review from 6moons and you're in business my friend. Check out this hot new cable maker from NYC w/ an advanced geometric cryogenic game changer, we bestow the Blue Moon award to the Maxximus Quantum cable.


----------



## old tech

F208Frank said:


> That is fair enough, once again I'm not here to argue but to have interesting discussion.
> 
> In the YouTube videos of Abyss, they outright say cables do matter. If they truly felt to the core that they do not, wouldn't they be hesitant to make that claim since they have been in the audio biz for a LONG time and know non cable believers exist and would be offending a portion of the potential buyers plus the possibility of non believers to not buy their headphones since they are making debatably false claims? What is your take that?
> 
> ...


Well they are selling a product. Note however that they provide no objective evidence to support their claim. You can also look at it from another perspective, for over 30 years now the James Randi institute has offered $1m to anyone that can prove there is a sound difference in cables (as it is considered to be paranormal), many have tried but no-one has passed a controlled test. $1m is still a large sum of money for a company like Abyss so why haven't they claimed it? Apart from the money, it would be priceless for the company in terms of marketing being the only one in 30 years to prove their claims by claiming the prize.


----------



## bigshot

Caveat Emptor.


----------



## F208Frank (Apr 22, 2020)

Ok thanks for the replies, to the person who thought I was trolling, far from it. I would not waste other peoples' time behind a screen.

I supported Abyss and I think they make a great headphone. Very very happy with my TC 1266 and upgraded my whole chain because of their headphone.

Appreciate the responses given.


----------



## bigshot

You have to forgive us. We are trolled on precisely this topic on a regular basis. It's made us "hand shy" like a dog that growls at the sight of a rolled up newspaper.


----------



## Maxx134

I remember cutting down a big long fat Focal Utopia cable to shorten it.
I did it twice, and gotta say, it was the simplest looking cable ever.
Actually looked like a lamp or AC cord when I cut it...
Point is, that cable is mad expensive, and looks so simple.
The market is crazy.


----------



## bigshot

I remember a high end cable that turned out to be aquarium tubing with zip cord and loam.


----------



## InstantSilence

I find a difference in sound quality when using a cheap USB a to usb b to external dac vs a nicer 150$ cable. It seems as if it sounds cleaner. But I can't prove it. And I don't think it's worth the 150,but I do believe cables alter sound 2/3%


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> I find a difference in sound quality when using a cheap USB a to usb b to external dac vs a nicer 150$ cable. It seems as if it sounds cleaner. But I can't prove it. And I don't think it's worth the 150,but I do believe cables alter sound 2/3%


There are too many variables involved to accept your proposition as a de facto, that is the reason that isolating these variables is needed to detect a delta between the control and the signal to test. Indirect and often unknown special pleading cannot be accepted as the hypothesis of an existing delta, but thanks for your opinion.


----------



## InstantSilence

KeithPhantom said:


> There are too many variables involved to accept your proposition as a de facto, that is the reason that isolating these variables is needed to detect a delta between the control and the signal to test. Indirect and often unknown special pleading cannot be accepted as the hypothesis of an existing delta, but thanks for your opinion.


Yeah sure, I'm not gonna bother testing or investing, but I did hear a difference and it wasn't better or worse just seemed cleaner
Why.. After all... Wouldn't material added in a chain not change something... It's simple to the core..


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> Yeah sure, I'm not gonna bother testing or investing, but I did hear a difference and it wasn't better or worse just seemed cleaner
> Why.. After all... Wouldn't material added in a chain not change something... It's simple to the core..


I understand that you seem to expect that any change in a system will render a change in its output, thing that I do not dismiss; but you forget to consider the actual magnitude of the changes occurred in the systems and the ability of our ears to actually detect that change. Cables measure differently, but to a scale that is depreciable the delta existing between each one unless a custom outcome such as benign signal distortion is wanted. I am not telling you to test, I am just stating what measurements tell us about cables and how they affect the audio and signal chain. Thanks for reading


----------



## castleofargh

InstantSilence said:


> I find a difference in sound quality when using a cheap USB a to usb b to external dac vs a nicer 150$ cable. It seems as if it sounds cleaner. But I can't prove it. And I don't think it's worth the 150,but I do believe cables alter sound 2/3%


We can't really help you because $ is not an electrical variable.


----------



## InstantSilence

castleofargh said:


> We can't really help you because $ is not an electrical variable.


OH yes, I wish you'd see, I'm more in yalls side here. 

Now... A thing I truly wonder... Do power cables matter?


----------



## Davesrose

InstantSilence said:


> OH yes, I wish you'd see, I'm more in yalls side here.
> 
> Now... A thing I truly wonder... Do power cables matter?



But you do say you hear an audible difference between a "cheap" USB cable vs "$150" one (so in this context, what is "cheap"?....and you are claiming that certain digital cables produce a "cleaner" sound).  Audio sound is considered pretty low band compared to current multimedia standards.  With AV, there is various hype about getting a cable rated for speeds that are HDMI 1.4 vs 2.0 vs 2.1.....which allow for now up to 8K resolutions, 60hz, deep color HDR, lossless audio for (as I remember) 32 lossless audio channels.  The highest spec is pretty overkill for now or years to come....as movie sources are still made in 4K (usually 24fps), 10bit HDR, 7.1 core Dolby Atmos.  Getting some of these higher "claimed" specked cables seem more important for long cable runs.  A digital source can accept more noise in the chain, as it just needs the threshold for adequate on vs off pulse (vs analogue which would need larger bandwidth).  For my audio journey, I have heard some differences with sources (what I chalk up to different EQ/DSP), but have yet to hear a difference in a given digital cable when plugged in the same devices.  The only main limitations I have found with digital cables is HDMI: which when I did upgrade to OLED TV and Dolby Atmos receiver, did have some old HDMI cables that couldn't carry the wider color range with higher resolution (so it's an apparent issue with handshake between devices).


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> OH yes, I wish you'd see, I'm more in yalls side here.
> 
> Now... A thing I truly wonder... Do power cables matter?


They don't matter. What matters is if the filtering stage of the power supply is competent enough and it is isolated from the audio circuit. Now we're not talking about the cable, is the power supply itself. No cable can filter a faulty power supply.


----------



## Speedskater (May 20, 2020)

Because a power cord can act as an interference antenna (either transmitting or receiving) it's possible that power cords can make a difference. But it's very rare and takes almost Perfect Storm conditions to happen. Also it's not the power cord that causes the problem, the cord is just the antenna. Also (number two) it's very situation specific, just rearranging your equipment on a different rack in a different room can change the situation.
(ref: Jim Brown & Bob Cordell)


----------



## gregorio

InstantSilence said:


> [1] I find a difference in sound quality when using a cheap USB a to usb b to external dac vs a nicer 150$ cable.
> [2]  I'm not gonna bother testing or investing,
> [2a] but I did hear a difference and it wasn't better or worse just seemed cleaner
> [3] Why.. After all... Wouldn't material added in a chain not change something... It's simple to the core.



1. How did you find a difference in sound quality?

2. Again, if you didn't bother testing, how did you find a difference in sound quality?
2a. How do you know the difference you heard was a difference sound quality rather than just a difference in your perception?

3. Almost certainly it would change something; visual appearance for starters and very possibly perception biases but whether it would change the data or audible sound quality, almost certainly not, except maybe in some extreme circumstances (an extremely poorly designed DAC for example).

If you can't answer questions 1, 2 and 2a, how can you state that you "find a difference in sound quality"?

G


----------



## KeithPhantom

Speedskater said:


> Because a power cord can act as an interference antenna (either transmitting or receiving) it's possible that power cords can make a difference. But it's very rare and takes almost Perfect Storm conditions to happen. Also it's not the power cord that causes the problem, the cord is just the antenna. Also (number two) it's very situation specific, just rearranging your equipment on a different rack in a different room can change the situation.
> (ref: Jim Brown & Bob Cordell)


I was aware that the cable can work as an RF antenna in some situations, but my question is if you can make a power supply with a circuit that filters those parasitic signals in an unexpected event.


----------



## InstantSilence

gregorio said:


> 1. How did you find a difference in sound quality?
> 
> 2. Again, if you didn't bother testing, how did you find a difference in sound quality?
> 2a. How do you know the difference you heard was a difference sound quality rather than just a difference in your perception?
> ...


Because I hear it.


----------



## bigshot

InstantSilence said:


> Because I hear it.



You don't just hear it though... you perceive it. And perception is flawed. If you want to know what you actually hear, you have to account for perceptual error and bias. That is all a controlled test is doing. It's eliminating bias and perceptual error. If you are clearly hearing a difference, you should be able to clearly hear a difference when the two sources are level matched, when you can switch between them quickly and cleanly, and when you can't tell which is which by just looking at it... Right?

If all we are asking is for you to just apply some simple controls, why wouldn't you just do that to prove that you actually can hear a difference? If it's that easy, why would you refuse to do that? (I'm actually interested in the answers to these last two questions.)


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> You don't just hear it though... you perceive it. And perception is flawed. If you want to know what you actually hear, you have to account for perceptual error and bias. That is all a controlled test is doing. It's eliminating bias and perceptual error. If you are clearly hearing a difference, you should be able to clearly hear a difference when the two sources are level matched, when you can switch between them quickly and cleanly, and when you can't tell which is which by just looking at it... Right?
> 
> If all we are asking is for you to just apply some simple controls, why wouldn't you just do that to prove that you actually can hear a difference? If it's that easy, why would you refuse to do that? (I'm actually interested in the answers to these last two questions.)


Because I'm not as emotional about it as you. I heard it, liked it. And then didn't buy the cable because it wasn't that large of a difference. I also believe you hear small changes in the chain the higher rez the cans are. 
LCD 4z and Tia fourte showed small distinct changes.
Then I tried with an outdated se846 and lcd2 and no difference was apperant, then tried with mid tier poop from noble audio and again nothing. 

I do believe the transducers are responsible for showing miniscule changes, again, not enough to warrant spending big money on cable. 
I do however appreciate build quality so spending more Than 10$ is worth it for a well insulated quality cable. 

To conclude, no matter how much you beg me to do your tests (didn't finish reading your post), I still believe cables do add a small difference in the chain.  There are also elite cables out there In the thousands that I won't try, even if they would promise the world. 
All the best


----------



## sander99

InstantSilence said:


> Because I'm not as emotional about it as you.


That doesn't eliminate bias and other factors influencing your perception. Hearing perception is influenced by many things besides the actual sound. These influences create differences in perception orders of magnitude larger than the smallest purely audible differences. You can not switch those influences off by "being not emotional" or by "deciding not to be influenced by them". This holds for everybody. That is why a sighted test is worthless for determining small differences.


----------



## InstantSilence

sander99 said:


> That doesn't eliminate bias and other factors influencing your perception. Hearing perception is influenced by many things besides the actual sound. These influences create differences in perception orders of magnitude larger than the smallest purely audible differences. You can not switch those influences off by "being not emotional" or by "deciding not to be influenced by them". This holds for everybody. That is why a sighted test is worthless for determining small differences.


What would you like me to do? To further comfirm. I'll do it if it's not too much bother... For you


----------



## sander99

InstantSilence said:


> What would you like me to do? To further comfirm. I'll do it if it's not too much bother... For you


You don't have to do it for me. Do it for your self if you want. I just wanted to point out why sighted impressions don't prove anything about small differences (not to yourself either).
I never did a real blind test myself because I am not interested enough in very small differences to take the trouble (yet). But maybe I will some day. And I have enough trust in science to tell me about a few cases in which I don't need to worry at all about any possible differences, and a few cases in which I don't have to worry about "night and day" differences.


----------



## InstantSilence

sander99 said:


> You don't have to do it for me. Do it for your self if you want. I just wanted to point out why sighted impressions don't prove anything about small differences (not to yourself either).
> I never did a real blind test myself because I am not interested enough in very small differences to take the trouble (yet). But maybe I will some day. And I have enough trust in science to tell me about a few cases in which I don't need to worry at all about any possible differences, and a few cases in which I don't have to worry about "night and day" differences.


Idk what a blind test is in audio 
.. But what I did is. I got my gf to tie my eyes up and for her to plug and unplug the cables in and out of order over a course of 3 tracks (she got bored quick) that I am very familiar with. 

I noticed a difference each time. 
But again... Not all that much. And just a diff.. Not necessarily enjoyable or *better *
But I swear I did hear it. I head it for sure. Mid 20s here... I suppose my hearing is in decent condition


----------



## bigshot (May 21, 2020)

InstantSilence said:


> Because I'm not as emotional about it as you.



I think you used the wrong word. I'm not at all emotional about sound fidelity. I reserve that for music. I *care* about sound fidelity. Perhaps you don't. If you did, you might not be so lazy and slack about how you go about achieving it.



InstantSilence said:


> What would you like me to do?



Talk about something you know about?

No, if you don't care, don't bother doing a test. I'm not here to force you to think. That might be an impossible task anyway. I'm going to cheerfully give up on you.
Joined the first of May. A whole bunch of blather in Sound Science about nothing. You guys can have him.


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> I think you used the wrong word. I'm not at all emotional about sound fidelity. I reserve that for music. I *care* about sound fidelity. Perhaps you don't. If you did, you might not be so lazy and slack about how you go about achieving it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No problem big shot. I got the $ to go wild and meet my tastes, without your boring tests. 
Good riddance


----------



## max1236

hearing a difference isn't really the goal, the goal is to be able to pick one out. You're going to here a difference because your brain is telling you something has changed so you will try and here the difference. Why did you come here if you don't want to find the truth. your just getting defensive for no reason, the established science isn't going to change because you do a test, it's entirely for your self.  Everyone's  just trying to help you make your own discovery and ff you were so happy without "boring tests" you wouldn't have felt the need to come here and claim that or even try a simple blind test (which is a good start), obviously some part of you doubts you're hearing the change.


----------



## InstantSilence

I made a simple comparison, I had to, to notice if there was change. Change was detected and then abandoned.


----------



## InstantSilence

Look, guys, you are right I'm wrong, there is no difference you guys are right. All the best


----------



## bigshot (May 22, 2020)

He's a troll. He knows he can work us to get people to write lengthy rebuttals. It is his way of getting attention. He's probably bragging to his friends about how worked up he can get us. I'm dismissing him. He'll move on to someone else and try to get them to engage. Whoever wants him can have him.


----------



## PointyFox

"Why have you come here if you are not seeking the Truth? Truth that I, the Grand High 20 Year Old have seen. To here a change you must first throw away boring scientific measurements and have your eyes tied up. This is a good first step but you must get rid of all doubt and believe that with your golden ears you will be able to here a difference. Only then can you here your brain telling you what you want to here and make the discovery of the True Truth."


----------



## sander99

@PointyFox: just a little language feedback, no offence intended: I *hear* a sound, I am *here*.


----------



## PointyFox

sander99 said:


> @PointyFox: just a little language feedback, no offence intended: I *hear* a sound, I am *here*.



Look back a page. It was fully intentional. There's a reason for the spelling and the quotations.


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> He's a troll. He knows he can work us to get people to write lengthy rebuttals. It is his way of getting attention. He's probably bragging to his friends about how worked up he can get us. I'm dismissing him. He'll move on to someone else and try to get them to engage. Whoever wants him can have him.


Still emotional I see... I guess your opinion is worthy and others are not? I'm glad you still talking about me I got in your head. The weak ones alwata get so emotional


----------



## Krassi

and the weak ones always keep arguing.. have fun!


----------



## sander99

PointyFox said:


> Look back a page. It was fully intentional. There's a reason for the spelling and the quotations.


Ah, actually that was my initial thought because I seemed to remember having seen this mixup of words before and I already glimpsed over the older posts but didn't find it. I guess one or more posts have been edited?


----------



## PointyFox

sander99 said:


> Ah, actually that was my initial thought because I seemed to remember having seen this mixup of words before and I already glimpsed over the older posts but didn't find it. I guess one or more posts have been edited?



Nah, it's still on the previous page.


----------



## sander99

PointyFox said:


> Nah, it's still on the previous page.


I see it now.


----------



## bigshot

"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them  they've been fooled." --Mark Twain


----------



## SpeakerBox

Per earlier discussions in this thread, I think this article has helped me understand why most CDs sound bad to me:

https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/10/17/hi-fi-why-do-records-sound-better-the-ivory-tower/

I found this to be very enlightening.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SpeakerBox said:


> Per earlier discussions in this thread, I think this article has
> helped me understand why most CDs sound bad to me:
> 
> https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/10/17/hi-fi-why-do-records-sound-better-the-ivory-tower/
> ...




I already know why so many CDs sound, to some people, inferior to vinyl, and to analog in general, and the article confirmed it:

It's not the format - it's the _mastering_!  


The author, McNair, himself a mastering engineer, brings up, at numerous points in the article, how an album is often mastered for CD and other digital formats: as loud, per the client or label's request, as it can be gotten!  

And the album-buying public, largely ignorant about the processes behind it, automatically make the false and incorrect association between over-compressed masters and the type of compression - data reduction - occurring in mp3 and other lossy sound containers.


----------



## InstantSilence

Audio cables are components
Cables conduct electricity and not numbers
Cable quality matters.


----------



## bigshot

InstantSilence said:


> Audio cables are components
> Cables conduct electricity and not numbers
> Cable quality matters.



That’s why I buy quality, well designed cables made by Amazon Basics


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> That’s why I buy quality, well designed cables made by Amazon Basics


Ewwwwwww
You go have fun thinking you getting a deal 

Ewwwwww


----------



## Voxata

InstantSilence said:


> Ewwwwwww
> You go have fun thinking you getting a deal
> 
> Ewwwwww


I mean ... There's worse out there.


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> Ewwwwwww
> You go have fun thinking you getting a deal
> 
> Ewwwwww


Why do you think cables make a perceived difference?


----------



## InstantSilence (Oct 17, 2020)

KeithPhantom said:


> Why do you think cables make a perceived difference?


Components matter. Materials matter.
Low end system doesn't show a cables characteristics, simply not transparent enough. 
Higher end gear shows a difference right away 
But generally a 2k system will show, but very little. 
Around 1k (talking dac/amp/hp combo) just won't show a difference in cables, very minor if at all. 
North of 2k with reputable gear will instantly show the difference as it can achieve higher transparency 
Its very unfortunate that higher end audio costs a lot even used. I wish everyone could enjoy the best of thr hobby. 


Again, components and materials matter.


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> Components matter. Materials matter.


At the 0.1 dB (at best) order of magnitude? I am talking about sonic improvements, not about look and feel.


----------



## InstantSilence

KeithPhantom said:


> At the 0.1 dB (at best) order of magnitude? I am talking about sonic improvements, not about look and feel.


No, dar higher. It generally improves transparency, I'm not talking about looks, to me those don't matter. 
Transparency, and because of that layering are the first that show up when introducing a quality cable into a quality higher end system. 
The more transparent the drivers and dac/amp is the more the characteristics of the cable at hand will sound.


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> No, dar higher. It generally improves transparency, I'm not talking about looks, to me those don't matter.
> Transparency, and because of that layering are the first that show up when introducing a quality cable into a quality higher end system.
> The more transparent the drivers and dac/amp is the more the characteristics of the cable at hand will sound.


Do you know the basic LRC laws and principles? How the masking effect affects the detection of nonlinearities? How transducers are orders of magnitude more flawed than other electrical and electronic components? Do you realize that ears are not better than analyzers at detecting these nonlinearities? Do you have any method to remove bias from your observations?

Finally, are you trolling?


----------



## InstantSilence

KeithPhantom said:


> Do you know the basic LRC laws and principles? How the masking effect affects the detection of nonlinearities? How transducers are orders of magnitude more flawed than other electrical and electronic components? Do you realize that ears are not better than analyzers at detecting these nonlinearities? Do you have any method to remove bias from your observations?
> 
> Finally, are you trolling?


I'm not. I responded to a thread's title. 
I don't have a way to do all those things you asked. But I encourage you to stay cheap with cheap quality components across the board. 
If it achieves happiness in your hobby at lower prices, we'll then, you are a true winner. 
I wish I had you'd mentality, I would have cheaper gear and have been much happier. 

All your questions above intended to introduce complexity... I shoot them down by pointing out the ever growing high end cable market. From various brands at various success stages and $ prices. They wouldn't exist based on look and feel alone. 

You are asking a posters answer to a title of a thread...


----------



## old tech

InstantSilence said:


> All your questions above intended to introduce complexity... I shoot them down by pointing out the ever growing high end cable market. From various brands at various success stages and $ prices. They wouldn't exist based on look and feel alone.
> 
> You are asking a posters answer to a title of a thread...


There's no complexity when it comes to audio cables.  The so called high end cable market is not growing. They target a shrinking market of gullible subset of 'audiophiles'.

Without getting into the science basics and ignoring that the snakeoil put out by these so called high end cable makers never publish results of blind tests, surely anyone with basic critical thinking skills would arrive at the correct conclusion when realising no-one over the past 30 years has been able to claim the $1m Randi prize - a few takers by users (never by the manufacturers - strange that...) but no pass.

I'm sure you are either trolling (being an audio science forum) or another case of cognitive dissonance by being sucked in to the snake and spending heaps of cash on cables that have been proven to perform no better than coat hangers.


----------



## InstantSilence (Oct 18, 2020)

old tech said:


> There's no complexity when it comes to audio cables.  The so called high end cable market is not growing. They target a shrinking market of gullible subset of 'audiophiles'.
> 
> Without getting into the science basics and ignoring that the snakeoil put out by these so called high end cable makers never publish results of blind tests, surely anyone with basic critical thinking skills would arrive at the correct conclusion when realising no-one over the past 30 years has been able to claim the $1m Randi prize - a few takers by users (never by the manufacturers - strange that...) but no pass.
> 
> I'm sure you are either trolling (being an audio science forum) or another case of cognitive dissonance by being sucked in to the snake and spending heaps of cash on cables that have been proven to perform no better than coat hangers.


You are wrong on most things you said.


----------



## old tech

InstantSilence said:


> You are wrong on most things you said.


So someone did claim the James Randi $1 million?


----------



## bigshot

InstantSilence said:


> You go have fun thinking you getting a deal



You do a controlled listening test and see if you have spent your money wisely.


----------



## bfreedma

InstantSilence said:


> Components matter. Materials matter.
> Low end system doesn't show a cables characteristics, simply not transparent enough.
> Higher end gear shows a difference right away
> But generally a 2k system will show, but very little.
> ...




Congratulations - that's the largest number of audiophile tropes and platitudes per word I've seen recently.

I have "reputable gear" (at least I think it's reputable, not sure how that's assessed) which is worth far more than your arbitrary demarcation line of price/audibility.  Yet under controlled testing, I can't detect a difference in cables.  Before you move on to the "you must be deaf" response, my hearing tests come back with acceptable results...


----------



## magicscreen

I have a Klotz USB cable. Using this cable the player randomly lost connection to a DAC.
I replaced this cable with a cheaper Hama USB cable.  The problem had been resolved.
I can use the Klotz cable for file transfer without seeing any error.
So do USB cables make a difference? YES.


----------



## VNandor

magicscreen said:


> I have a Klotz USB cable. Using this cable the player randomly lost connection to a DAC.
> I replaced this cable with a cheaper Hama USB cable.  The problem had been resolved.
> I can use the Klotz cable for file transfer without seeing any error.
> So do USB cables make a difference? YES.


But did switching the cables open up the soundstage at least? Was the veil finally lifted from your music? Did the dynamics improve so much even your wife could hear it from the other room? 
Anyways, I'm curious about this, did you try to find out what could cause such a problem or you just switched the cable, it worked and you called it a day?


----------



## bigshot

Your cable sounds like it had a short in it. You can find a replacement for a few bucks at Amazon.


----------



## old tech

magicscreen said:


> I have a Klotz USB cable. Using this cable the player randomly lost connection to a DAC.
> I replaced this cable with a cheaper Hama USB cable.  The problem had been resolved.
> I can use the Klotz cable for file transfer without seeing any error.
> So do USB cables make a difference? YES.


You're talking now about a fault in the cable.  I think you will find unanimous agreement here that quality means cables that are robust and fit for purpose rather than having some 'magical' quality that subtly affects sound quality.


----------



## colonelkernel8

InstantSilence said:


> You are wrong on most things you said.


The people buying "audiophile cables" are just looking for bling-y braided cables to go with their ridiculous 14-driver custom IEMs so they can show off their lack of sense to their audiophile buddies. That and solid copper-body music players that cost far more than a tricked out MacBook Pro. It's beyond ludicrous.


----------



## setmenu

I got cable fever in 2002 ish. auditioned loads of them night n day differences opted for siltechs , $$$ silver cables with a nice blue outer sheath.
got into diy amps etc went mad use point to point silver wire, magical things happened [black gate caps too].
One day i wondered whether i could remotely reproduce the change degree I heard with a passive filter setup. 
Looking at the filter values i needed to effect the degree of change i thought I perceived and comparing the cable values , which were tiny by comparison i concluded that what i was hearing was purely expectation, as the cable values would change thing things in Mhz area not khz.
facinating, but still love my silver though best talisman i ever bought 
sure i posted this back in the day, some 20 years ago.


----------



## fjf (Oct 23, 2020)

I like to show this as an example of double-blind test.  Look at the cheap RCA-terminated cable used in the cheap system 

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm

Go to "Blind Tests" and clic the link.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

fjf said:


> I like to show this as an example of double-blind test.  Look at the cheap
> RCA-terminated cable used in the cheap system
> 
> http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
> ...



Of course one can prove a difference:  Play the 'remastered' version of the same CD through the higher end rig!


----------



## PhonoPhi

InstantSilence said:


> Components matter. Materials matter.
> Low end system doesn't show a cables characteristics, simply not transparent enough.
> Higher end gear shows a difference right away
> But generally a 2k system will show, but very little.
> ...


Yeh, like in materials chemistry, there is a key stricture-property relationships, similar for gullible audiophiles there is a price-perception self-conviction paradigm 
Nothing better than cables show how much snake oil and crowd mentality is in this hobby...


----------



## colonelkernel8

PhonoPhi said:


> Yeh, like in materials chemistry, there is a key stricture-property relationships, similar for gullible audiophiles there is a price-perception self-conviction paradigm
> Nothing better than cables show how much snake oil and crowd mentality is in this hobby...


It's frankly depressing reading through the threads on the cable forum. So many delusional people.


----------



## fjf

colonelkernel8 said:


> It's frankly depressing reading through the threads on the cable forum. So many delusional people.



It is a waste of time trying to convince them.  They simply say that the people failing the blind test does not have their golden ears or their very expensive, transparent and resolving equipment.  Preaching in the desert!.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

The only thing that Trumps a double blind test is a double deaf test.   One deaf person recommending audio equipment to another deaf person.

This is an unbelievable thread.   Started over 10 years ago and still going.   If someone wants to purchase a $400 cable for their $200 headphones, why the heck do you even care?   Instead of posting your disdain for the choices of other people, start a company to make $400 cables to sell to these people.   There isn't a person here who doesn't make questionable choices at times.   Lots of people casting stones in their glass houses.


----------



## fjf

People are getting conned, and some of us dont enjoy watching.


----------



## bfreedma

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> The only thing that Trumps a double blind test is a double deaf test.   One deaf person recommending audio equipment to another deaf person.
> 
> This is an unbelievable thread.   Started over 10 years ago and still going.   If someone wants to purchase a $400 cable for their $200 headphones, why the heck do you even care?   Instead of posting your disdain for the choices of other people, start a company to make $400 cables to sell to these people.   There isn't a person here who doesn't make questionable choices at times.   Lots of people casting stones in their glass houses.



Your idea of appropriate action would be to start a company and knowingly rip off uneducated/unaware consumers instead of identifying and discussing the technical realities?

Sad commentary how you view this hobby, it’s manufacturers, and it’s consumers.


----------



## bigshot

fjf said:


> They simply say that the people failing the blind test does not have their golden ears or their very expensive, transparent and resolving equipment.



The same arguments you get if you point out that there should be no reason for two DACs to sound any different.


----------



## Marutks (Oct 24, 2020)

bigshot said:


> When someone asks if cables with different kinds of metal (copper, silver, gold, unobtanium, etc.) sound different, the answer is clearly no.



When I bought headphones at CanJam London they (*Hifonix*) tried to sell me overpriced (600 gbp) silver cable as well. 
They said I should try their cable and I will never want to use copper cable again.  It is absolute bullsh1t.  *Snake oil salesmen should be banned from CanJam.*


----------



## Zambu (Oct 25, 2020)

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> The only thing that Trumps a double blind test is a double deaf test.



I don't usually comment on grammar mistakes since I certainly make them myself, but...that verb probably shouldn't have a capital T, regardless of who's the president.


----------



## colonelkernel8

fjf said:


> It is a waste of time trying to convince them.  They simply say that the people failing the blind test does not have their golden ears or their very expensive, transparent and resolving equipment.  Preaching in the desert!.


Oh I know. I've been down that road. It's essentially religion around these parts.


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 27, 2020)

Well I am new to this thread.
In my years of Hifi (I am 60) - I have realized a thing or two.
- there are rare cases where a certain "component" is exceptionally good, very few and far between.
- on the other hand, "bad components" crop up every where - even from some top manufacturers.
- when it comes to "cables", for as long as one avoids "bad ones" there is no need to go much further,
I certainly have not come across an exceptional cable, simply because I don;t believe in one, so I have not been looking!
my backround in in electrical engineering.

Checkout my DIY interconnects ( No RF issues of any kind)
Made by using very thin/flexible stereo shielded cable - I used the two shields for +/- 5V supply, and the inner cores for +/- data:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/diy-cable-gallery.71148/post-15939991
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/diy-cable-gallery.71148/post-15932742


----------



## bigshot

I’m 61, and back in the 70s and 80s, there were good and bad components. Today with digital audio, everything I find sounds great. Price differences are because of features, not sound. Sometimes because of build quality. But I really don’t mind buying a cheaper amp and having it burn out in five or six years. By then, there’s new technology that makes replacing it worthwhile. My brother bought a McIntosh system back on the 70s. It still works great, but no HDMI or digital inputs, no TV integration, no multichannel, it’s just an amp and receiver. He set it up in the corner and uses a modern AVR most of the time.


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 27, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I’m 61, and back in the 70s and 80s, there were good and bad components. Today with digital audio, everything I find sounds great.


 You are due for a hearing tests  (and I am jelous)



> . My brother bought a McIntosh system back on the 70s. It still works great,


Well that McIntosh is one of those rare exceptional components I was talking about. Indeed many good Tube amplifiers of 70's to 90's (US built specially) were brilliant.
If I was in states, I would have offered to buy it off him.


----------



## bigshot

I’m not deaf.


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 27, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I’m not deaf.


I would not be disrespectful - but a hearing test (I was joking ofcourse) shows your hearing capabilities at differing frequencies and levels.
If there are any shortcomings, that may explain a bit towards your statement "  with digital audio, everything I find sounds great. "
Specially with digital, I am very difficult to please - but not impossible.
It takes an exceptional DAC that I can call good - most are crap or at best just adequate. Just a handful (Chord, dCs, Naim ...) I can call good.


----------



## fjf

With age you lose the high frequencies.  Now I dont hear much above 13-14KHz.  Fortunately there is not much music around there.  Thank god we are not bats.


----------



## old tech

I like this review of the $2,000 Audioquest Wind cable

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../audioquest-wind-high-end-cable-review.17065/


----------



## reginalb

Kentajalli said:


> ...It takes an exceptional DAC that I can call good - most are crap or at best just adequate. Just a handful (Chord, dCs, Naim ...) I can call good.



That is just factually inaccurate. Converting digital to analog is trivial at this point, and the accuracy of the conversion is completely measurable. Every DAC on the market that isn't intentionally coloring sound is completely transparent.


----------



## Kentajalli

reginalb said:


> That is just factually inaccurate. Converting digital to analog is trivial at this point, and the accuracy of the conversion is completely measurable. Every DAC on the market that isn't intentionally coloring sound is completely transparent.


So much _factuality _flying about !.
_And who knows which is which and who is who_


----------



## colonelkernel8

Kentajalli said:


> It takes an exceptional DAC that I can call good - most are crap or at best just adequate. Just a handful (Chord, dCs, Naim ...) I can call good.



I will be disrespectful. I'll bet you $1000 (USD) that you couldn't tell the difference between a $50k Chord, or dCs or Naim and a $100 SMSL Sanskrit in a DBT.


----------



## Kentajalli

colonelkernel8 said:


> I will be disrespectful. I'll bet you $1000 (USD) that you couldn't tell the difference between a $50k Chord, or dCs or Naim and a $100 SMSL Sanskrit in a DBT.


You are on!
we just need this Covid craze to die down a bit so I could rob you blind!
or is it double blind.
Respectfully of course 😊.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

I started a new thread, since a DAC challenge is not about cables. (link)


----------



## colonelkernel8

Kentajalli said:


> You are on!
> we just need this Covid craze to die down a bit so I could rob you blind!
> or is it double blind.
> Respectfully of course 😊.



I'll take the enormous corpus of scientific data and papers on the subject from AES over your feelings on the subject. If we could ever actually do this test, you would lose. I say this with 100% certainty.


----------



## Kentajalli

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'll take the enormous corpus of scientific data and papers on the subject from AES over your feelings on the subject. If we could ever actually do this test, you would lose. I say this with 100% certainty.


I already admit defeat!
Silly me, When you said "I will be disrespectful" and set a bet, foolishly I assumed it was all in a light-hearted manner, with a _smiley _ on your face!
I know now you were serious - so my hats off to you, you won, thank god you can not sue me for the grand -  nothing to stop you do a victory lap.
You were correct, my Chord Mojo sounds as bad (or as good) as my Huawei phone with one of those USB-C to 3.5mm jacks attached.
Anybody out there wanna buy a Mojo, only thrown to a wall once!
in good condition . . .


----------



## bigshot

When two things sound the same, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are both defective. In fact, odds are it is the opposite. If two different things are putting out degraded sound, it is VERY unlikely that they are putting out exactly the same kind of degradation. It's more likely that they are both putting out perfect sound.

I think it would be useful for you to invest $50 in a switch box with level adjustment to conduct a blind comparison yourself. I think you would learn a lot and would understand better what you are being told here in sound science.


----------



## InstantSilence

Cables matter. As they are components. Components In any electronic related gear matter.


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 29, 2020)

bigshot said:


> When two things sound the same, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are both defective. In fact, odds are it is the opposite. If two different things are putting out degraded sound, it is VERY unlikely that they are putting out exactly the same kind of degradation. It's more likely that they are both putting out perfect sound.
> 
> I think it would be useful for you to invest $50 in a switch box with level adjustment to conduct a blind comparison yourself. I think you would learn a lot and would understand better what you are being told here in sound science.


Believe me, I have - many times.
I have made such a box myself many years ago. Those days you could put a pot in there to adjust volume control, but now adays it is not so easy.
Do not assume I don't read science articles or don't understand them - I don't live in a commune praying to the god of hifi.
I design and build tube amps, so I should know a thing or two about the science that goes with hifi.
Testing, measuring is a wonderful tool - a limited tool, because every day science is advancing more , and our ability to test improves.
But those lovely graphs are not the final word!
remember the 70's ? when Radio shack latest amplifier had a frequency response of 20 - 20kHz within 0.00000001 dB? distortion figures of nano percent?
And it sounded rubbish? and it measured well - at the time!
And if you believe that today we have achieved the point where we can measure a DAC or an AMP so accurately and perfectly, that auditioning is no longer necessary.
If you hearing says otherwise, it must be your ears, or you are a fool.
I don't know what to say to that.
Why are we on a Hifi forum?
To each their own - enjoy your gear, and let others (such as imaginitive fools like me) enjoy theirs.

BTW two DAC's don't sound the same, that is my position - so your assertion does not apply here.
Neither do Amps.


----------



## bigshot

InstantSilence said:


> Cables matter. As they are components. Components In any electronic related gear matter.



If everything in the world matters, then nothing matters. It's about priorities. My priority is sound quality I can hear with my decidedly human ears. You may judge quality by numbers on a page. That's fine. But you can't hear a difference in a blind test, so to me, it doesn't matter.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Kentajalli said:


> And it sounded rubbish? and it measured well - at the time!


Subjective impressions, too small of a sample size, and not enough information of the population size, measurements, and other dependant variables that may help us to make a better judgement. One thing you can do is to provide all measurements and components related to these. Also, consider the use case and other equipment that may be affecting these.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2020)

Kentajalli said:


> Believe me, I have - many times.



Ah! I was assuming that you were just unaware. Now that you let me know that you have done controlled tests and you assert that you fully understand what we are saying, I will take you at your word and conclude that you are prevaricating for self aggrandizement. That is fine. You might find that you have a difficult time in this particular forum with that line of argument. We don't react well to logical fallacies and deliberate falsehoods around here. We don't invest our ego in our cochleas. Your attempt to impress is doomed to failure in Sound Science.

(Castle, I chose my words carefully to phrase that politely yet still get the general idea across. Hope it helps.)



Kentajalli said:


> Neither do Amps.



Kent, feel free to refer to the Stereo Review link in my signature file.


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 29, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Ah! I was assuming that you were just unaware. Now that you let me know that you have done controlled tests, I will take you at your word and realize that you are prevaricating for self aggrandizement. That is fine. You might find that you have a difficult time in this particular forum with that line of argument. We don't react well to logical fallacies and deliberate falsehoods around here. Your attempt to impress is doomed to failure.
> 
> (Castle, I chose my words carefully to phrase that politely yet still get the general idea across. Hope it helps.)
> 
> Kent, feel free to refer to the Stereo Review link in my signature file.


too many long words in there - you lost me.
I was/am not trying to impress anyone - I stated an opinion, with a joke or two (with smiley faces to leave no doubt) - and so many enlightened, super scientific guru's had a go at me.
Lets move on.

stereo review link seems to be dead.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Kentajalli said:


> And if you believe that today we have achieved the point where we can measure a DAC or an AMP so accurately and perfectly, that auditioning is no longer necessary.
> If you hearing says otherwise, it must be your ears, or you are a fool.


Good luck playing music at 120 dB SPL just to hear defects at 0 or 1 dB SPL, your ears will thank you for that... Also, have a good time dealing with level-induced masking effect.


----------



## colonelkernel8

InstantSilence said:


> Cables matter. As they are components. Components In any electronic related gear matter.


Not at audible frequencies. Unless there is a capacitor or resistor or inductor soldered in line, then a cable will make no audible difference. In fact it's barely measureable up to 200kHz and beyond.


----------



## PhonoPhi

colonelkernel8 said:


> Not at audible frequencies. Unless there is a capacitor or resistor or inductor soldered in line, then a cable will make no audible difference. In fact it's barely measureable up to 200kHz and beyond.


Cables can matter, when their impedance (of which only resistance is of practical relevance) is comparable to the resistance of the circuit with the transducers, 1/8 is a good well-known/cited rule of thumb.

Now, many IEMs, for instance, have impedance below 16 Ohm, even below 10 Ohm (do not ask me why), and typical stock cables can be easily 1.5-2 Ohms. So when someone changes stock cable for the cable of the significantly lower resistance (0.5 Ohm or less) - the difference is there.

This difference can be even more drastic for multi-transducer IEMs, such as multi-BAs, with transducer resonances, where their impedance gets lower.
There changing the impedance of the cables can appreciably affect the frequency response.

I hope I am stating fairly obvious things for this forum, just to point out that "cables matter" can be quite real sometimes.

Another story is when "graphene" cables are sold to poor audiophiles


----------



## szore

Of course cables matter, what the hell are you hearing?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2020)

You don't get much sound without cables!

Cables that aren't designed to be used for the purpose you are using them will definitely degrade sound. But you can't design a cable that sounds better than another properly designed cable. If you are connecting something with the proper Amazon basics cable, buying a fancy expensive cable isn't going to make it sound any better. If you buy equipment that is non-standard, you will have to buy the accessories that the manufacturer wants you to buy. That is a well known marketing trick. I personally don't buy equipment that is deliberately hobbled like that. There are too many good pieces of gear that follow the established standards.


----------



## szore

bigshot said:


> You don't get much sound without cables!
> 
> Cables that aren't designed to be used for the purpose you are using them will definitely degrade sound. But you can't design a cable that sounds better than another properly designed cable. If you are connecting something with the proper Amazon basics cable, buying a fancy expensive cable isn't going to make it sound any better.


Define 'fancy' cable...Do you mean pure copper? What purity? Silver? Silver/copper hybrid? Because they all have different tonalities...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 29, 2020)

Any cable that costs more than an Amazon basics cable. No, copper doesn't sound different than silver. The differences in conductivity don't add up to anything audible by human ears. Check out the pinned post at the top of this forum Testing Audiophile Myths for proof. I'm sure earlier posts in this thread have plenty of citations too if you would like to read a bit.

I think the thread title is the reason that this thread is like fly paper for people who have never been in Sound Science before. I wish it could be changed.


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> Any cable that costs more than an Amazon basics cable. No, copper doesn't sound different than silver. The differences in conductivity don't add up to anything audible by human ears. Check out the pinned post at the top of this forum Testing Audiophile Myths for proof. I'm sure earlier posts in this thread have plenty of citations too if you would like to read a bit.
> 
> I think the thread title is the reason that this thread is like fly paper for people who have never been in Sound Science before. I wish it could be changed.


You can only hear difference between materials with resolving gear... If yiu are just using some hd650 with some little dot tube or equivalent gear... Well.. Yeah... No cable is gonna sound any different by comparison using low end gear.  The system needs transparency and resolution to show you minute changes in the system... Like a cable component. 
Cables conduct electricity, silver does the better job if it. Why wouldn't it matter...   Just keep enjoying your *hifi* gear with your 200$ cans and tell yourself you are getting the best sound out there.what a joke


----------



## KeithPhantom

PhonoPhi said:


> Now, many IEMs, for instance, have impedance below 16 Ohm, even below 10 Ohm (do not ask me why), and typical stock cables can be easily 1.5-2 Ohms.
> 
> 
> PhonoPhi said:
> ...


If this is true, the cable is utter trash. Also, adding carbon to cables isn't good as well...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2020)

InstantSilence said:


> You can only hear difference between materials with resolving gear...



So you have done a level matched, blind, direct A/B switched listening test and have proved this? I don't think so.

My headphones listed for $1200 and my speaker system cost many times that. You can't judge fidelity by price. I test every piece of equipment in my system. I know what every piece contributes. The old "either it's your cheap equipment or you are deaf" isn't going to work in Sound Science I'm afraid. Good try though.


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> You can only hear difference between materials with resolving gear


You mean transducers with at best and in some frequencies have a THD + components of 0.05%. You'll start hearing the transducer's distortion even before getting closer to the region where to the differences between cables are. Also, you would have to increase the volume to 120 dB SPL just to have those differences present around 0 dB SPL. I desire you luck with all of this, and I'm not even mentioning level masking and hearing damage....


----------



## bigshot

This is a troll.


----------



## PhonoPhi

KeithPhantom said:


> If this is true, the cable is utter trash. Also, adding carbon to cables isn't good as well...


It is true for many IEM stock cables. Thin flexible wires.

That is how the fertile ground for "cables matter" is set up.


----------



## fjf

InstantSilence said:


> You can only hear difference between materials with resolving gear... If yiu are just using some hd650 with some little dot tube or equivalent gear... Well.. Yeah... No cable is gonna sound any different by comparison using low end gear.  The system needs transparency and resolution to show you minute changes in the system... Like a cable component.
> Cables conduct electricity, silver does the better job if it. Why wouldn't it matter...   Just keep enjoying your *hifi* gear with your 200$ cans and tell yourself you are getting the best sound out there.what a joke



Something I dont understand....why stop with silver?.  You can go gold or platinum, more expensive, and therefore better for audio cables...You must be a poor audiophile...


----------



## InstantSilence

fjf said:


> Something I dont understand....why stop with silver?.  You can go gold or platinum, more expensive, and therefore better for audio cables...You must be a poor audiophile...


Silver is the best conductor for electricity


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 30, 2020)

InstantSilence said:


> Silver is the best conductor for electricity


Now Hifi to most of us here is a hobby - it is not just a means to an end.
We like to have fun, so before you read the rest (if!) if you like to use silver wires encrusted with ptfe in a twisted fashion - by all means - have your fun.

The difference between silver and copper conductivity is so low, it is not worth mentioning.
At least in the confines of Hifi of any type.
Termination techniques i.e. is it crimped or soldered, and contact resistances between the jacks and sockets are far far higher than the difference between what metal is used as a conductor.
Example;
a one meter length of copper compared to silver has resistance variations of micro ohms.
A mildly corroded jack or socket it would be in tenths of ohms to an ohm in bad cases!
Yet neither makes that much of a difference as headphones rarely go below 10 ohms, so even one ohm won't make a difference. for line outputs of impedances in tens of kilo ohms, they it matters even less.
Try it if you are handy with DIY.
get a one ohm resistor, and connect it in series with one of your leads - then listen - I am sure even in the most revealing setups it wont make a tangible difference.

Now silver wires, came into prominence in the days of LP's and cartridges.
Those days we had moving coil cartridges of impedances of only a few ohm ( I still have a lovely entre one cartridge with a 3 ohm silver winding).
Now these cartridges only managed a few microvolts of output signal, so either they needed a head amp with sensitive loading requirements, or a step-up transformer.
Any how, to reduce to absolute lowest resistance, people started using silver or silver coated conductors for interconnects and windings.
BUT
outside of that very special scenario, copper is as good as silver.
Believe me those silver headphone cables, are just bling! look good, feel good - but electrically serve no purpose.


----------



## fjf (Oct 30, 2020)

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-most-conductive-metal

Little difference, though.


----------



## Kentajalli

fjf said:


> https://www.quora.com/Which-is-most-conductive-metal
> 
> Little difference, though.


And I got this, isn't it funny?
Your graph or mine - the difference is miniscule.


----------



## sonitus mirus

InstantSilence said:


> Silver is the best conductor for electricity


Silver is expensive and far more likely to oxidize, becoming a less efficient conductor.  A 500-foot length of 24-gauge silver wire would only be about 1 ohm lower in resistance than copper. 

https://www.inchcalculator.com/wire-gauge-size-and-resistance-calculator/

The idea that silver should make any apparent audible difference with interconnects or speaker cables is laughable.


----------



## InstantSilence

sonitus mirus said:


> Silver is expensive and far more likely to oxidize, becoming a less efficient conductor.  A 500-foot length of 24-gauge silver wire would only be about 1 ohm lower in resistance than copper.
> 
> https://www.inchcalculator.com/wire-gauge-size-and-resistance-calculator/
> 
> The idea that silver should make any apparent audible difference with interconnects or speaker cables is laughable.


I have a very resolving system and I can hear it clearly and everyone that comes over too


----------



## fjf

Yes, those are the ultimate reasons usually used in support of subjectivity and against evidence:  my very resolving system and my golden ears.  The fact that if you dont see the cables you cannot differentiate them (the basis for a blind test) means nothing to people without the minimum logic ability.


----------



## InstantSilence

fjf said:


> Yes, those are the ultimate reasons usually used in support of subjectivity and against evidence:  my very resolving system and my golden ears.  The fact that if you dont see the cables you cannot differentiate them (the basis for a blind test) means nothing to people without the minimum logic ability.


I've done blind test and again, instant difference between the cheap generic cables and silver cables. Instantly heard in 10 seconds in the track. 
I've had friends that don't care about audio do a blind test and they cab tell a difference


----------



## sonitus mirus

InstantSilence said:


> I have a very resolving system and I can hear it clearly and everyone that comes over too


I don't believe that is true, regardless of how resolving your system may be, and you must be mistaken about the cause for any audible difference that might be heard.  We will have to part ways on this issue and continue to disagree.

I know you are trolling.  Don't bother replying to me, as I will move on and ignore you going forward.


----------



## InstantSilence

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't believe that is true, regardless of how resolving your system may be, and you must be mistaken about the cause for any audible difference that might be heard.  We will have to part ways on this issue and continue to disagree.
> 
> I know you are trolling.  Don't bother replying to me, as I will move on and ignore you going forward.


Go right ahead. You are making it all personal, it's of no difference to me, what you do

You likely have low end stuff so no surprize you can't head a difference in a system that costs hundreds of bucks... They are budget system with a budget sound


----------



## reginalb

InstantSilence said:


> Go right ahead. You are making it all personal, it's of no difference to me, what you do
> 
> You likely have low end stuff so no surprize you can't head a difference in a system that costs hundreds of bucks... They are budget system with a budget sound



You should try out some coat hangers.

https://www.soundguys.com/cable-myths-reviving-the-coathanger-test-23553/

tl;dr: 


> From this we learn that only at 10kHz, where no fundamentals of our music live: using a coathanger as a cable will result in a _slightly _increased range of emphasis, _only_ when no other sounds of similar frequency are present, and _only_ when no other harmonics that occupy the same range. As you can imagine, those conditions will almost certainly never exist when listening to music.



Interestingly, the readers of Android Authority, when asked to do a subjective test, preferred the coat hangers by a pretty wide margin. I guess I better replace the Amazon Basics speaker cables in my living room.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2020)

InstantSilence said:


> I have a very resolving system and I can hear it clearly and everyone that comes over too



I see dead people. Even my wife can see them!



InstantSilence said:


> I've done blind test and again, instant difference between the cheap generic cables and silver cables. Instantly heard in 10 seconds in the track.



I'd be interested in hearing detailed accounts of how you conducted your blind testing. What controls did you use? Please go into detail on that. And what kind of procedure did you use for the testing? How many samples and how many did you accurately identify? Was there a difference between your success rate and your friends'?

Convince us with your thorough testing procedures.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> I'd be interested in hearing detailed accounts of how you conducted your blind testing. What controls did you use? Please go into detail on that. And what kind of procedure did you use for the testing? How many samples and how many did you accurately identify? Was there a difference between your success rate and your friends'?
> 
> Convince us with your thorough testing procedures.


ROTFLMAO!
You first, bigshot, you first. When I tried that with you, it was like pulling teeth...


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2020)

The difference is, I have actually done a lot of tests. I don't think he has ever done any. It's easy to say that you've done tests without ever having done them. I just want to hear him tell me the basics. I'm not going to nail him to the cross of +/-.5dB. I just want to hear that he knows what a controlled test is. I leave nitpicking to people who enjoy that.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> The difference is, I have actually done a lot of tests. I don't think he has ever done any. It's easy to say that you've done tests without ever having done them. I just want to hear him tell me the basics. I'm not going to nail him to the cross of +/-.5dB. I just want to hear that he knows what a controlled test is. I leave nitpicking to people who enjoy that.


The problem is I doubt you did them correctly, if at all. I'd LOVE for you to prove me wrong and humiliate me. And I'm not looking for nitpicking correctness, simply answers to _*your own questions*_. I've tried without success, remember?
No nitpicking, just this:


bigshot said:


> I'd be interested in hearing detailed accounts of how you conducted your blind testing. What controls did you use? Please go into detail on that. And what kind of procedure did you use for the testing? How many samples and how many did you accurately identify? Was there a difference between your success rate and your friends'?
> 
> Convince us with your thorough testing procedures.


----------



## reginalb

SoundAndMotion said:


> The problem is I doubt you did them correctly, if at all. I'd LOVE for you to prove me wrong and humiliate me. And I'm not looking for nitpicking correctness, simply answers to _*your own questions*_. I've tried without success, remember?
> No nitpicking, just this:



bigshot isn't making any claims of wild differences that he's heard between equipment. He's arguing for the null. I am not sure _what _test you're asking him to document.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Oct 30, 2020)

reginalb said:


> bigshot isn't making any claims of wild differences that he's heard between equipment.


Great! But not relevant to my post.


reginalb said:


> I am not sure _what _test you're asking him to document.


So then ask!
I guess you have not read too many of bigshot's posts. He often states that he has done controlled listening tests on everything he owns, and he often tells others to do their own listening tests and that "it's easy". I've pointed out to him that some listening tests are indeed easy and some are tricky, even difficult. He says I expect publishable or lab standard tests, which is untrue. I have asked for details on his tests, but first he ignored the request, then did some hand waving, then "an engineer friend" appears in the explanation to deal with the technical stuff that he couldn't answer. If you need an engineer friend to do a test, maybe it should not be advertised as "easy".


----------



## reginalb

SoundAndMotion said:


> Great! But not relevant to my post.
> 
> So then ask!
> I guess you have not read too many of bigshot's posts. He often states that he has done controlled listening tests on everything he owns, and he often tells others to do their own listening tests and that "it's easy". I've pointed out to him that some listening tests are indeed easy and some are tricky, even difficult. He says I expect publishable or lab standard tests, which is untrue. I have asked for details on his tests, but first he ignored the request, then did some hand waving, then "an engineer friend" appears in the explanation to deal with the technical stuff. If you need an engineer friend to do a test, maybe it should not be advertised as "easy".



Well, I have read those posts, actually. And I have to agree with him. If all you're doing is making a decision for yourself, you don't need extreme rigor, and testing of "Head-Fi" equipment (you know, headphones and their related sources) it actually is pretty damn simple. An A/B switch, a test tone file for volume matching, and a friend is really all you need. If you prove a null for yourself, then you can move on with your life. And I think that most people would, if they're honest with themselves.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

reginalb said:


> Well, I have read those posts, actually. And I have to agree with him. If all you're doing is making a decision for yourself, you don't need extreme rigor, and testing of "Head-Fi" equipment (you know, headphones and their related sources) it actually is pretty damn simple. An A/B switch, a test tone file for volume matching, and a friend is really all you need. If you prove a null for yourself, then you can move on with your life. And I think that most people would, if they're honest with themselves.


But he does much more than make a decision for himself. He derides and tries to shoo away people _who have made decisions for themselves._ If he tried to simply, but respectfully, "sell a better way", I'd have no problem.
And the problem with "proving" a null to yourself is, if the test is sloppy, it may not be a null for you. Some will argue that if the test must be "un-sloppy", the difference is too subtle to matter. You can make that decision for yourself, but you need to let others make their own _informed_ decision.
By the way, thinking of the other thread about the DAC bet, and bigshot's oft-mentioned $40 Walmart disc player, how would you set them up for a test? I ask him how would he? (Crickets...) The oft-mentioned $20-$50 switcher won't do it.


----------



## reginalb

SoundAndMotion said:


> But he does much more than make a decision for himself. He derides and tries to shoo away people _who have made decisions for themselves._ If he tried to simply, but respectfully, "sell a better way", I'd have no problem.
> And the problem with "proving" a null to yourself is, if the test is sloppy, it may not be a null for you. Some will argue that if the test must be "un-sloppy", the difference is too subtle to matter. You can make that decision for yourself, but you need to let others make their own _informed_ decision.
> By the way, thinking of the other thread about the DAC bet, and bigshot's oft-mentioned $40 Walmart disc player, how would you set them up for a test? I ask him how would he? (Crickets...) The oft-mentioned $20-$50 switcher won't do it.



Depends on what kind of outputs said Walmart disc player has. You very well might be able to easily adapt it to a switcher. 

Anyway, if you need more rigor, there is plenty of published research available on the topic. But that's not your own ears, which is what many audiophiles claim is so special. So do it with your own ears, but at least make your test blind. Else your eyes are what's making the difference. (also well established).


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Oct 30, 2020)

reginalb said:


> Depends on what kind of outputs said Walmart disc player has. You very well might be able to easily adapt it to a switcher.
> 
> Anyway, if you need more rigor, there is plenty of published research available on the topic.


The problem is not switching the output, it's synchronizing the 2 players. If the bogeyman, I mean audiophile, tells you he compared 2 players, the $8000 Super Megaphonic Platinum, and bs's Walmart player, and proudly announces he chose correctly 29/30 times, would you say "gee, I guess it's better"? Or would you realize that he figured out which was a second, even less, ahead of the other and used that cue instead of sound?

I'm not saying I need more rigor. I know how to do these tests. Although I'm familiar with a lot, but definitely not all, of the published research, I'm not familiar with any published research comparing disc players in a blind listening test. Can you give me a reference? I'd like to check it out.

PM received and point well taken. Good night for now....


----------



## InstantSilence

SoundAndMotion said:


> The problem is not switching the output, it's synchronizing the 2 players. If the bogeyman, I mean audiophile, tells you he compared 2 players, the $8000 Super Megaphonic Platinum, and bs's Walmart player, and proudly announces he chose correctly 29/30 times, would you say "gee, I guess it's better"? Or would you realize that he figured out which was a second, even less, ahead of the other and used that cue instead of sound?
> 
> I'm not saying I need more rigor. I know how to do these tests. Although I'm familiar with a lot, but definitely not all, of the published research, I'm not familiar with any published research comparing disc players in a blind listening test. Can you give me a reference? I'd like to check it out.
> 
> PM received and point well taken. Good night for now....


You are the only one here that makes any sense


----------



## bigshot

We say pretty much the same things. He just wants to argue because his ego makes him see me as an opponent. I really don’t care. I speak for myself and I’m not jealous of anyone. In fact, I’m here to learn. But I don’t learn well from people with a chip on their shoulder.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2020)

I took RCA line out from the DVD player. It was a cheap one. No HDMI. Skip to chapter 2, hit pause quick. Then hit play on both players at the same time. Try a couple of times and they will land in close sync and hold it until the end of the CD. It’s simple.


----------



## bigshot

I’ve even compared an SACD player to a CD player using the SACD layer compared to redbook layer. No audible difference. It was hard to find a hybrid SACD with the same mastering on both layers though.

But this thread is about wires, not me.


----------



## PhonoPhi

bigshot said:


> I’ve even compared an SACD player to a CD player using the SACD layer compared to redbook layer. No audible difference. It was hard to find a hybrid SACD with the same mastering on both layers though.


What types of transducers did you use in your comparison?


----------



## bigshot

Headphones (I think I had Senn HD590s back then), my own speaker system and the reference speaker system of a sound mixer friend. He had some headphones too, but I don’t know what they were. There’s a detailed description on Head-Fi somewhere.


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> Headphones (I think I had Senn HD590s back then), my own speaker system and the reference speaker system of a sound mixer friend. He had some headphones too, but I don’t know what they were. There’s a detailed description on Head-Fi somewhere.


Those cans have horrible resolving character... I guess they are a mere *ok* for their price... But not worth doing any testing... Lol you wasted your time.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 30, 2020)

"It's either your equipment or you're deaf"... Yada yada yada... Heard it all before. If it's so small that decent cans, a good speaker system and a professional sound system can't reveal it, it isn't worth worrying about. I'm not sure what I would hear with "better" headphones anyway, considering that the difference between 16/44.1 and SACD falls beyond the range of human hearing.


----------



## castleofargh

InstantSilence said:


> You likely have low end stuff so no surprize you can't head a difference in a system that costs hundreds of bucks... They are budget system with a budget sound


-"Magicarp, splash attack!"
it's not very effective. 
-"it's time to use my strongest attack: Wall of words, I pick you! "



I have no issue with the idea that 2 cables can cause perceived differences. I think everybody here can believe in the possibility. But making it a generality is another matter entirely.

I've discussed with quite a few people claiming that their silver cable was doing this and that to the sound. But the moment I dig a little deeper into how they reached a certain conclusion, I usually fall into a minefield of logical fallacies and inconclusive testing methods. Now, witnessing how the supporters of an idea usually do so for faulty reasons, that's not proof that the idea itself is bad. But it's certainly not a good sign.

You proposed a few general ideas that you clearly assume to be factual. It might be worth it to clearly define them and consider if they're as factual as you think they are. 
You insist on a correlation between money invested in the playback system, and the ability to notice cable differences. In the audiophile market, AFAIK, the relation between money and fidelity is a giant mess. That alone is troublesome for your rational. 
So let's remove the money to fidelity blur, and go straight to fidelity. I don't think you will have an issue with that. The proposition is now that we need a certain level of fidelity from the playback chain to be able to perceive the difference between cables. Is this fine with you? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but to remove unnecessary problems.

I think there is merit to the idea that the lack of fidelity in a playback chain could impede our ability to hear stuff. But I would argue that right now we have no clue what difference it is that we're supposed to hear between silver an copper cable. That we don't know the magnitude of such a change(if it's even something consistent for all cables). And that we don't have a clue what type of noise or distortion caused by a playback rig, would be susceptible to mask those differences, or how loud they need to be. 
From my own limited understanding of electricity and auditory masking, I'm tempted to conclude that your proposition is mighty vague and doesn't say much of anything in practice. I have no idea how you think you can determine what is or isn't transparent enough for the task at hand? 

Another pretty serious issue, is the fact that if 2 cables really had only silver or copper changing their otherwise identical electrical characteristics, then in almost all audio cases, you wouldn't be able to notice anything. Simply because the variations(strictly happening to the signal in the cable itself!!!!!) we'd expect to measure in the audible range are below typical hearing thresholds for most variables I can think about. And I think that's what rubs most electrical engineers the wrong way. It would really be a great deal for your point and anybody talking about the sound of silver cables, or good vs whatever fancy audiophile brand, if we could see measurements of changes at magnitudes we can consider audible. Without such data, we have little reason to take any of this seriously.

But even if we did get data suggesting some serious variations caused by switching cables, or some fairly serious and documented listening test showing that the listener did perceive a difference between cables, we still wouldn't be in the clear. Because then we'd have to seriously check that the differences are in fact caused by the metal used and nothing else. If only to avoid turning some anecdotal accident into false conclusions about silver vs copper.
Often times when discussing with audiophiles, I come to realize that they own 2 very different cables but decided to only focus on the fact that one was silver. We obviously have to avoid such mistakes and confirm that the metal is indeed causing the difference.
Somebody mentioned plugs and soldering job. My own experience agrees that they are more likely to cause significant differences, than silver vs copper in a short audio cable like those we consumers typically use.



Last but not least, silver does not have a sound because the main impacts on sound will almost always vary based on what is plugged at both ends of the cables. Both the type of signal change and the magnitude of it, can greatly vary with different rigs. And that makes me want to circle back to your idea that one needs a certain equipment to hear the difference. I happen to very much agree with that. I just disagree with the reasons you give to support that proposition. I think some audio gear can magnify the differences between cables, which in turn might reach audible levels sometimes. But I don't think it has anything to do with money or even fidelity. IMO it's much more likely to be related to the type of load, impedance values, and things like that(actual electrical specs).


----------



## InstantSilence (Oct 30, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> -"Magicarp, splash attack!"
> it's not very effective.
> -"it's time to use my strongest attack: Wall of words, I pick you! "
> 
> ...


Tl, Dr?

Sorry, that was rude of me. Your post is great and good quality


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> I have a very resolving system and I can hear it clearly and everyone that comes over too


Yeah, you can always hear stuff that has a delta of about 0.0x dB exactly using good cables? It's pretty good that I don't have your ears, or I would be worrying too much about cables.


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> Those cans have horrible resolving character


May I ask what is "resolving character"?


----------



## bigshot (Oct 31, 2020)

I was going to say something, but I don't want to feed the troll. Sorry.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Oct 31, 2020)

Kentajalli said:


> And I got this, isn't it funny?
> Your graph or mine - the difference is miniscule.


Irrelevant, immaterial.  The difference between the three most common conductors is minimal


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 31, 2020)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Irrelevant, immaterial.  The difference between the three most common conductors is minimal


did you miss  the line :_the difference is miniscule! _
it is up there, just take a look.
For the record, absolutely, silver and copper for all practical purposes in Hifi are the same.


----------



## InstantSilence

Kentajalli said:


> did you miss  the line :_the difference is miniscule! _
> it is up there, just take a look.
> For the record, absolutely, silver and copper for all practical purposes in Hifi are the same.


Differences cannot be observed with low quality gear like mojo and equivalent hp


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Oct 31, 2020)

InstantSilence said:


> Differences cannot be observed with low quality gear like mojo and equivalent hp


I can't really comment on DACs and HPs, but for the most important bit of gear, I'll counter that both top-quality and just regular everyday bongs give you the right resolving power...



Just poking fun.
But seriously, although I have a BS in Physics, I switched to Neuroscience for my graduate work, so my understanding of these things is rather simple minded. Can you help?

Although the conductance of silver is indeed roughly 5% better than copper, lowering the wire gauge by one unit increases the conductance about 25% or 30% or so. If you have a silver cable of one gauge and a copper cable one gauge unit lower, the copper cable will have better conductance (lower resistance) than the silver. Am I missing something? Is there more to it than conductance/resistance? Can it be explained to someone with only an undergraduate degree?


----------



## InstantSilence

SoundAndMotion said:


> I can't really comment on DACs and HPs, but for the most important bit of gear, I'll counter that both top-quality and just regular everyday bongs give you the right resolving power...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Without 3 phds... You just won't get it. I'll save my breath


----------



## SoundAndMotion

InstantSilence said:


> Without 3 phds... You just won't get it. I'll save my breath


Even with a super high-quality bong?


----------



## Kentajalli (Oct 31, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> Can it be explained to someone .........?


Yes you Dumbo !
Silver just _sounds _better - Deeeg?

I am sorry, couldn't resist it.

Moral of the story: _  How do I convince people ........  _ you can not!


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Kentajalli said:


> Yes you Dumbo !
> Silver just _sounds _better - Deeeg?
> 
> I am sorry, couldn't resist it.
> ...


Actually, “Silver just _sounds _better - I don’t know why” would have ended it for me. I wasn’t trying to convince, I was trying to understand the thinking. He said silver is better because it conducts better, which is true, a little, _only if it’s the same gauge_.
He probably thinks I’d attack or ridicule, which I understand, but that was not my plan. I want to understand the thinking.


----------



## Kentajalli

There has been so much misinformation put out there by cable snake-oil merchants that is unbelievable.
There was a time, that some were advocating that because at high frequencies, electrons flow more at the surface of a copper conductor, to get better treble you need to use multicore conductors, that's when we got those 250+ core speaker cables coming to the market.
Yes , electrons do travel better at the surface of a conductor (so I have read somewhere) but that high frequency they mentioned (or didn't mention) was in high GHz !
At 20kHz, a solid core 6 amp house wiring loom is as good as any soild silver cable.
Point is a cable is a non-reactive purely resistive passive device.
Unless it isn't - there were some cables sold as speaker cable, that in long runs (5 meters or more) were slightly reactive and capacitive, some Naim poweramps didn't like them and used to blow output transistors.
A very special case.
Pure silver wire for Moving coil cartridges and step-up transformers were a littlle beneficial - I suppose they could get an extra loop or more for the windings to reach the desired impedance. Again another special case.


----------



## bigshot

InstantSilence said:


> Differences cannot be observed with low quality gear like mojo and equivalent hp



Whatever. OK... So how about those Dodgers, eh?


----------



## InstantSilence

bigshot said:


> Whatever. OK... So how about those Dodgers, eh?


Idk what that is?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

InstantSilence said:


> Idk what that is?



The Dodgers?  Major League Baseball team that just won the World Series.

And your location says "USA"?  Sad.  I still regard baseball as America's sport, not NFL football, or basketball, or tennis.


----------



## InstantSilence

TheSonicTruth said:


> The Dodgers?  Major League Baseball team that just won the World Series.
> 
> And your location says "USA"?  Sad.  I still regard baseball as America's sport, not NFL football, or basketball, or tennis.


I care only about boxing


----------



## bigshot

You mean like Hulk Hogan?


----------



## InstantSilence

Cables matter and affect sound, not only depending on what materials the cable is used, but also it's design


----------



## bigshot

If they are used for the purpose they were designed to be used for, no they don't and copper and silver makes no difference, nor does how many times you twist it.


----------



## colonelkernel8

szore said:


> Define 'fancy' cable...Do you mean pure copper? What purity? Silver? Silver/copper hybrid? Because they all have different tonalities...


Oh jesus. This little section of the forum is not for you my man.


----------



## colonelkernel8

InstantSilence said:


> Cables matter and affect sound, not only depending on what materials the cable is used, but also it's design


No.


PhonoPhi said:


> Cables can matter, when their impedance (of which only resistance is of practical relevance) is comparable to the resistance of the circuit with the transducers, 1/8 is a good well-known/cited rule of thumb.
> 
> Now, many IEMs, for instance, have impedance below 16 Ohm, even below 10 Ohm (do not ask me why), and typical stock cables can be easily 1.5-2 Ohms. So when someone changes stock cable for the cable of the significantly lower resistance (0.5 Ohm or less) - the difference is there.
> 
> ...


Show me a stock cable with a resistance of 1.5-2 ohms that's shipped with 10 ohm or 16 ohm very high end IEMs (they have multiple parallel drivers, hence the low impedence). There is simply no way. If so, that is indeed a poorly engineered cable.


----------



## colonelkernel8

PhonoPhi said:


> It is true for many IEM stock cables. Thin flexible wires.
> 
> That is how the fertile ground for "cables matter" is set up.


I don't believe it's on the order of 1.5-2 ohms. If so I don't think I would trust the rest of the engineering of the IEM.


----------



## colonelkernel8

InstantSilence said:


> Silver is the best conductor for electricity


Do you know what that means in the context of the transmission of audio?


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Nov 1, 2020)

Feel free to delete. The troll is gone.


----------



## colonelkernel8

InstantSilence said:


> Cables matter and affect sound, not only depending on what materials the cable is used, but also it's design


What's the best design for a cable and why?


----------



## bigshot

Not to mention that he totally ignored the fact that I did the test on a professional sound mixer's reference system... He's a troll. They throw them in this forum every once in a while so it disrupts us.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

InstantSilence said:


> I care only about boxing



Boxing puts me to sleep


----------



## colonelkernel8

And he's gone.


----------



## InstantSilence

colonelkernel8 said:


> And he's gone.


I'm here buddy, want me to hold your hand through your testing?


----------



## colonelkernel8

InstantSilence said:


> I'm here buddy, want me to hold your hand through your testing?


Testing? No one is testing cables. It's settled science.


----------



## InstantSilence

colonelkernel8 said:


> Testing? No one is testing cables. It's settled science.


Exactly 
Cables make a sonic difference, for sure!


----------



## elisiX

I know nothing of the science behind cable materials and the effect they have on sound, but without a doubt the Moon Audio Black Dragon cable improved the sound over the stock cable for my Focal Utopia. For me it smoothed out some of the brighter sounds that the Utopia can exhibit at certain time, making the headphone significantly more versatile over a wider range of music.


----------



## InstantSilence

elisiX said:


> I know nothing of the science behind cable materials and the effect they have on sound, but without a doubt the Moon Audio Black Dragon cable improved the sound over the stock cable for my Focal Utopia. For me it smoothed out some of the brighter sounds that the Utopia can exhibit at certain time, making the headphone significantly more versatile over a wider range of music.


Absolutely, it's because you have quality gear.


----------



## bigshot

I have quality gear.


----------



## PhonoPhi

colonelkernel8 said:


> I don't believe it's on the order of 1.5-2 ohms. If so I don't think I would trust the rest of the engineering of the IEM.


That is what unfortunately may very well put you, " science guys" in the very same category as the cable beleivers.

Here you are - the routine IEM stock wire- 0.8-1 Ohm per wire, two of them in the circuit. They should be flexible, otherwise they become unusable, so the coat hanger wires do not do trick here 
Pictures attached below.

True that the trend in designing IEMs with the impedance below 16 Ohm can be viewed critically, especially that the values cited just at 1 kHz, the transducer resonances can give even lower values

Nevertheless, that is how cables matter, matter for the frequency response, and quite appreciably so in many cases.


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 1, 2020)

For me the single biggest different I've gotten from a cable is the Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserve USB Cable. If you follow the thread on it on What's Best Forum as well other reviews, you'll read nothing but raves and even though it costs $750 for the powered version required for my Chord Hugo TT2, it has absolute brought clarity, speed, tonality, and authority that I didn't even know I was missing from my system.

What's very noticeable is the texture in the music and instruments. I thought I was already having that in instruments like bass guitar or drums but they are now so much more clearer and well-defined. Notes are no longer mere notes, you can hear so much of the instrumentation behind them. Drums and percussion are so well-defined that no matter how busy layered everything else are in the track, you don't lose sense of them. Things just don't get muddled.

I think when you get to the point where you have a high-end system, a cable like this is like night and day. The power and data are on separate cable runs, as you can see below. And if you're in Los Angeles and want to have a listen, as well as test out your headphones (the higher end the better of course), feel free to DM me:

Sablon Audio





Custom PC --> Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserva Elite powered USB Cable --> Chord HUGO TT2 --> Sommer Epilogue XLR Cable --> Cayin HA-300 DHT 300b Tube Amp (Psvane ACME 300b + NOS Sylvania 6SN7W Metal Base tubes) --> Mavismodz custom 4-core OCC copper balanced cable with Furutech miniXLR & 4-pin XLR terminations --> Audeze LCD-3 Fazor headphone/ BJC Ten White Speaker Cable --> Tekton Lore Reference Speakers


----------



## Kentajalli (Nov 1, 2020)

PhonoPhi said:


> That is what unfortunately may very well put you, " science guys" in the very same category as the cable beleivers.
> 
> Here you are - the routine IEM stock wire- 0.8-1 Ohm per wire, two of them in the circuit. They should be flexible, otherwise they become unusable, so the coat hanger wires do not do trick here
> Pictures attached below.
> ...


When it gets to less than 2 ohm resistance, it becomes difficult to measure specially with common multimeters.
My fluke meter with its gold plated crocodile clips put together, measures 0.1 ohm - resolution is +/- 0.1 digit.
With the long probes touching tips, it reads 0.7 ohm ! twisting the plugs inside the sockets a bit and putting pressure on the tips as I press them together improves it to 0.4 ohm.
Termination method of the cable to the jack, mild corrosion of the jack and the socket causes this contact resistance to go up too - there is also the small capacitive and inductive nature of the cable to consider.
Now this is all irrelevant if connected to a proper output stage of very low output impedance, but connect it to a cheap quality headphone amplifier, with a headphone that dips to low impedances at certain frequencies and it can alter the sound signature.
Indeed, I put it to you that quality gear suffers less because of cable inadequacies - it is the substandard gear that benefits from them and reveals something.


----------



## bfreedma

InstantSilence said:


> Cables matter and affect sound, not only depending on what materials the cable is used, but also it's design



if you’re going to troll Sound Science, at least put some effort into it.


----------



## havarduf

jambaj0e said:


> For me the single biggest different I've gotten from a cable is the Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserve USB Cable. If you follow the thread on it on What's Best Forum as well other reviews, you'll read nothing but raves and even though it costs $750 for the powered version required for my Chord Hugo TT2, it has absolute brought clarity, speed, tonality, and authority that I didn't even know I was missing from my system.
> 
> What's very noticeable is the texture in the music and instruments. I thought I was already having that in instruments like bass guitar or drums but they are now so much more clearer and well-defined. Notes are no longer mere notes, you can hear so much of the instrumentation behind them. Drums and percussion are so well-defined that no matter how busy layered everything else are in the track, you don't lose sense of them. Things just don't get muddled.
> 
> ...



Come on man... 
It's a USB cable transferring digital signals. Sorry, but you have been ripped off.


----------



## taffy2207 (Nov 1, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I have quality gear.



How much for an ounce, my man?

I'm British, I'm talking about quality Tea of course 



jambaj0e said:


> For me the single biggest different I've gotten from a cable is the Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserve USB Cable. If you follow the thread on it on What's Best Forum as well other reviews, you'll read nothing but raves and even though it costs $750 for the powered version required for my Chord Hugo TT2, it has absolute brought clarity, speed, tonality, and authority that I didn't even know I was missing from my system.
> 
> What's very noticeable is the texture in the music and instruments. I thought I was already having that in instruments like bass guitar or drums but they are now so much more clearer and well-defined. Notes are no longer mere notes, you can hear so much of the instrumentation behind them. Drums and percussion are so well-defined that no matter how busy layered everything else are in the track, you don't lose sense of them. Things just don't get muddled.
> 
> ...



I took one thing from your post, that you probably work in Sales / Marketing. Lots of flowery language, no negatives, links to positive reviews, seller link etc. All anecdotal. All sales pitch, blather.

I'm sure people will stand up and applaud your post with unbridled enthusiasm in other parts of the forum, here not so much.

And inviting people to your home during a pandemic? That's incredibly irresponsible.


----------



## colonelkernel8

elisiX said:


> I know nothing of the science behind cable materials and the effect they have on sound, but without a doubt the Moon Audio Black Dragon cable improved the sound over the stock cable for my Focal Utopia. For me it smoothed out some of the brighter sounds that the Utopia can exhibit at certain time, making the headphone significantly more versatile over a wider range of music.


So your cable is acting as a low pass filter? That doesn’t sound good.


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 1, 2020)

taffy2207 said:


> How much for an ounce, my man?
> 
> I'm British, I'm talking about quality Tea of course
> 
> ...



Lol No, I'm not in sales, and I could care less if you won't be as enthusiastic as I am with the Sablon cable since I listen to hours of music daily and I am relishing on the improvements I'm hearing. I haven't really heard any negatives from it compared to my previous USB cables (Audioquest Cinnamon, Kimber USB-AG), and there's no way I'm going back to those other cables, not when I'm hearing such sonic bliss.






And no, it's not just digital signal, if you've read about digital time domain and cable geometry and how they affect USB transport. Unlike sending data to a hard drive where there is error correction (the destination can detect in data packet and error and request the source for correction) that doesn't happen with USB audio. Go read up on what Gordon Rankin, the guy who introduced asynchronous USB transfer to the audio world, says about how USB is not just digital signals. He has listened to thousands of USB cables, he knows the difference:

Gordon Rankin on why USB audio quality varies

And yes, my friend and I did pure blind tests on 6 USB cables at The SourceAV from a DAP to an Innuos Phoenix USB Reclocker (which we also take out of the chain during the test) to a Chord DAVE to an Audeze LCD-4z, and we can definitely hear the different sonic signatures between each cables. All 3 of us can, and only two cables we'd get mixed up as being too close to each other.





As for anyone coming over, I have had a few people over, but only once they've shown they've taken the test recently, wear mask the entire time, and keep social distance even in the room. I'm tested twice a week on my job, so I'm very aware of having a strict COVID protocol. But you're right, it's still wishful thinking right now. Oh well, a lot more listening enjoyment for myself, lol.


----------



## InstantSilence

jambaj0e said:


> Lol No, I'm not in sales, and I could care less if you won't be as enthusiastic as I am with the Sablon cable since I listen to hours of music daily and I am relishing on the improvements I'm hearing. I haven't really heard any negatives from it compared to my previous USB cables (Audioquest Cinnamon, Kimber USB-AG), and there's no way I'm going back to those other cables, not when I'm hearing such sonic bliss.
> 
> And no, it's not just digital signal, if you've read about digital time domain and cable geometry and how they affect USB transport. Unlike sending data to a hard drive where there is error correction (the destination can detect in data packet and error and request the source for correction) that doesn't happen with USB audio. Go read up on what Gordon Rankin, the guy who introduced asynchronous USB transfer to the audio world, says about how USB is not just digital signals. He has listened to thousands of USB cables, he knows the difference:
> 
> ...


Exactly! Remember a lot of these folks that deny cables make a sonic difference.... They have cheap starter gear around 500 bucks... So of course... Those electronics don't offer the transparency needed to find differences in cables.... So, you'll get called a troll or your testing is just not good enough.. 
But their *testing * (insert farting noise here) with 500 rigs.. At best.... Is worthy 

Lol


----------



## jambaj0e

InstantSilence said:


> Exactly! Remember a lot of these folks that deny cables make a sonic difference.... They have cheap starter gear around 500 bucks... So of course... Those electronics don't offer the transparency needed to find differences in cables.... So, you'll get called a troll or your testing is just not good enough..
> But their *testing * (insert farting noise here) with 500 rigs.. At best.... Is worthy
> 
> Lol



Exactly! On a highly resolving system like what I have (Chord Hugo TT2 to Cayin HA-300 tube amp with Psvane ACME 300b + NOS Sylvania 6sn7W metal base tubes to Audeze LCD-3F with about $1500 in total wire cost) changing cables absolutely made a noticeable, and at times like the Sablon 2020, a very noticeable difference!

On much lower end systems, you'll only hear subtle, if not minimal differences.


----------



## InstantSilence

jambaj0e said:


> Exactly! On a highly resolving system like what I have (Chord Hugo TT2 to Cayin HA-300 tube amp with Psvane ACME 300b + NOS Sylvania 6sn7W metal base tubes to Audeze LCD-3F with about $1500 in total wire cost) changing cables absolutely made a noticeable, and at times like the Sablon 2020, a very noticeable difference!
> 
> On much lower end systems, you'll only hear subtle, if not minimal differences.


The rigs you explain are electronics these guys aren't allowed to even read reviews on, they are priced well above the hd650s and other low end, outdated tech they use. 
Everyone has a wallet, and a stop loss. It's ok to not be able to afford. 
Its not ok to use poop equipment and call it *testing * and being mad at people that play ball at higher level.


----------



## InstantSilence

jambaj0e said:


> Lol No, I'm not in sales, and I could care less if you won't be as enthusiastic as I am with the Sablon cable since I listen to hours of music daily and I am relishing on the improvements I'm hearing. I haven't really heard any negatives from it compared to my previous USB cables (Audioquest Cinnamon, Kimber USB-AG), and there's no way I'm going back to those other cables, not when I'm hearing such sonic bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Btw
 Have you tried Norne Silvergarde with the 4z? It cleans up the mids a little more and brings ever more resol. 
The 4z is so special that it can give so much resolution and detail with being so so so easy to listen to. Not a bit of fatigue.


----------



## jambaj0e

InstantSilence said:


> The rigs you explain are electronics these guys aren't allowed to even read reviews on, they are priced well above the hd650s and other low end, outdated tech they use.
> Everyone has a wallet, and a stop loss. It's ok to not be able to afford.
> Its not ok to use poop equipment and call it *testing * and being mad at people that play ball at higher level.



Yeah, and I don't rag on someone for having a lower end system, but if they only use that as their experience and call it as a fact over those of us with higher end rigs, then if have to school someone, lol. 

It's like someone who has a Honda telling someone with a Ferrari or a Porsche how much tires don't matter for handling. Yeah maybe on your Honda it won't matter as much but it sure will on a Porsche or Ferrari.


----------



## jambaj0e

InstantSilence said:


> Btw
> Have you tried Norne Silvergarde with the 4z? It cleans up the mids a little more and brings ever more resol.
> The 4z is so special that it can give so much resolution and detail with being so so so easy to listen to. Not a bit of fatigue.



I haven't, but I'm not a fan of the 4z over the original 4. There's something about it that sounds a bit too bright. I actually love the lcd-3 over the lcd-4 because of the wider Soundstage. Do I lose some resolution and transient speed? Sure I will but I live the sweeter wider sound of the lcd-3 on my system


----------



## InstantSilence

jambaj0e said:


> Yeah, and I don't rag on someone for having a lower end system, but if they only use that as their experience and call it as a fact over those of us with higher end rigs, then if have to school someone, lol.
> 
> It's like someone who has a Honda telling someone with a Ferrari or a Porsche how much tires don't matter for handling. Yeah maybe on your Honda it won't matter as much but it sure will on a Porsche or Ferrari.


A lot of the starters in the hobby hang out here.. They definitely need the schooling


----------



## bfreedma

InstantSilence said:


> The rigs you explain are electronics these guys aren't allowed to even read reviews on, they are priced well above the hd650s and other low end, outdated tech they use.
> Everyone has a wallet, and a stop loss. It's ok to not be able to afford.
> Its not ok to use poop equipment and call it *testing * and being mad at people that play ball at higher level.



Not that price is always related to quality, but if you want to check my sig, I’m sure you’ll find well over your $500 arbitrary system cost.  I only mention this as you seem to believe that expensive gear somehow impacts digital signals.  How do those 0s and 1s “know” the cost of gear?...

Digital signal transmission is based on science, not the random opinions of audiophiles.  If you can produce any actual evidence supporting your claims, now would be an awesome time to produce it,  Sorry, links to a vendor‘s marketing materials does not constitute evidence - hopefully, the reason for that is obvious.


----------



## InstantSilence

bfreedma said:


> Not that price is always related to quality, but if you want to check my sig, I’m sure you’ll find well over your $500 arbitrary system cost.  I only mention this as you seem to believe that expensive gear somehow impacts digital signals.  How do those 0s and 1s “know” the cost of gear?...
> 
> Digital signal transmission is based on science, not the random opinions of audiophiles.  If you can produce any actual evidence supporting your claims, now would be an awesome time to produce it,  Sorry, links to a vendor‘s marketing materials does not constitute evidence - hopefully, the reason for that is obvious.


Quality components and electronics matter, typically, while not always, but definitely Most times. 
Higher end finer gear cost more


----------



## bfreedma

InstantSilence said:


> Quality components and electronics matter, typically, while not always, but definitely Most times.
> Higher end finer gear cost more



If that’s your idea of ”evidence”, I don’t know what to say.

It’s disheartening to see people who don’t appear to have a basic understanding of how digital audio works making claims that don’t align at all with the actual technical implementation being discussed.

Oh well, someone has to help fund expensive cars for the audiophile cable industry.  Hope you enjoy being taken along for the ride.


----------



## InstantSilence

bfreedma said:


> If that’s your idea of ”evidence”, I don’t know what to say.
> 
> It’s disheartening to see people who don’t appear to have a basic understanding of how digital audio works making claims that don’t align at all with the actual technical implementation being discussed.
> 
> Oh well, someone has to help fund expensive cars for the audiophile cable industry.  Hope you enjoy being taken along for the ride.


I love cables and the sonic difference they make!


----------



## Stereo Skunk

Hey, since cables don't matter, I'm looking for a really thin, light weight cable to use with a balanced connection. I can DIY the ends, but I want advice on where to find really thin, soft, rubber, black, ropey cable. Braided nylon exterior is ok, too. I have a few aux cables that are basically perfect. I guess I could buy really long lengths of them, but then would have to butcher them. 

No. I'm not trolling (completely).


----------



## KeithPhantom

jambaj0e said:


> It's like someone who has a Honda telling someone with a Ferrari or a Porsche how much tires don't matter for handling. Yeah maybe on your Honda it won't matter as much but it sure will on a Porsche or Ferrari.


Well, for sure you can measure and categorize the differences between tires and their intended uses and produce relevant information between the deltas between cars. Cables are different though...


----------



## InstantSilence

KeithPhantom said:


> Well, for sure you can measure and categorize the differences between tires and their intended uses and produce relevant information between the deltas between cars. Cables are different though...


Cables matter as far as sound quality is concerned.


----------



## KeithPhantom

People will not change. If they think cables sound different, that's what they think and they have the right to believe it, not argument their position, and dismiss opposite opinions. People that do now how cables work, it is hopeless to change people unless they want to change. Answer the question of people who *truly *want to learn, and let's stop arguing endlessly of a matter that the null has stood by.


----------



## KeithPhantom

InstantSilence said:


> Cables matter as far as sound quality is concerned.


Well, they're differences, in the 0.0x dB order of magnitude. That's great if you can hear that, maybe cables make a difference to you .


----------



## InstantSilence

KeithPhantom said:


> Well, they're differences, in the 0.0x dB order of magnitude. That's great if you can hear that, maybe cables make a difference to you .


I'm glad we all agree that cables make a sonic difference


----------



## Stereo Skunk

The wider the Q, the more easily you can hear amplitude changes. In psychoacoustics, JND reportedly ranges anywhere from .5dB to 2-3dB depending on amplitude and frequency. But, what I am not sure of is how the experiments were conducted, and if they were conducted with noise bands or pure tones. Not only that, if cables make a small difference, the difference can be amplified and compounded by nonlinearities in downstream components, not the least of which is the transducer that introduces lots of distortion. 

In this way, I still think it's plausible that cables make a difference.

Whether you should spend $1000 to boost the highs a tiny bit is another issue altogether.


----------



## jambaj0e

bfreedma said:


> Not that price is always related to quality, but if you want to check my sig, I’m sure you’ll find well over your $500 arbitrary system cost.  I only mention this as you seem to believe that expensive gear somehow impacts digital signals.  How do those 0s and 1s “know” the cost of gear?...
> 
> Digital signal transmission is based on science, not the random opinions of audiophiles.  If you can produce any actual evidence supporting your claims, now would be an awesome time to produce it,  Sorry, links to a vendor‘s marketing materials does not constitute evidence - hopefully, the reason for that is obvious.



That's why I defer to the likes of of Gordon Rankin on that Darko Audio article 

https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/ 

As well as on Darko's podcast episode:

https://m.soundcloud.com/johnhdarko/what-is-electrical-noise-and-why-is-it-bad-for-audio-systems 

What do you think 1's and 0's are? They're electrical signal that are sent in a time domain fashion, so the accuracy and arrival is very important, and parasitic noise and electricity can still be carried over via the cable into the DAC.

Also, you talk about the science, but how many USB cables have you personally extensively tested? I tested 6 myself, but that's why I also defer to Gordon, Paul McGowan of PS Audio, the Hifi podcast (PS Audio's Senior Analog Design Engineer Darren Myers and The Music Room Testing Technician Duncan Taylor), and other engineers in the industry? Don't you think they've heard dozens if not hundreds of USB cables (and other cables) in their day to day job? For them, it's literally their job to test and test and test, even if it's not to sell that specific component. And when they all say USB cables matter after having heard all of those cables I'll agree with them over you. 

Plus, like I said, I've personally heard the difference between USB cables, and it's fine if you can't hear it, but don't make it as if your word is universal facts when so many of us can counter with our own experiences.


----------



## jambaj0e

havarduf said:


> Come on man...
> It's a USB cable transferring digital signals. Sorry, but you have been ripped off.



No I haven't been ripped off. My friends and I did blind tests at TheSourceAv and us as well as our friend who works there can tell the differences between the USB cables from the DAP to the CHORD Dave. Just because you can't perceive the difference, doesn't mean we can't. 

It's like taste. Some people have a lot more refined, more sensitive taste buds


----------



## InstantSilence

jambaj0e said:


> No I haven't been ripped off. My friends and I did blind tests at TheSourceAv and us as well as our friend who works there can tell the differences between the USB cables from the DAP to the CHORD Dave. Just because you can't perceive the difference, doesn't mean we can't.
> 
> It's like taste. Some people have a lot more refined, more sensitive taste buds


Exactly!  This guy hits home run guys!


----------



## bfreedma

Believing marketers and salespeople rather than applying science.  How 2020...


----------



## InstantSilence

bfreedma said:


> Believing marketers and salespeople rather than applying science.  How 2020...


Clearly we believe the experiences we have had
, not advertising, why is it so difficult to comprehend for you?


----------



## bfreedma

InstantSilence said:


> Clearly we believe the experiences we have had
> , not advertising, why is it so difficult to comprehend for you?



Many people claim to have experienced a Bigfoot sighting.  I don’t believe them either, no matter how absolutely sure they are.  

I’m out unless you care to provide evidence or describe the control protocols and specific results from your “blind testing at an AV store” in detail.  My apologies to the rest of the forum for enabling such obvious trolling.


----------



## jambaj0e

bfreedma said:


> Many people claim to have experienced a Bigfoot sighting.  I don’t believe them either, no matter how absolutely sure they are.
> 
> I’m out unless you care to provide evidence or describe the control protocols and specific results from your “blind testing at an AV store” in detail.  My apologies to the rest of the forum for enabling such obvious trolling.




I did by deferring to engineers and industry experts like Gordon Rankin, Paul McGowan, PS Audio's Senior Analog Design Engineer Darren Myers and The Music Room Testing Technician Duncan Taylor, who all have access to so many equipment and cables, as well as sophisticated measuring equipment, far more than the average consumers like you and I. 

All of them said USB cable matters.


----------



## bigshot

I was visiting a studio I work at once and the chief engineer was giving me a tour of their new mixing stage. Incredible room. He was talking about all the wiring he did to set it up, so I asked him what cables he used. He opened a cabinet and showed me a giant roll of regular monoprice cable in bulk. He said he went through dozens and dozens of those big spindles.


----------



## bigshot

jambaj0e said:


> All of them said USB cable matters.



Any certified USB cable should be fine. You can run video through USB and that is a MUCH bigger stream of data to pass than audio. I've heard there are uncertified Chinese USB cables that are funky, but I've never seen any of them. I just use Amazon basics. It works perfect. If a USB cable is bad, it isn't subtle. You know it.


----------



## grwgergergg (Nov 1, 2020)

always be open minded about different quality cables and materials used having an effect. that goes for everything in life. no point saying it don't matter because at that point your opinion don't matter. back up everything with real facts and measurements specific to every situation. when you assume you waste everyone's time.


----------



## KeithPhantom

jambaj0e said:


> I did by deferring to engineers and industry experts like Gordon Rankin, Paul McGowan, PS Audio's Senior Analog Design Engineer Darren Myers and The Music Room Testing Technician Duncan Taylor, who all have access to so many equipment and cables, as well as sophisticated measuring equipment, far more than the average consumers like you and I.
> 
> All of them said USB cable matters.


But numbers and information say otherwise. Also human limits as well.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Stereo Skunk said:


> The wider the Q, the more easily you can hear amplitude changes. In psychoacoustics, JND reportedly ranges anywhere from .5dB to 2-3dB depending on amplitude and frequency. But, what I am not sure of is how the experiments were conducted, and if they were conducted with noise bands or pure tones. Not only that, if cables make a small difference, the difference can be amplified and compounded by nonlinearities in downstream components, not the least of which is the transducer that introduces lots of distortion.
> 
> In this way, I still think it's plausible that cables make a difference.
> 
> Whether you should spend $1000 to boost the highs a tiny bit is another issue altogether.


You're missing that a .5 dB is around concha gain frequencies when isolated and inside an anechoic chamber, or perfect condition not replicated in practical implementation.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

The thing a lot of people don’t understand is that when it comes to passing a signal across, a cable can only degrade the signal. It can’t improve it. The signal is what it is. If a cable is designed for the purpose you’re using it for, and there are no manufacturing defects, it can’t get any better. You can get a decent Amazon Basics cable and it will sound just as good as a $500 audiophile cable. An audiophile cable might be prettier, with fancy connectors and braided covers. But the sound is the same- perfect for human ears. It’s OK to want fancy cables as “jewelry”. And I suppose a fancy cable might be built a little tougher if you are plugging and unplugging often. But as long as a cable conducts properly, it sounds perfect. I use monoprice and Amazon basics and don’t need anything better. I hide my cables behind the components. I don’t display them as decoration.


----------



## Stereo Skunk

KeithPhantom said:


> You're missing that a .5 dB is around concha gain frequencies when isolated and inside an anechoic chamber, or perfect condition not replicated in practical implementation.



I'm not missing anything. Psychoacoustic masking states that no matter what your conditions are you hear the loudest sound. If that loudest sound changes by enough over a wide enough Q you'll probably hear it. If the cable was the reason those loudest sounds changed, then the cable was audible.


----------



## Stereo Skunk

I really think it's arrogant for objectivists, who, for some reason aren't objective enough to acknowledge that knowing everything is impossible, debate and even shame subjective impression. When there's disjointed subjective and objective arguments, yes, it's possible it's placebo, but on the other hand, maybe we aren't measuring the right way, or don't understand hearing well enough, or we haven't thought to measure in every state.


----------



## bigshot

KeithPhantom said:


> But numbers and information say otherwise. Also human limits as well.



The thresholds of human hearing are the specs that most audiophiles are clueless about. They know the noise floor of every piece of equipment they own, and buy components capable of reproducing super audible frequencies, but they don’t understand how those numbers translate into audible sound. They assume that if the numbers are different, they can hear a difference. But that isn’t how thresholds work.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Stereo Skunk said:


> I'm not missing anything. Psychoacoustic masking states that no matter what your conditions are you hear the loudest sound. If that loudest sound changes by enough over a wide enough Q you'll probably hear it. If the cable was the reason those loudest sounds changed, then the cable was audible.


Did I say otherwise? I only say that you isolate the frequency so it doesn't have to complete with other frequencies and cause masking. But taking this to the context of what functional cables are, changes should not be able to be detected by humans in typical listening conditions.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

Stereo Skunk said:


> I really think it's arrogant for objectivists, who, for some reason aren't objective enough to acknowledge that knowing everything is impossible, debate and even shame subjective impression.



Uh oh... Here comes the well worn logical fallacy, “we can’t know everything, so we can’t know anything.”

I’m curious... how did you end up in this forum? Did you stumble into this thread through a search for something else? Were you directed here by a link from elsewhere? I alway wonder how people end up in sound science when they just want to argue that science is wrong.


----------



## Stereo Skunk

bigshot said:


> Uh oh... Here comes the well worn logical fallacy, “we can’t know everything, so we can’t know anything.”
> 
> I’m curious... how did you end up in this forum? Did you stumble into this thread through a search for something else? We’re you directed here by a link from elsewhere? I alway wonder how people end up in sound science when they just want to argue that science is wrong.



Uh oh... Here comes the well worn slippery slope.


----------



## grwgergergg

Some people just have nothing better to do than spread ignorance like those people who say burn in isnt real when there's plenty of measurements showing that some headphones change drastically over time. they choose a hill to die on cause theyre bored and should be ignored.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

I added a question there. I’m interested in how you got here. I’d appreciate knowing that.

Did someone direct you here?


----------



## Stereo Skunk

bigshot said:


> I added a question there. I’m interested in how you got here. I’d appreciate knowing that.



You sure would, wouldn't ya?


----------



## castleofargh

PhonoPhi said:


> That is what unfortunately may very well put you, " science guys" in the very same category as the cable beleivers.
> 
> Here you are - the routine IEM stock wire- 0.8-1 Ohm per wire, two of them in the circuit. They should be flexible, otherwise they become unusable, so the coat hanger wires do not do trick here
> Pictures attached below.
> ...


I agree about what can be found, and also that IEMs are definitely where we'll find the most extreme examples of cables, or really anything influencing everything else. The IEM market is organized chaos. Even without counting the rare cases where the cable is part of the design and gets some atypical specs on purpose(so of course replacing it by some random cable will cause a bigger change), we can still get strangely large impedance values at times. At least large compared to what we should expect when thinking of a basic 1.2m cable.

For those who sort of care, @hakuzen spent a great deal of time and some money to give us those lists of measured resistance:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/resistance-of-cables-pics-comments-and-links.907998/
It's only one side of the electrical game, but it's already a great deal more informative than spamming the same unsubstantiated stuff like a bot. Speaking of which, @InstantSilence is out of the thread for a week.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

The reason I ask is that off topic posts like this tend to come in waves. Are you guys congregating in the cable nonsense forum and coordinating “raids” on sound science? I hope not because that would be really lame. We leave your forum alone. None of us care how you spend your money. Feel free to buy jewel encrusted cable props so your cables don’t touch the ground. It’s perfectly fine with us. Just don’t march into our forum with a chip on your shoulder and argue with us about stuff that is the fundamental topic of this forum.


----------



## reginalb

jambaj0e said:


> That's why I defer to the likes of of Gordon Rankin on that Darko Audio article
> 
> https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/
> 
> ...



USB 2.0 is wild overkill for an audio signal, and a 20-year old standard. 24-bit 192Khz audio, as silly as such a high rate is, equates to ~9.2 Mbps. USB 2.0 is specced for 480 Mbps. So long as you have a cable that is within the ballpark of spec, you're fine.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

I buy aftermarket cables because they look better, feel better, are built better, are less microphonic, and I can choose my preferred length. I have never heard an audible difference except once. And I’m pretty sure it’s because one of my stock cables was defective. Other than that, they all sound the same to me.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Stereo Skunk said:


> I really think it's arrogant for objectivists, who, for some reason aren't objective enough to acknowledge that knowing everything is impossible, debate and even shame subjective impression.


Everyone here can change, but only if relevant evidence is provided and it is repeatable by others. Claiming something by virtue needs to be supported by evidence. It isn't arrogance, is how science works, provide evidence that the null its not right, and we'll change.


----------



## megabigeye

bigshot said:


> The reason I ask is that off topic posts like this tend to come in waves. Are you guys congregating in the cable nonsense forum and coordinating “raids” on sound science? I hope not because that would be really lame. We leave your forum alone. None of us care how you spend your money. Feel free to buy jewel encrusted cable props so your cables don’t touch the ground. It’s perfectly fine with us. Just don’t march into our forum with a chip on your shoulder and argue with us about stuff that is the fundamental topic of this forum.


I don't want to speak for anyone, but my guess is that people are showing up to this thread because it's trending in the "What's New" menu and the thread title is total click-bait... "Bait" as in it's meant to tease and taunt Head-Fiers that believe in cables. If you look at the bottom of the page, you can see that there are about 35 people looking at the thread right now. I'm hoping this doesn't bode poorly for the future of the thread.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Nov 1, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> I agree about what can be found, and also that IEMs are definitely where we'll find the most extreme examples of cables, or really anything influencing everything else. The IEM market is organized chaos. Even without counting the rare cases where the cable is part of the design and gets some atypical specs on purpose(so of course replacing it by some random cable will cause a bigger change), we can still get strangely large impedance values at times. At least large compared to what we should expect when thinking of a basic 1.2m cable.
> 
> For those who sort of care, @hakuzen spent a great deal of time and some money to give us those lists of measured resistance:
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/resistance-of-cables-pics-comments-and-links.907998/
> It's only one side of the electrical game, but it's already a great deal more informative than spamming the same unsubstantiated stuff like a bot. Speaking of which, @InstantSilence is out of the thread for a week.


Absolutely, I am happy to hear that you mention @hakuzen (since I was surprised a bit that people do not beleive in 1.5-2 Ohm cables, quite common stock cables of IEMs).
There is really hardly any evidence that capacitance and inductance can matter, given their small and hardly different values for different cables.

I measure my cables with a simple multimeter, approximating the point contacts, a significant problem, as was duly noted here; +/- 0.15 Ohm uncertainty is still sufficient for ball park estimates for me, and checking proper polarity and odd soldering is instructive.

For myself I use 1/16 and 1/24 points relative to the IEM impedance for "may matter" (more than 1/16) and won't matter (less than 1/24).

I also found cables can improve fit and comfort, and may look nice enhancing enjoyment of music, while $15-25 range is fully sufficient for good balanced IEM cables.


----------



## castleofargh

Stereo Skunk said:


> I really think it's arrogant for objectivists, who, for some reason aren't objective enough to acknowledge that knowing everything is impossible, debate and even shame subjective impression. When there's disjointed subjective and objective arguments, yes, it's possible it's placebo, but on the other hand, maybe we aren't measuring the right way, or don't understand hearing well enough, or we haven't thought to measure in every state.


+1
I personally see all the reasons in the world to be skeptical of sighted subjective impressions, but none of them justify mockery. And just because placebo is a thing, it doesn't mean it explains all atypical experiences.

Now to balance things out a little, I think it's arrogant and/or ignorant for someone who felt as if the sound changed a certain way(a subjective impression) under sighted conditions, to go claim that the sound changed a certain way(an objective claim about sound). Or even worse, to claim to know the cause of that change without having bothered to confirm causality. Sadly those are lines that most people will cross when sharing their personal impressions on the forum. Which is... not great.

I guess my point is that everybody fails at something.


----------



## bigshot

Thanks for the explanation megabigeye. I just have sound science bookmarked so I don’t see the homepage often. I guess that sort of mechanical thread promotion doesn’t attract the best and brightest.


----------



## colonelkernel8

grwgergergg said:


> Some people just have nothing better to do than spread ignorance like those people who say burn in isnt real when there's plenty of measurements showing that some headphones change drastically over time. they choose a hill to die on cause theyre bored and should be ignored.


Hey I'm totally on board with the notion of electromechanical systems needing some "break-in". But your amplifier doesn't need break in, and neither do your cables, DAC, or anything else. Systems that are have a changing response over time should be regarded as "crap".


----------



## bigshot

What does break in have to do with cables anyway? I'll be happy when we are off the home page and we don't get these pointless troll posts.


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> Uh oh... Here comes the well worn logical fallacy, “we can’t know everything, so we can’t know anything.”
> 
> I’m curious... how did you end up in this forum? Did you stumble into this thread through a search for something else? Were you directed here by a link from elsewhere? I alway wonder how people end up in sound science when they just want to argue that science is wrong.


Note that none of these cablephiles have answered the basic question of why they haven't claimed the Randi prize?  I'm not a money hungry person but heck, I wouldn't turn down an easy million dollars by proving I can hear these differences in cables. Says it all actually.


----------



## ScareDe2

*"NOT EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED COUNTS, AND NOT EVERYTHING THAT COUNTS CAN BE MEASURED."
- ALBERT EINSTEIN.*


----------



## bfreedma

ScareDe2 said:


> *"NOT EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED COUNTS, AND NOT EVERYTHING THAT COUNTS CAN BE MEASURED."
> - ALBERT EINSTEIN.*



Einstein published his theories including supporting evidence which was then peer reviewed.  Posting that quote as a defense of unsupported claims of unmeasurable yet audible cable improvements is disingenuous.


----------



## megabigeye (Nov 1, 2020)

Well, actually...

#don'tfeedthetrolls


----------



## bigshot

ScareDe2 said:


> *"NOT EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED COUNTS, AND NOT EVERYTHING THAT COUNTS CAN BE MEASURED."
> - ALBERT EINSTEIN.*



Oh THIS troll is back!


----------



## KPzypher

Isn't it funny how aftermarket cables always seem to enhance things that need improvement?  

"Oh it took the edge off the harshness...."
"The bass is so much more impactful...."
"The treble extension is unbelievable....."
"I can hear things I wasn't able to before..."
"It's so much more smoother now..."
"It completely lifted the veil...."
These are some of the more popular claims among others.  

Like aftermarket cables somehow understand the shortcomings in your system.

It's just hilarious.

Anyways, why feed the trolls?  If they want to throw money down the drain, let them.  There are plenty of other snake oils out there and aftermarket cable is just one of the fish in a pond.  No amount of convincing will change their mind.  Audiophile is 99% uninformed amateurs that think they have the golden ears, including myself.

When you're in a business that revolves around subjective preference without widely accepted objective parameters, it is so easy to fool people. 
In particular, audiophiles with their giant ego.


----------



## megabigeye

bigshot said:


> I'll be happy when we are off the home page


It doesn't work that way. It's the little lightning icon on the menu bar, next to your notifications, etc. Click on that and you'll see all of the newest posts in every sub-forum on Head-Fi. Every time a new post is added to a thread, the thread moves to the top of the list until another thread gets a newer post. Once you've clicked on a thread, it disappears from the list that _you_ see until another post has been made in the thread. The only way the thread stops being in the new posts list is if nobody posts in it.
I'm sure it's a great feature for building hype for gear, but it's kind of unfortunate for thoughtful conversation. A couple months ago, there was a thread about a bad customer service experience, it quickly grew to more than 10 pages, got really heated, spun completely out of control, comments were deleted, and the thread was locked. Too bad because it seemed like some of the posters were actually pretty intelligent/insightful.

Anyway. To keep the post semi-on-topic (and directed at the thread at large): I find it a little disappointing that so little of this thread is dedicated to discussing how to successfully convince people of things that are demonstrably true. Instead, it seems mostly like believers and non-believers lobbing stones at each other. I'd love to learn how to promote truth while preventing truthiness.


----------



## bigshot

The thread should be titled, how do you convince people who desperately don't want to know?


----------



## jambaj0e

bigshot said:


> Any certified USB cable should be fine. You can run video through USB and that is a MUCH bigger stream of data to pass than audio. I've heard there are uncertified Chinese USB cables that are funky, but I've never seen any of them. I just use Amazon basics. It works perfect. If a USB cable is bad, it isn't subtle. You know it.



It's not whether the cable will work or not since all of mine worked on the Qutest and all but the Morrow Audio worked on the Hugo TT2. It's about which cable sounds the same and by far and away, the Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserva Elite USB cable sounds far better than the rest (Kimber AG, AudioQuest Cinnamon, Analysis plus purple). Very noticeable difference on my highly resolving system and on the Chord DAVE at TheSourceAv


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> It's not whether the cable will work or not since all of mine worked on the Qutest and all but the Morrow Audio worked on the Hugo TT2. It's about which cable sounds the same and by far and away, the Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserva Elite USB cable sounds far better than the rest (Kimber AG, AudioQuest Cinnamon, Analysis plus purple). Very noticeable difference on my highly resolving system and on the Chord DAVE at TheSourceAv



A controlled test or I get to call it as placebo! Even a casual controlled test would be fine. This ain't Kansas. You're in Sound Science now. Just saying, "night and day" and "even my wife can hear the difference" won't cut it around here.

USB is digital. It can't have veils or wider soundstage. It either transmits the data cleanly or it is riddled with dropouts or artifacts. If you are hearing veils and soundstage, you are hearing 100% USDA prime expectation bias.


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> But numbers and information say otherwise. Also human limits as well.



You assume all the measurements are even looking at the right thing or everything that can make a difference. 

And personally, in the end, I don't care what the numbers say or don't say, or if we're even looking at the right set of data in the first place. If I can detect a noticeable improvement, I keep the cable. If I don't I return it thanks to the return policy. 

I have no need to prove to any of you because you're not here to listen to my system to make that judgment firsthand, so it doesn't matter really.


----------



## jambaj0e

bigshot said:


> The thresholds of human hearing are the specs that most audiophiles are clueless about. They know the noise floor of every piece of equipment they own, and buy components capable of reproducing super audible frequencies, but they don’t understand how those numbers translate into audible sound. They assume that if the numbers are different, they can hear a difference. But that isn’t how thresholds work.



Exactly, look people forget it's the brain that makes the interpretation of what we hear & there's no machine made yet to detect everything our brain can detect from a sound signal


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

Not caring about how sound reproduction works and depending on subjective bias is the perfect way to feed placebo. If that makes you happy, great. But the thing about placebo and bias is that it only works for you. Someone else who isn't already convinced might not have the same experience you have. That is why they call it subjective.

I don't need to hear with your brain. I prefer my own brain thank you very much! And I'll pay attention to the physics of sound and how it is reproduced with high fidelity. I don't need to make stuff up to convince myself I have superhuman hearing. I can listen to Mozart with my decidedly human ears.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Edit:


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> Well, they're differences, in the 0.0x dB order of magnitude. That's great if you can hear that, maybe cables make a difference to you .



You see that's also your problem. You look at one data. You ever run into two headphones, amps, or speakers with the same Frequency Separation, but sound completely different? 

It's because other things are at play, just like cables. Just because one data says there are no difference doesn't mean other factors are not at play. You're just not looking at the right data. 

Once again, I defer to industry engineers and experts (Gordon Rankin. Darko Audio, Duncan, Paul McGowan) whose jobs every single day are to tweak and isolate performances, have access to dozens if not hundreds of USB cables, and all have said USB cables make a difference. Ask them and I bet you $1000 they all have a preferred USB cable.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

Redcarmoose, this thread is about cables. The impedance stuff was a sidebar that we've already gotten past.

Jambajuice, deferring to "experts" is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Sound physics are well known and have been researched and understood for over a century. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean nobody else does. You can continue saying "we don't know" but the rest of us are just thinking to ourselves "you don't know".


----------



## jambaj0e

Yo


bigshot said:


> The thing a lot of people don’t understand is that when it comes to passing a signal across, a cable can only degrade the signal. It can’t improve it. The signal is what it is. If a cable is designed for the purpose you’re using it for, and there are no manufacturing defects, it can’t get any better. You can get a decent Amazon Basics cable and it will sound just as good as a $500 audiophile cable. An audiophile cable might be prettier, with fancy connectors and braided covers. But the sound is the same- perfect for human ears. It’s OK to want fancy cables as “jewelry”. And I suppose a fancy cable might be built a little tougher if you are plugging and unplugging often. But as long as a cable conducts properly, it sounds perfect. I use monoprice and Amazon basics and don’t need anything better. I hide my cables behind the components. I don’t display them as decoration.


I say that you have an Amazon cable yet you probably haven't extensively tested $500 cables. I have, and on my systems and with several ears including mine, we can tell different. You just can't either because you haven't actually tried it yourself or you don't even bother to do so.


----------



## bigshot

Have you read the thread pinned at the top of this forum? Testing Audiophile Myths? I suggest you do.


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> Everyone here can change, but only if relevant evidence is provided and it is repeatable by others. Claiming something by virtue needs to be supported by evidence. It isn't arrogance, is how science works, provide evidence that the null its not right, and we'll change.




It's easy, come to TheSourceAv where I've set up a DAP to a Chord Dave to an Audeze Lcd-4 and we'll repeat the same blind test that 3 of us took and was able to tell the difference between 5-6 cables. 

It's really not hard to do if you actually want to do it instead of spouting unclaimed "facts" when you haven't done it yourself on a highly resolving system.


----------



## bigshot

What is the SourceAV and what do they sell? Are you a high end audio salesman?


----------



## jambaj0e

bigshot said:


> A controlled test or I get to call it as placebo! Even a casual controlled test would be fine. This ain't Kansas. You're in Sound Science now. Just saying, "night and day" and "even my wife can hear the difference" won't cut it around here.
> 
> USB is digital. It can't have veils or wider soundstage. It either transmits the data cleanly or it is riddled with dropouts or artifacts. If you are hearing veils and soundstage, you are hearing 100% USDA prime expectation bias.




You haven't been reading, we did that blind test at The Source AV in Torrance CA off a DAP to a Chord Dave to an Audeze Lcd-4. We actually did that and all of us can tell differences. 
Let me ask you, have YOU actually tried the test yourself or are you just spouting in found claims based off NO actual experience?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 1, 2020)

You've got my interest now. Can you please link to the report on your test? I'm sure we would all be interested in it. Did you compare those two against known transparent DACs to make sure one wasn't defective? Which one wasn't transparent? Is the source AV a club of some sort, or is it a store?


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

bigshot said:


> What is the SourceAV and what do they sell? Are you a high end audio salesman?



Naw man, I don't work there, but it's one of the best hifi store for headphones in Los Angeles. My friends and I were in the market for certain gear (he bought a Woo Audio Wa8 and an Innuos Phoenix reclocker and I ended up with the Hugo tt2 and almost upgraded my Lcd-3 to an lcd-4 but not the lcd-4z or lcd-4mx) and we were doing a lot of gear testing and listening.

They encourage a lot of listening time to any gear that have in there with no sales push.


----------



## bigshot

Did you check the setup to make sure that they weren't monkeying with the signal on one or both? I have had VERY bad luck with high end audio retailers when it comes to honesty. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.


----------



## jambaj0e

bigshot said:


> You've got my interest now. Can you please link to the report on your test? I'm sure we would all be interested in it. Did you compare those two against known transparent DACs to make sure one wasn't defective? Which one wasn't transparent? Is the source AV a club of some sort, or is it a store?



Hah, a link to the report. We didn't do this test for us to write up, this test was for us, as potential buyers to see what we'd like to buy. 

But see here's the thing, I already said what I found was a difference between my cable and my previous cable, so until you actually come with us and do the tests for reals, you won't believe me anyways.


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Did you check the setup to make sure that they weren't monkeying with the signal on one or both? I have had VERY bad luck with high end audio retailers when it comes to honesty. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.



Nope, this is as simple of a signal path as it goes. DAP to Dave to Audeze lcd-4z. Only thing that changed was when we changed the USB cable. 

Let me ask all of you deniers: show of hands how many of you ACTUALLY have personally done a test between multiple USB cables (preferably in a wide variety of price range) on a highly resolving system or are you just parroting the same old "USB cable is digital therefore it doesn't make a difference" without ever doing such tests?


----------



## jambaj0e

By the way, it's not like different cables will always sound substantially different or better. I didn't think the Analysis Purple Plus or the Audioquest Cinnamon sounded that different. The Morrow Audio Reference was a bit airier, the Kimber AG was a bit warmer, but my Sablon 2020 is definitely much clearer, smoother, and punchier.


----------



## KeithPhantom

jambaj0e said:


> You assume all the measurements are even looking at the right thing or everything that can make a difference.
> 
> And personally, in the end, I don't care what the numbers say or don't say, or if we're even looking at the right set of data in the first place. If I can detect a noticeable improvement, I keep the cable. If I don't I return it thanks to the return policy.
> 
> I have no need to prove to any of you because you're not here to listen to my system to make that judgment firsthand, so it doesn't matter really.


YOLO?...?

Seriously, believe what you want to believe because I won't make you change your mind.


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> YOLO?...?
> 
> Seriously, believe what you want to believe because I won't make you change your mind.



No, of course not, because I've done the test comparisons myself on a Chord Dave + Audeze Lcd-4Z, and myself as well as 2 others have heard the differences.

How many USB cables have you actually tested back to back and on what system?


----------



## bigshot

jambaj0e said:


> By the way, it's not like different cables will always sound substantially different or better.



The ones that sound the same are more likely to be correct.

Obviously you have a high end USB cable. Would you like to lend it to us at Sound Science to test it against an Amazon Basics one? We have people here who are experienced in doing controlled listening tests who would be happy to oversee it and make sure it is accurate.


----------



## KeithPhantom (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> How many USB cables have you actually tested back to back and on what system?


I don't use my system a lot, I use my headphones straight out an USB-C to 3.5mm because it is more comfortable and more practical than always being connected to an amp. Also I get better volpot balance using that little piece of engineering. It measures well and does its job splendidly.

I have not tested any cables and never felt the need to do it since there's solid science behind it, and I'm not an outlier, and even if I were, I would not be able to hear any difference anyways since is way beyond human capability to do so.

I will give you some piece of unwanted advice, to enjoy music you don't need cables, amplifiers or gear, you need to bring your soul and open it for this sensorial experience. Close your eyes and forget about everything else, about the forums and the discussions, and you will truly enjoy music.


----------



## jambaj0e

bigshot said:


> The ones that sound the same are more likely to be correct.
> 
> Obviously you have a high end USB cable. Would you like to lend it to us at Sound Science to test it against an Amazon Basics one? We have people here who are experienced in doing controlled listening tests who would be happy to oversee it and make sure it is accurate.



I'll do you one better. Are you on WhatsBestForum? Mark Coles who owns Sablon Audio runs their forum there, and they do audition loaners, including their power cables that go up to $4,000. Just show your credentials and I'll vouch for you to the test. Maybe he'll even include some of his other cables. His ethernet cable is what I'm thinking to get next. Would love to get his interconnects, but they start at $1,400 for 1m of XLR cable.

Sablon Audio 2020 USB Cable Forum


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> I don't use my system a lot, I use my headphones straight out an USB-C to 3.5mm because it is more comfortable and more practical than always being connected to an amp. Also I get better volpot balance using that little piece of engineering. It measures we and does its job splendidly.
> 
> I have not tested any cables and never felt the need to do it since there's solid science behind it, and I'm not an outlier, and even if I were, I would not be able to hear any difference anyways since is way beyond human capability to do so.
> 
> I will give you some piece of unwanted advice, yo enjoy music you don't need cables, amplifiers or gear, you need to bring your soul and open it for this sensorial experience. Close your eyes and forget about everything else, about the forums and the discussions, and you will truly enjoy music.



Oh dude, so why do you even bother even commenting like you did with

"YOLO?...?

Seriously, believe what you want to believe because I won't make you change your mind. "

You haven't even done any of the tests yourself. And you seem to forget, as Paul McGowan had said in one of podcasts, it's not just about the ears but the way the brain interprets the sound signals. You're not an outlier since you do belong to those who haven't actually tested but have an opinion about it. So basically more of the same.

As for your unwanted advice, I've never listened to music more than I do know. I get up at 5:30am, drink coffee and listen to my system for 20-30 mins, go to work at a film studio where I actually get to listen to my mobile setup (Chord Mojo +Aeon 2 Closed) through the day until 7pm, then go home and before I go to sleep I get to listen to home my system for another 1-2 hours. Every time I listen to my home system, I get more and more addicted to how big of an improvement my home system sound. I'm already in musical bliss everyone


----------



## KeithPhantom

jambaj0e said:


> You haven't even done any of the tests yourself.


I haven't felt the need to. 


jambaj0e said:


> Paul McGowan


Who's him? Not to brag, but I have better ears than him just due to age (I'm just 21 and still can hear 20 kHz, and it is really unpleasant). 


jambaj0e said:


> it's not just about the ears but the way the brain interprets the sound signals.


First of all, the ears convert the sound pressure into electric signals, so if the ear does not pick it up, it does not get converted as part of the signal. Second, I wouldn't trust the brain as an audio analyzer, it is full of biases and psychoacoustic effects that cannot be fully separated from the goal of a test.


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> I haven't felt the need to.
> 
> Who's him? Not to brag, but I have better ears than him just due to age (I'm just 21 and still can hear 20 kHz, and it is really unpleasant).
> 
> First of all, the ears convert the sound pressure into electric signals, so if the ear does not pick it up, it does not get converted as part of the signal. Second, I wouldn't trust the brain as an audio analyzer, it is full of biases and psychoacoustic effects that cannot be fully separated from the goal of a test.



Lol, hmm you realize that's like saying you can shoot a better jump ball than Lebron James when you rarely shoot professionally, right? Or knowing how different various golf clubs at various price affects your game if you don't play golf, either? Or how much better a $500 bottle of wine tastes vs a $5 bottle, etc.

As for Paul McGowan, he's only a co-founder of PS Audio, a full-time engineer himself with decades of experience and who has listened to countless systems and cables day in and day out. In other words, the sheer amount of experience he has easily eclipses your so-called superior (doubt it) 21-year old hearing. Same with Gordon Rankin who literally revolutionized digital audio by introducing asynchronous USB standard to the audio world and he himself had said USB cables make difference after listening to 1000s of USB cables as part of his job.

In other words, why wouldn't I trust their words and their experience over yours?


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

Finally, here's a great conversation between John Darko of Darko Audio and Barry who called John out on him hearing "differences in USB cables". A great read that reflects how  a lot of you all think:

https://techadopters.com/grinding-your-own-gears-darko-audio/

*Here's a preview:*
Barry: You declare which you could discern small audible variations between USB cables. Everybody is aware of it’s solely ones and zeroes.

John: Hmmmm. Everybody? Are you aware ‘everybody’ to talk on their behalf? Let’s put the idea to at least one facet for a second and give attention to actuality. Or moderately, _my_ actuality! Sure, I hear variations between sure USB cables in sure high-end audio techniques.

Barry: I’m calling bull on this.

John: On what foundation? Have you ever taken, say, a Curious USB cable or an AudioQuest Carbon and in contrast both to the USB cable that comes along with your printer?

Barry: No, in fact, I haven’t. I don’t have to.

John: You don’t have to? Would you move touch upon the meals in Spain with out ever setting foot within the nation? 

(Read the rest to find out how this conversation went)


----------



## KeithPhantom

jambaj0e said:


> As for Paul McGowan, he's only a co-founder of PS Audio, a full-time engineer himself with decades of experience and who has listened to countless systems and cables day in and day out.


And over at ASR the SINAD of his amps are not even clean 16-bit (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-dac.9100/). 


jambaj0e said:


> Lol, hmm you realize that's like saying you can shoot a better jump ball than Lebron James when you rarely shoot professionally, right? Or knowing how different various golf clubs at various price affects your game if you don't play golf, either? Or how much better a $500 bottle of wine tastes vs a $5 bottle, etc.


False analogy, because I'm only comparing biology, just that. I didn't say I can hear differences between cables. 


jambaj0e said:


> Same with Gordon Rankin who literally revolutionized digital audio by introducing asynchronous USB standard to the audio world and he himself had said USB cables make difference after listening to 1000s of USB cables as part of his job.


First, I commend them for improving the USB standard, but using special pleading to prove an argument makes your evidence non-valid for a logical proof. Could you provide an argument that can be empirically tested and compared against a control?

Finally, why do you take all of this so seriously? It's just audio, enjoy the music.


----------



## bigshot

jambaj0e said:


> I'll do you one better. Are you on WhatsBestForum? Mark Coles who owns Sablon Audio runs their forum there, and they do audition loaners, including their power cables that go up to $4,000. Just show your credentials and I'll vouch for you to the test.



Set it up for us. I'm a producer, not a sound engineer, so I'm not the person to conduct the test. But we have a really experienced crowd here. I would be happy to coordinate and make sure the tests run smoothly. Let me know what you hear back from them.


----------



## KeithPhantom

By the way, I'm done commenting on this thread, it's too boring and all the same as the other cable threads. There's no convincing other people here and science is denied left and right, I'll do something more productive. I'll keep reading just for fun though 🙂.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> I've never listened to music more than I do know. I get up at 5:30am, drink coffee and listen to my system for 20-30 mins, go to work at a film studio where I actually get to listen to my mobile setup



Cool. I've worked in the film business (mostly in TV) for 35 years. Do you have an IMDB page? PM it to me and I will PM you mine.


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> And over at ASR the SINAD of his amps are not even clean 16-bit (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-dac.9100/).
> 
> False analogy, because I'm only comparing biology, just that. I didn't say I can hear differences between cables.
> 
> ...



Because you only think because YOU can't hear differences (even though you say you "didn't say I can hear differences between cables") mean no one else can, which is incorrect, nor does your ASD link mean anything when it comes to Paul's decades of experiences, nor does it make SNR some sort of end-all authority on music since they only measure, they don't actually listen.

I'm not using "special pleading" I'm deferring to expert engineers in the industry who have so much more experience in listening to cables than all of us in this thread combined who do hear the differences in USB Cables and have publicly said that in various podcasts (I listen to a lot of audiophile podcast channels and have heard multiple people said this, too). 

And what evidence do you even have when you don't even test it yourself anyways? I have stated mine from The SourceAV, and when you and others don't take that, I mentioned Gordon Rankin and the like.

But seriously, have you actually EVER done a proper A/B test yourself? I have, Darko has, Gordon Rankin and Paul McGowan has.

Oh don't worry about me, my music on my $16,000 killer system is on a whole level I'm sure your Schiit Magni Heresy + SMSL Sanskrit 10th mkII don't even know it exists.

In other words, you should actually try to test more, try to listen on higher end high-resolving system where differences on things like USB Cables are more pronounced.


----------



## KeithPhantom

KeithPhantom said:


> By the way, I'm done commenting on this thread, it's too boring and all the same as the other cable threads. There's no convincing other people here and science is denied left and right, I'll do something more productive. I'll keep reading just for fun though 🙂.


^


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> ^



It goes both way, when you won't even bother to actually test your side of the argument, why bother even spouting your side as "truth"? Just because you haven't tested it or you can't hear a difference, doesn't mean others haven't.


----------



## bigshot

You don't have to test every drop of water in the world to know that water is wet!


----------



## KeithPhantom

jambaj0e said:


> Because you only think because YOU can't hear differences


Thank God I can't, because I wouldn't have my next goal, my own puppy. These Maltese give you a warmer feeling not only to your music, also to your life. They come with the perk of providing a good price/happiness ratio, something I would put all my money into:




Isn't it cute? Now, this is my actual last post in this thread; I had a burning desire to say this. Sorry for the inconveniences.


----------



## bigshot

This is my pomeranian! She's all grown up now though.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> This is my pomeranian! She's all grown up now though.


Couldn't resist, those are cute as well.


----------



## jambaj0e

KeithPhantom said:


> Thank God I can't, because I wouldn't have my next goal, my own puppy. These Maltese give you a warmer feeling not only to your music, also to your life. They come with the perk of providing a good price/happiness ratio, something I would put all my money into:
> 
> Isn't it cute? Now, this is my actual last post in this thread; I had a burning desire to say this. Sorry for the inconveniences.



LOL, I'm super excited with my addiction to music, and I'm very happy I've spent the money into my hobby to where I have found my bliss, especially where I've upgraded into things that have made a difference, including the Sablon 2020 USB cable. My system is my Ferrari and I drive it every day.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2020)

here she is now


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

Here's your science on USB Audio and USB Cable courtesy of Gordon Rankin, the creator of Asynchronous USB for audio and inventor of Audioquest Dragonfly. This is about 50% of the knowledge drop and the rest is in the Darko article:

https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/

“All data moving between a host computer and a device over USB is done electrically. There are different speeds and different protocols that determine how a device and the host communicate.”

“Any interface between two points cannot be totally error-free. If you use a hard drive over USB, Ethernet or Firewire there are transmission errors. That means the transmitting device is told to resend the packet that has the error in it. Most of the time this is one bit in a packet size of length X.”

“Remember, the carrier is modulated on the data so the larger X, the bigger chance of errors. Also the faster the interface the more chance that there will be an error.”

“The three main USB transmission protocols are Bulk, Interrupt and Isochronous. Bulk (used for data transfer to a hard drive) and Interrupt are error-correcting. Isochronous (used for audio) is not.”

“Bulk and Interrupt are immediately NAK (negative acknowledgement). The receiver is designed to detect a bad packet immediately and the packet is resent.”

“For USB audio, the receiving device is basically translating a serial stream of data with a clock interwoven throughout. At the end of the packet sits some sort of block check. If the block check does not match the data then that packet is flagged as an error.”

“With Isoschronous USB transmission, packets are sent without any error correction / resending. But guess what? This is the USB protocol used for audio frames. The bad news is they are not error-free. The good news is these Isochronous frames are afforded the highest priority in the system.”

“A couple of years ago, I bought an expensive Tektronix USB setup. I have had protocol analyzers since designing my first USB DACS some twelve years ago. The Tektronix is useful because it allows me to see errors better both in electrical and data packets.”

“The big thing that many people don’t realize is that not all USB ports are created equal. Not all USB cables are created equal and it’s the same for devices and even operating systems. Since getting the Tektronix I have tested probably thirty different USB cables on the fifteen computers in my lab. These computers run a variety of operating systems and the Tektronix results vary between computers even when the cable remains the same. Let’s just say it’s not as pretty as I thought it would be.”

“Just a couple of things to think about in regards to USB ports. First, look to see what else is located on that tree. Each USB port can handle 127 devices. Sometimes there are additional ports hidden (inside your computer) and there are internal devices sitting on those ports – this could be the same tree that is hosting your USB DAC”...

"Speed plays an important part in all of this too. You may have heard the terms UAC1 and UAC2 – these are USB Audio Class protocols. UAC1 was designed for Full Speed device and host interaction. A data packet is sent every 1ms. In that packet are up to 1023 frames.”

“In high speed or UAC2 those 1024 frames each contain eight micro frames. Therefore, the amount of data we can send over UAC2 is basically eight times greater than that of UAC1. But with more data at faster speeds comes more errors and system configuration becomes harder. I almost never see an error on a UAC1 device, on a UAC2 device I can pretty much count on errors in both directions”...

"To summarise: the problem with USB Audio is that Isochronous USB frames are not error-correcting. Therefore the sonic outcome of any USB system is dependent on the host to device differential.”

“Twelve years ago, I pretty much thought as many people do today: that USB was the answer to our S/PDIF quandaries. In some ways, it is a good deal better. We have Asynchronous Isochronous so the device and host know about sample rates, bit rates, clocking options and a host of other things. But cables make a difference, computer brand and quality make a difference and even the device makes a difference.”


----------



## jambaj0e

And excellent follow up:

https://darko.audio/2017/07/dont-worry-usb-happy/


----------



## Kentajalli

megabigeye said:


> Well, actually...
> 
> #don'tfeedthetrolls


Einstein or jack-the-lad , it is true!
Unless we are under the delusion that 
_we know it all now - there is nothing we can not measure._


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Kentajalli said:


> Einstein or jack-the-lad , it is true!
> Unless we are under the delusion that
> _we know it all now - there is nothing we can not measure._



Even if something can be measured, it might have less impact on the sound than, IE the air conditioning in the space where the performance was recorded, or, the hiss from the original analog session tapes.  

You'll hear those far, faaaaar more readily than any measured difference between USB cables, or betw. DACs.


----------



## megabigeye

Kentajalli said:


> Einstein or jack-the-lad , it is true!
> Unless we are under the delusion that
> _we know it all now - there is nothing we can not measure._


Yes, I understand the spirit of the quote. But he seemed to be using it to say, "even the GREATEST SCIENTIST THAT EVER LIVED says you're wrong!" An appeal to authority.
I just wanted to say, _not so fast!_


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Even if something can be measured, it might have less impact on the sound than, IE the air conditioning in the space where the performance was recorded, or, the hiss from the original analog session tapes.
> 
> You'll hear those far, faaaaar more readily than any measured difference between USB cables, or betw. DACs.



Depends on the cables and what you test on. We tested on the Chord Dave + Audeze Lcd-4Z and we were able to tell the difference. 

On my home system (Hugo TT2 + Cayin Ha-300 tube amp + Audeze LCD-3) I was able to tell the difference between the Kimber AG and Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserva Elite USB cable.

I definitely have much more visceral sound with more dynamic impact and clarity VS the Kimber, which I felt was warmer but more veiled.

Have you tested cables yourself and on what system?


----------



## jambaj0e

By the way, I'd love to hear you guys comment on the Gordon Rankin quote I have in the previous post on “the three main USB transmission protocols are Bulk, Interrupt and Isochronous. Bulk (used for data transfer to a hard drive) and Interrupt are error-correcting. Isochronous (used for audio) is not.”

It's a great study on the engineering tech behind USB transfer and how error prone isochronous USB audio can be.


----------



## Kentajalli (Nov 2, 2020)

megabigeye said:


> Yes, I understand the spirit of the quote. But he seemed to be using it to say, "even the GREATEST SCIENTIST THAT EVER LIVED says you're wrong!" An appeal to authority.
> I just wanted to say, _not so fast!_


well, hmmmm
I share a small part of that school of thought with him too.
World Is full of people who believe too much in their ownreasoning and lab measurements.
I am a firm "believer" that as yet we can not measure everything fully, and the proof of the pudding is not in the recipe or the temperature of the oven!
at the same time, I am a firm believer that cables can be made badly, but there is no magic for making proper cables.


----------



## jambaj0e

Kentajalli said:


> well, hmmmm
> I share a small part of that school of thought with him too.
> World Is full of people who believe too much in their ownreasoning and lab measurements.
> I am a firm "believer" that as yet we can not measure everything fully, and the proof of the pudding is not in the recipe or the temperature of the oven!
> at the same time, I am a firm believer that cables can be made badly, but there is no magic for making proper cables.




Yes, not magic, just better engineering.


----------



## reginalb (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> Depends on the cables and what you test on. We tested on the Chord Dave + Audeze Lcd-4Z and we were able to tell the difference.
> 
> On my home system (Hugo TT2 + Cayin Ha-300 tube amp + Audeze LCD-3) I was able to tell the difference between the Kimber AG and Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserva Elite USB cable.
> 
> ...



If you understand how USB cables work, then you know that what you're talking about just isn't possible. The 1's and 0's get to their destination or they don't. Nothing about warmth, or veils is what would even happen if there was a problem with a usb cable. Lost digits would result in errors, what you're describing has nothing to do with errors of digits lost during transmission of digitized audio, that just isn't how it works. I am sorry, but you've fallen victim to bias if you think that a usb cable made those differences. This isn't theoretical physics we're talking about, it's dead simple data transmission. You can believe what you want, but please don't try to get others to waste their money.


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

reginalb said:


> If you understand how USB cables work, then you know that what you're talking about just isn't possible. The 1's and 0's get to their destination or they don't. Nothing about warmth, or veils is what would even happen if there was a problem with a usb cable. Lost digits would result in errors, what you're describing has nothing to do with errors of digits lost during transmission of digitized audio, that just isn't how it works. I am sorry, but you've fallen victim to bias if you think that a usb cable made those differences. This isn't theoretical physics we're talking about, it's dead simple data transmission. You can believe what you want, but please don't try to get others to waste their money.



Ok, so did you read what Gordon Rankins wrote about isochronous USB audio transfer and how it is not error free? He's the engineer who created asynchronous USB (jitter clock in the DAC instead of the source) as well as created the Audioquest DragonFly. It's not "simple data transmission" because USB audio streaming is Isochronous (non error-correctin), not Bulk or Interrupt USB protocols (error-correcting).

Here's my problem with all of you naysayers: you say your thing without actually reading what he wrote in its entirety, nor do you even attempt to refute the technical things he said. Go ahead, you seem smart, read what he said starting halfway through this Darko Audio. I'd like to see you counter what he actually wrote:

https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/


----------



## bfreedma

jambaj0e said:


> Ok, so did you read what Gordon Rankins wrote about isochronous USB audio transfer and how it is not error free? He's the engineer who created asynchronous USB (jitter clock in the DAC instead of the source) as well as created the Audioquest DragonFly. It's not "simple data transmission" because USB audio streaming is Isochronous (non error-correctin), not Bulk or Interrupt USB protocols (error-correcting).
> 
> Here's my problem with all of you naysayers: you say your thing without actually reading what he wrote in its entirety, nor do you even attempt to refute the technical things he said. Go ahead, you seem smart, read what he said starting halfway through this Darko Audio. I'd like to see you counter what he actually wrote:
> 
> https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/



What do you think the average error rate is?  Last time I examined this, the error rate would equate to well less than 1 bit error in one hour of music playback.  Do you really believe that impacts audibility.

As usual, the cable charlatans are miscasting something that may happen but does so infrequently enough to be essentially zero impact as a problem that requires solving.

Ask Gordon Rankin to show actual error rate analysis.  Number of failed transmissions per million.


----------



## jambaj0e

bfreedma said:


> What do you think the average error rate is?  Last time I examined this, the error rate would equate to well less than 1 bit error in one hour of music playback.  Do you really believe that impacts audibility.
> 
> As usual, the cable charlatans are miscasting something that may happen but does so infrequently enough to be essentially zero impact as a problem that requires solving.
> 
> Ask Gordon Rankin to show actual error rate analysis.  Number of failed transmissions per million.



He did show it, in the article. Did you not read it?


----------



## bfreedma

jambaj0e said:


> He did show it, in the article. Did you not read it?



I see one uncorrelated screen shot claiming to see errors.  No average failure rate, no analysis.  If I missed those, please point out where they are in the article.


----------



## sonitus mirus

jambaj0e said:


> He did show it, in the article. Did you not read it?


Gordon Rankin and Darko are selling you something and neither are reliable to provide objective information.

The error rate over a 2m USB cable is extremely low under typical conditions and is simple to test.  I have run a continuous USB cable test at 24-bit/192kHz stereo audio for over 24 hours from a laptop to an RME ADI-2 DAC without a single error reported.  If there is a meaningful error rate being observed, the cable and/or the connections are problematic.  This would not be normal.  The error rate is irrelevant for digital audio, but that won't generate any sales for devices that claim to resolve this non-issue.  An engineer with savvy marketing skills can gin up some fervor in an attempt to spike sales.   I would not rely on Darko or Rankin to show me the light.

There is a USB specification that should be followed.    

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-bus/universal-serial-bus-specifications.html


----------



## jambaj0e

bfreedma said:


> I see one uncorrelated screen shot claiming to see errors.  No average failure rate, no analysis.  If I missed those, please point out where they are in the article.



But did you actually read the article in its entirety?


----------



## bfreedma (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> But did you actually read the article in its entirety?



I did.  It’s a sales/marketing document, not an accurate technical analysis,  Lots of hand waving about “problems” but no correlation of these problems to audibility.

Once again, please point out the average packet failure rate you claim is in the article.  Or any analysis of bulk data Indicating there is an actual issue here that needs resolving.  Let alone evidence that a cable would be technically capable of resolving those issues.


----------



## reginalb (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> He did show it, in the article. Did you not read it?



I read it, unfortunately, I also understand how USB works. As I said to you, your description of what errors _sound like _is wrong. I read that, in its entirety, before replying. The article fails (conveniently) to tell you what an error would sound like. There would be a very audible artifact, or a complete drop in audio. It doesn't change the _characteristic _of the audio, rather it would affect if you hear the audio at all. As others have already covered, the frequency of error is extremely low with an in-spec cable. You will know if your cable isn't in-spec, though. If your audio plays without dropouts, it's in-spec. (Or at least close enough for audio, which requires very little bandwidth).


----------



## jambaj0e (Nov 2, 2020)

sonitus mirus said:


> Gordon Rankin and Darko are selling you something and neither are reliable to provide objective information.
> 
> The error rate over a 2m USB cable is extremely low under typical conditions and is simple to test.  I have run a continuous USB cable test at 24-bit/192kHz stereo audio for over 24 hours from a laptop to an RME ADI-2 DAC without a single error reported.  If there is a meaningful error rate being observed, the cable and/or the connections are problematic.  This would not be normal.  The error rate is irrelevant for digital audio, but that won't generate any sales for devices that claim to resolve this non-issue.  An engineer with savvy marketing skills can gin up some fervor in an attempt to spike sales.   I would not rely on Darko or Rankin to show me the light.
> 
> ...



And you really don't think that Gordon, who professionally been an engineer at this for decades haven't done your test and any other tests for error packets? And this error, by the way, is jitter. Is that what you were measuring?

You really don't think he hasn't listened to hundreds if not thousands of USB cables in his career (He also developed the USB audio certification for Apple)? And yet, he and other engineers like him (Paul McGowan) had said there are differences in USB cables and they're audible.

I'm sorry, for all of you guys who summarily dismiss his experience, go ahead. I'd trust his words and experience, as well as the differences I've personally heard on the Chord Dave +LCD-4Z and my Hugo TT2 + Cayin HA-300 + LCD-3. 

If you haven't heard a difference, it may just be the cables you've tried (or not tried) or how resolving your system is. On the two I've heard, as well as my friend's Innuos Zen to Innuos Phoenix to M-Scaler to TT2 to LCD-4, I've heard the differences.

This is going round and round to nowhere, so I'm done, we're clearly in an impasse.


----------



## megabigeye (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> Ok, so did you read what Gordon Rankins wrote about isochronous USB audio transfer and how it is not error free? He's the engineer who created asynchronous USB (jitter clock in the DAC instead of the source) as well as created the Audioquest DragonFly. It's not "simple data transmission" because USB audio streaming is Isochronous (non error-correctin), not Bulk or Interrupt USB protocols (error-correcting).
> 
> Here's my problem with all of you naysayers: you say your thing without actually reading what he wrote in its entirety, nor do you even attempt to refute the technical things he said. Go ahead, you seem smart, read what he said starting halfway through this Darko Audio. I'd like to see you counter what he actually wrote:
> 
> https://darko.audio/2016/05/gordon-rankin-on-why-usb-audio-quality-varies/


I've read this article twice now. I also noted that the only times he mentioned audibility was in reference to music app faulting, not USB transmission.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that he intentionally left that part out, though. For all I know it's because he's an engineer and so he's more interested in overkill and redundancy than he is in audibility.

I also noted that the only time he mentioned USB cables being inadequate, he actually said it was the audiophile cables that didn't work with UAC2.

I think the reason others in this thread (myself included) aren't trusting Rankin's words is precisely _because_ he's such an accomplished engineer. He's got a clear bias toward favoring the things he's worked on. Can you imagine working for decades at something only to realize that it didn't matter? Yeesh. That would suck.

Also, for what it's worth, I believe that not all USB cables are created equal. I once used an "audiophile" NuForce cable that picked up interference from a Bluetooth keyboard, which resulted in a very loud digital hash (?) sound. A cable with ferrite beads fixed the problem.


----------



## reginalb (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> And you really don't think that Gordon, who professionally been an engineer at this for decades haven't done your test and any other tests for error packets? And this error, by the way, is jitter. Is that what you were measuring?
> 
> You really don't think he hasn't listened to hundreds if not thousands of USB cables in his career (He also developed the USB audio certification for Apple)? And yet, he and other engineers like him (Paul McGowan) had said there are differences in USB cables and they're audible.
> 
> ...



And I am sure it all has _nothing at all _to do with the fact that he sells insanely overpriced audio gear, spouting the same nonsense:



> *Brick N2*, after RMAF 2019 there was a lot of talk about this product. At the USB connector is a USB isolator which then goes to the Microchip processor with 20x the buffering of the TAS1020. The processor enumerates at 24/96 (44.1, 48, 88.2, 96KHz sample rates supported) with low jitter dual oscillators and full reclocking before it reaches the NOS DAC chip with resistor IV. The DAC output is then directly coupled to the 12AU7A reactor follower output buffering the NOS DAC and cap coupled to the RCA outputs. Two versions available, Copper reactor $2K and Silver reactor (4x larger) $7500, upgrades available for any previous version of the Brick for $500. New Callisto USB DAC which is a super set of the N2 available soon with silver reactors and wood trim, VT135 output tubes. $10,000 (silver only sorry!).



Source: https://www.wavelengthaudio.com/Store/

So anyway, believe what you will, but please don't go around duping others. I find people like Gordon to be absolute scum. He's a snake-oil salesman of the worst kind. Go somewhere he is sometime and ask him to quantify what those packets lost equate to.

Just as I've asked Jason Stoddard to actually quantify what difference I would hear if I were to buy a "multibit" DAC from him. I didn't accuse him of anything, I didn't ask any crazy questions, just "What is the difference that I'll be able to hear between a standard Modi, and [the one that's 2.5x the price.]" I phrased it politely, with no mention of the price differential. He couldn't do it.


----------



## jambaj0e

megabigeye said:


> I've read this article twice now. I also noted that the only times he mentioned audibility was in reference to music app faulting, not USB transmission.
> 
> I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that he intentionally left that part out, though. For all I know it's because he's an engineer and so he's more interested in overkill and redundancy than he is in audibility.
> 
> I think the reason others in this thread (myself included) aren't trusting Rankin's words is precisely _because_ he's such an accomplished engineer. He's got a clear bias toward favoring the things he's worked on. Can you imagine working for decades at something only to realize that it didn't matter? Yeesh. That would suck.



But why do you think it doesn't matter, have you put in the amount of work that he has accomplished? Don't forget, he has also created many things, including the Dragonfly USB Dac. Like I said, just as you guys don't trust forum reader's words, I'd rather trust engineers with his resume, as well as Paul McGowan, and others whose job has been to test audio equipment every single day like Darren (designer at PS Audio) and Duncan (Testing tech at The Music Room). All who also said USB cables can make a difference.

https://www.thehifipodcast.net/about


----------



## reginalb

jambaj0e said:


> But why do you think it doesn't matter, have you put in the amount of work that he has accomplished? Don't forget, he has also created many things, including the Dragonfly USB Dac. Like I said, just as you guys don't trust forum reader's words, I'd rather trust engineers with his resume, as well as Paul McGowan, and others whose job has been to test audio equipment every single day like Darren (designer at PS Audio) and Duncan (Testing tech at The Music Room). All who also said USB cables can make a difference.
> 
> https://www.thehifipodcast.net/about



No, we know, you trust the guy selling you overpriced gear over the people that have an understanding of the underlying principles with no skin in the game.


----------



## megabigeye (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> But why do you think it doesn't matter, have you put in the amount of work that he has accomplished? Don't forget, he has also created many things, including the Dragonfly USB Dac. Like I said, just as you guys don't trust forum reader's words, I'd rather trust engineers with his resume, as well as Paul McGowan, and others whose job has been to test audio equipment every single day like Darren (designer at PS Audio) and Duncan (Testing tech at The Music Room). All who also said USB cables can make a difference.
> 
> https://www.thehifipodcast.net/about


Sorry, I don't quite understand— why do I think what doesn't matter?  Audiophile USB cables?  To be honest, I don't know enough to unequivocally come down on one side or the other, though I remain highly skeptical for the reasons outlined by others here.
My intention with that post was to point out that he almost completely left audibility out of that article, and that when he did mention it, it had nothing to do with cables, other than that some audiophile cables were inadequate for UAC2.  Which is the _opposite_ of saying that more expensive cables are better.

In fiction we'd say that Rankin is an unreliable narrator— he's too biased to give us a reliable tale.  What do you do for work? (you don't actually have to tell me) Imagine that somebody came along and started claiming and _proving_ that what you're doing is bunk.  What would you do?  I imagine you'd defend your job (and yourself!) tooth and nail!  I worked for a decade at a bookstore.  Mostly customers were very nice and polite, but every now and then somebody would come in, I'd help them for five, or ten, or twenty minutes, and then at the end they'd say, "thanks for your help, I can get it cheaper on Amazon."  I didn't even like that job and it was still incredibly insulting.  My dad worked for decades writing policy.  Since he's retired a lot of his work has been undone, which, for him, is profoundly discouraging.  And so he works a decade after his retirement to fix and defend his legacy.  Mr. Rankin works as an engineer.  Naturally when the question comes up about whether or not his work is meaningful, he's going to point out all the ways that he finds it meaningful.  He is deeply, deeply biased toward defending the work that he does, has done, and will (hopefully) continue to do.
Does that help you understand why we don't trust Mr. Rankin's authority on this?

And, yes, I know that he designed the DragonFlies.  I used to use and enjoy the DragonFly Red, until it broke.

Also, to the regulars in the Sound Science forum: I really wish you'd watch your language a little more closely.  I know you're not directly being uncivil, but phrases like "rip off," "overpriced," "hand waving" all carry negative connotations with them.  It's easy to infer from those words an animosity toward other posters, whether you're intending it or not.  It doesn't help your arguments, but makes people go on the defensive.  It's what the kids call micro-aggressions.


----------



## megabigeye

Kentajalli said:


> well, hmmmm
> I share a small part of that school of thought with him too.
> World Is full of people who believe too much in their ownreasoning and lab measurements.
> I am a firm "believer" that as yet we can not measure everything fully, and the proof of the pudding is not in the recipe or the temperature of the oven!
> at the same time, I am a firm believer that cables can be made badly, but there is no magic for making proper cables.


This is where you and I differ: for me, pudding is something that is cooked on the stovetop, not in the oven.


----------



## reginalb

megabigeye said:


> ...Also, to the regulars in the Sound Science forum: I really wish you'd watch your language a little more closely.  I know you're not directly being uncivil, but phrases like "rip off," "overpriced," "hand waving" all carry negative connotations with them...It's what the kids call micro-aggressions.



I consider charging what Gordon does for a DAC to be a macro-aggression. Perhaps direct your offense to the snake oil salesmen, not the people pointing out that it's snake-oil. After several posts on a topic about someone who I think is amoral, I'll call them as such.


----------



## reginalb (Nov 2, 2020)

3602 said:


> On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
> I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do.



I think I'll quote the banned OP after this conversation and bloviate for a moment. Anyone in the current USB discussion, note I'm going to be tying this conversation back to the OP, and not actually directly addressing the current topic of conversation. You've been warned.

This loop is instructive: There are those who will never be convinced. But I wanted to try to dispel discouragement, if I might. I once believed that I could get "better audio" from the right device. I bought my first "HiFi" DAP in 2011, a HiFiman HM-601 based on the information I obtained on this forum (not the Sound Science section, of course, but Head-Fi more generally). I truly believed my ears. I have always had an interest in science, and am a software engineer by trade, so I eventually found my way to the Sound Science section and was at first appalled by all the folks saying that I had wasted my money. So I read, at first attempting to reinforce my preconceived notions, and find assurance that I hadn't wasted money, and there was plenty of that to be found (away from this section of the forum).

But I ventured back, understanding that I hadn't really approached these questions in an honest way, and I started doing a lot more digging around "high resolution" audio. I eventually did my own blind testing and confirmed that everything I owned sounded like everything else I owned. I tried really hard to find audible differences, and even wrote a review that probably contributed to people disliking the Sony ZX1 (as I revealed that without the DSP on the device, it was indistinguishable from my Clip+).

There are those that will never be convinced, but you aren't talking to them when you hash this stuff out on an internet forum. You're talking to the lurkers. I could afford the small amount of money that I spent on a silly little DAP, but when I read about people on here putting savings towards their 14th DAP I just cringe. But while some folks have to be right, there are also those that want to get it right (thanks for that Colin Cowherd). I think these conversations are worth having for those lurkers just trying to get it right, and not waste their money.

I mostly lurk myself here, people like @gregorio have a deeper understanding of the analog side of audio than I will ever have, and I more or less leave those conversations up to people like him. I'll jump in on things like USB, as that's a bit closer to my own wheelhouse. the question is, of course, do you trust people that don't have skin in the game? Or do you trust the person who is trying to convince you that this $10,000 DAC has some magic pixie dust that can overcome the occasional error in USB data transmission?


----------



## Whazzzup

well i must destroy all my cables.......lolz hahahahahaha lolololololo


----------



## megabigeye

reginalb said:


> I consider charging what Gordon does for a DAC to be a macro-aggression. Perhaps direct your offense to the snake oil salesmen, not the people pointing out that it's snake-oil. After several posts on a topic about someone who I think is amoral, I'll call them as such.


Fair enough.  But by calling him amoral you're implying that people that believe him are either also amoral (by knowingly believing him) or dupes (by unknowingly believing him).  Also, you don't know that he's amoral.  As I tried to explain above (maybe unsuccessfully), for all we know he's just a guy that's trying to get his job done as best he can.  Or maybe he's amoral.  We don't know!

Also, I wasn't taking offense.  I honestly think that being as civil and understanding as possible is the best way to teach somebody something. Or, in keeping with the thread, to _convince_ them.


----------



## reginalb

megabigeye said:


> Fair enough.  But by calling him amoral you're implying that people that believe him are either also amoral (by knowingly believing him) or dupes (by unknowingly believing him).  Also, you don't know that he's amoral.  As I tried to explain above (maybe unsuccessfully), for all we know he's just a guy that's trying to get his job done as best he can.  Or maybe he's amoral.  We don't know!
> 
> Also, I wasn't taking offense.  I honestly think that being as civil and understanding as possible is the best way to teach somebody something. Or, in keeping with the thread, to _convince_ them.



I was once duped by head-fi, we're all human. We'd be better off if we could all admit that it happens.

And you're absolutely right, I don't _know _he's amoral. But I definitely _think _he is. I think many people that sell to audiophiles know exactly what they're doing. You're right that I shouldn't assume what's in his heart, he just seems too well accomplished to not know exactly what he's doing.


----------



## bfreedma

reginalb said:


> I think I'll quote the banned OP after this conversation and bloviate for a moment. Anyone in the current USB discussion, note I'm going to be tying this conversation back to the OP, and not actually directly addressing the current topic of conversation. You've been warned.
> 
> This loop is instructive: There are those who will never be convinced. But I wanted to try to dispel discouragement, if I might. I once believed that I could get "better audio" from the right device. I bought my first "HiFi" DAP in 2011, a HiFiman HM-601 based on the information I obtained on this forum (not the Sound Science section, of course, but Head-Fi more generally). I truly believed my ears. I have always had an interest in science, and am a software engineer by trade, so I eventually found my way to the Sound Science section and was at first appalled by all the folks saying that I had wasted my money. So I read, at first attempting to reinforce my preconceived notions, and find assurance that I hadn't wasted money, and there was plenty of that to be found (away from this section of the forum).
> 
> ...




Nicely written and I suspect many (most?) of the Sound Science denizens who came to this hobby without an EE background have followed a similar path.  At some point, it became painfully obvious that how vendors claimed things "worked" just wasn't aligned with the basic physics involved and I had to acknowledge that the name brand cables I was buying weren't the right direction to be looking for improving audio reproduction.

The best ROI I've ever realized in audio was purchasing and reading https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reprod...p-113892136X/dp/113892136X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk.  It certainly didn't make me an expert, but it did enable me to focus on measurable improvements and their likely root causes.

But if anyone can produce reliable evidence that USB cables can make a difference, I'll be at the front of the line to buy one.  Not waiting up nights for that to happen though.


----------



## ScareDe2

bigshot said:


> Not caring about how sound reproduction works and depending on subjective bias is the perfect way to feed placebo. If that makes you happy, great. But the thing about placebo and bias is that it only works for you. Someone else who isn't already convinced might not have the same experience you have. That is why they call it subjective.
> 
> I don't need to hear with your brain. I prefer my own brain thank you very much! And I'll pay attention to the physics of sound and how it is reproduced with high fidelity. I don't need to make stuff up to convince myself I have superhuman hearing. I can listen to Mozart with my decidedly human ears.



There is not such thing as high fidelity. You either have the exact same speakers in the exact same room with the exact same equipment that were used during the mix, or you just try to recreate what you subjectively think is accurate with your own material.
That said, in some circumstances, the cable is what will provide the balance needed ; in some other instances, the cables are irrelevant. Each person need a particular solution to fix a particular problems.


----------



## megabigeye

ScareDe2 said:


> There is not such thing as high fidelity. You either have the exact same speakers in the exact same room with the exact same equipment that were used during the mix, or you just try to recreate what you subjectively think is accurate with your own material.


I used to think this way, but it's not really true.  Two devices that are audibly transparent— that is to say, that all colorations or distortions lie outside of human hearing— by definition sound exactly the same.  To my understanding, EQ/DSP should cover the rest.
I asked a similar question about a year ago.  The answers were enlightening.


----------



## ScareDe2 (Nov 2, 2020)

megabigeye said:


> I used to think this way, but it's not really true.  Two devices that are audibly transparent— that is to say, that all colorations or distortions lie outside of human hearing— by definition sound exactly the same.  To my understanding, EQ/DSP should cover the rest.
> I asked a similar question about a year ago.  The answers were enlightening.



I don't know what you mean. There is not two speakers that sound alike, unless it is the same model. The speaker cabinet, the room and its treatment also affect sound. Whether the door is closed or open affects the sound. A push-pin in the middle of an absorptive panel changes the sound.


----------



## megabigeye (Nov 2, 2020)

ScareDe2 said:


> I don't know what you mean. There is not two speakers that sound alike, unless it is the same model. The speaker cabinet, the room and its treatment also affect sound. Whether the door is closed or open affects the sound. A push-pin in the middle of an absorptive panel changes the sound.


This is what I meant about EQ/DSP.
This is probably not the place to talk about this stuff (I don't think), but you can feel free to ask in the thread I linked above (but be sure it's framed as a question; it's a thread for having questions answered, not making assertions, arguing, etc).


----------



## KPzypher

Audiophile being such a niche community in comparison to the rest of the consumer audio industry, the prevalence of snake-oil is unavoidable.  Especially when forums like this being the main outlet, it is easy to sway community opinion with dishonest/strategic marketing and reviews.  It is unfortunate to see sound science forums like this always taking the back seat, or its relevancy continually disputed, while making average buyers more prone to falling prey to snake-oil products.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2020)

For the information of the regulars, I'm speaking in PM with jambajoe and seeing if we may be able to get the loan of a USB cable he is convinced sounds different than a comparable Amazon Basics cable. If we can do that, I will put out a call to the people here with experience setting up solid listening tests so we can prove a difference does or doesn't exist. I'll keep you informed on the progress.

Proving the difference is audible is the first step. Once it is proven that a an audible difference exists, then we can figure out why it exists. We can also measure to quantify the degree of the error. First things first.

Folks might want to start to think about what sort of switch box to use, and the protocols we will want to follow.


----------



## KPzypher (Nov 2, 2020)

bigshot said:


> For the information of the regulars, I'm speaking in PM with jambajoe and seeing if we may be able to get the loan of a USB cable he is convinced sounds different than a comparable Amazon Basics cable. If we can do that, I will put out a call to the people here with experience setting up solid listening tests so we can prove a difference does or doesn't exist. I'll keep you informed on the progress.



I hope this comes to fruition and provide some additional insight to otherwise uninformed buyers.  It's sad to often see science forums lack substance and data driven discussions, and just end up a shouting match between believers and deniers.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2020)

I've been trying to set up something like this for a couple of years. The attempts I've made in the past always fell apart because the person claiming the unusual difference tried to make setting up the test an unattainable goal from practical considerations. In this case, all we need is a USB cable. That shouldn't be too difficult to obtain on loan and it will be easy to ship to the people who are set up to conduct the test.

If someone claims something that shouldn't exist according to known science, they should be happy to participate in proving it, so known science benefits. Just taking someone's word for it isn't science. Personally, I'm not interested in abstract theory. I'm interested in things I can actually hear. Listening tests are fun, and we have some people in this group who are well equipped to do a proper listening test.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bfreedma said:


> But if anyone can produce reliable evidence that USB cables can make a difference, I'll be at the front of the line to buy one.  Not waiting up nights for that to happen though.


 I'm with you on this one, not holding my breath for some profound new development.  

Digital audio electronic devices were created from the theories, not the other way around.  It all works because it was proven on paper first.  Nobody slapped some components onto a PCB and said, "Hey, this sounds halfway decent, maybe someday we can learn about all the mysteries behind how it all functions?"  

These discussions always circle around one idea in the end.  This idea is that our brains are complex and not fully understood with regards to our ability to sense our surroundings, and maybe there is something we are not measuring for now that we could be, and this data is somehow perceived as varying degrees of fidelity.  This would be an amazing new discovery, and the best method to test for this is with blind testing.  If this is not an appropriate method to attempt to isolate the ears, and nothing better is made available, there is nothing more to discuss.


----------



## bigshot

The problem of focusing on how the brain processes audio instead of the actual physics of fidelity is that brain processes aren't consistent. One person may have a predisposed preference for something, but that doesn't mean I do. Sound reproduction is a matter of physics and fidelity. We know all about that. No mysteries there. You have a sound that is recorded and played back... how close is the playback to the original sound? With modern technology, that part is easy. As long as we get that right, the brain is going to process it however it wants to. But at least the equipment hasn't injected any noise or distortion.

When people mention how our brains process sound, it's usually because none of the physics jibe with what they dearly want to believe. So they throw in psychology to muddle things up and that allows them to throw the baby out with the bathwater...."We don't know everything, so we can't know anything." Brain processing is a red herring.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> The problem of focusing on how the brain processes audio instead of the actual physics of fidelity is that brain processes aren't consistent. One person may have a predisposed preference for something, but that doesn't mean I do. Sound reproduction is a matter of physics and fidelity. We know all about that. No mysteries there. You have a sound that is recorded and played back... how close is the playback to the original sound? With modern technology, that part is easy. As long as we get that right, the brain is going to process it however it wants to. But at least the equipment hasn't injected any noise or distortion.
> 
> When people mention how our brains process sound, it's usually because none of the physics jibe with what they dearly want to believe. So they throw in psychology to muddle things up and that allows them to throw the baby out with the bathwater...."We don't know everything, so we can't know anything." Brain processing is a red herring.


Without any strong evidence to support ideas that would challenge well-established fundamentals, I would agree.


----------



## Pro-Jules (Nov 2, 2020)

To do a good a/b audio test you need to swap back and forth in under 3 seconds or your brain will forget it’s sonic memory “photograph”.

For example if you were swapping a pair of iems on and off 2 different cables - it would take more than 3 seconds to do it - so an accurate a/b evaluation chance is lost. With that lost perhaps the extra $$ spent on the cable and the cool look of it might come into play - and you may well convince yourself your new purchase sounds better than the cheaper one you are testing it against.

or you shrug your shoulders and decide after spending all that money - the new one MUST be better.(bs-ing yourself)

imho of course.

Or you do the swapping a/b tests and can clearly hear the difference between them.


----------



## dazzerfong

Pro-Jules said:


> To do a good a/b audio test you need to swap back and forth in under 3 seconds or your brain will forget it’s sonic memory “photograph”.
> 
> For example if you were swapping a pair of iems on and off 2 different cables - it would take more than 3 seconds to do it - so an accurate a/b evaluation chance is lost. With that lost perhaps the extra $$ spent on the cable and the cool look of it might come into play - and you may well convince yourself your new purchase sounds better than the cheaper one you are testing it against.
> 
> ...



You say that, but some critics of A/B testing is that it's too quick, so if anything, they want an extended period of time to test.


----------



## Kentajalli (Nov 2, 2020)

Pro-Jules said:


> To do a good a/b audio test you need to swap back and forth in under 3 seconds or your brain will forget it’s sonic memory “photograph”.
> 
> For example if you were swapping a pair of iems on and off 2 different cables - it would take more than 3 seconds to do it - so an accurate a/b evaluation chance is lost. With that lost perhaps the extra $$ spent on the cable and the cool look of it might come into play - and you may well convince yourself your new purchase sounds better than the cheaper one you are testing it against.
> 
> ...


And this is why A/B testings (blind or otherwise) can lead to false results.
There are other reasons too - an example:
if you listen to a balanced frequency response of equipment A and quickly switch to a U shaped response of equipment B - for a short lived time, you may percieve the u shaped version as having better bass and treble - after longer _Auditioning _ you will come to your senses that A was right and B wasn't!
After all we eventually would like to listen to music for longer periods than a few seconds.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Nov 2, 2020)

jambaj0e said:


> Lol, hmm you realize that's like saying you can shoot a better jump ball than Lebron James when you rarely shoot professionally, right? Or knowing how different various golf clubs at various price affects your game if you don't play golf, either? Or how much better a $500 bottle of wine tastes vs a $5 bottle, etc.
> 
> As for Paul McGowan, he's only a co-founder of PS Audio, a full-time engineer himself with decades of experience and who has listened to countless systems and cables day in and day out. In other words, the sheer amount of experience he has easily eclipses your so-called superior (doubt it) 21-year old hearing. Same with Gordon Rankin who literally revolutionized digital audio by introducing asynchronous USB standard to the audio world and he himself had said USB cables make difference after listening to 1000s of USB cables as part of his job.
> 
> In other words, why wouldn't I trust their words and their experience over yours?


Paul McGowan is an embarrassing hack. As is the Chord engineer, something Watts, who claims people can hear "oscillating noise floors" down to -300dB, which I'm reasonably sure is the sound pressure you might measure at subatomic particle interactions.


----------



## colonelkernel8

jambaj0e said:


> Depends on the cables and what you test on. We tested on the Chord Dave + Audeze Lcd-4Z and we were able to tell the difference.
> 
> On my home system (Hugo TT2 + Cayin Ha-300 tube amp + Audeze LCD-3) I was able to tell the difference between the Kimber AG and Sablon 2020 Panatela Reserva Elite USB cable.
> 
> ...


Why do you have to type out the entire name of the cable each time to mention it?


----------



## colonelkernel8

jambaj0e said:


> And you really don't think that Gordon, who professionally been an engineer at this for decades haven't done your test and any other tests for error packets? And this error, by the way, is jitter. Is that what you were measuring?
> 
> You really don't think he hasn't listened to hundreds if not thousands of USB cables in his career (He also developed the USB audio certification for Apple)? And yet, he and other engineers like him (Paul McGowan) had said there are differences in USB cables and they're audible.
> 
> ...


Do you think recording studios use $700 digital cables to connect their digital interfaces to their computers? If not, how is it possible that they manage not to get any errors in the recording of the music you listen to?


----------



## colonelkernel8

sonitus mirus said:


> "Hey, this sounds halfway decent, maybe someday we can learn about all the mysteries behind how it all functions?"



This really is the fundamental issue. Since people often do not understand how things work, people come in to sell them "fixes" to problems that cannot physically exist.


----------



## bigshot

ScareDe2 said:


> There is not such thing as high fidelity.



If you think that either your equipment sucks or you're deaf.

(sorry, couldn't resist!)


----------



## bigshot (Nov 2, 2020)

Kentajalli said:


> And this is why A/B testings (blind or otherwise) can lead to false results.



Nope. You give the subject a switch. One side labelled A and the other labelled B. He doesn't know which is which. He switches back and forth as fast or as slow as he wants and chooses the one he prefers. Then you scramble the A and B and he does it again. A few dozen times and then you tally it up to see if you have a pattern. Controlled listening tests aren't difficult at all. I'm no expert in conducting tight tests, but I'm sure with the assembled experience we have in Sound Science we will find out pretty clearly one way or the other.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

colonelkernel8 said:


> Why do you have to type out the entire
> name of the cable each time to mention it?



We're not millennials. We communicate in full words to eliminate any doubt as to meaning or description


----------



## bfreedma

TheSonicTruth said:


> We're not millennials. We communicate in full words to eliminate any doubt as to meaning or description



I think you’re misinterpreting that post.  I may be wrong, but I believe the question is why someone would be so attached to a specific cable that they feel the need to write that particular long/full name so many times in close proximity in the same thread.  Kind of raising the issue of purchase justification.

@colonelkernel8 , please correct this if I’m wrong


----------



## Pro-Jules (Nov 3, 2020)

dazzerfong said:


> You say that, but some critics of A/B testing is that it's too quick, so if anything, they want an extended period of time to test.



I dont mean listen for just 3 seconds, I mean the swap from the A signal to the B signal should occur in under 3 seconds..

Listen to A for a minute or two
Quickly swap to B
Listen to be for a minute or two

Etc...

And there should be no critics of A/B testing! (what is there to criticise?)
If you like, rename it "critical comparative evaluation" - does that seem better?

But listening for a whole day with one - then a whole day with another - I dont buy that at all. Personal bias will be at play. 

Anyhow. The A/B testing is used by professional audio engineers (who I would like to point out - create the recordings we listen to) They do it to pick the best microphone to use on a vocalist for example. They try them on a few to find the best. They would swap between test run recordings, perhaps with the vocalist sitting next to them at the mixing console - and switching (instantly) between them, soon are able to determine the microphone that makes the vocalist sound best. They then proceed with that microphone.  They may do the same to select a main stereo pair to record an orchestra.. A/B several pairs - then proceed with the best sounding..


----------



## reginalb

Pro-Jules said:


> ...And there should be no critics of A/B testing! (what is there to criticise?)...



Oh you sweet summer child.


----------



## Kentajalli

_........And there should be no critics of A/B testing! (what is there to criticise?)_
Or the boogeyman will get you? is it sacrilge ?

_......But listening for a whole day with one - then a whole day with another - I dont buy that at all. Personal bias will be at play._
And I don't believe the average JOE is capable of not being impressed with a few seconds or minutes of quick changing sound. Add a little bass thump, high treble lift and most can get fooled into a false sense of _lively more revealing sound. _
Any how, even if _personal bias _comes to play, at least the poor JOE didn't make a decision in haste.

_Anyhow. The A/B testing is used by *professional audio engineers* (who I would like to point out - create the recordings we listen to) They do it to pick the best microphone to use on a vocalist for example. _
Yep they are *professionals *- trained ears which can spot obvious potential problems because of years of experience.


----------



## reginalb

See what I mean?


----------



## bfreedma

Isn’t the first goal to simply establish that the two items under test can reliably be identified as different?  Given the claims of night/day level differences in various cables and components, it should be fairly easy to confirm (or not) with some simple a/b/x testing.

Including preference can be done but if differences between two cables, dacs, amps, etc.. aren’t able to be identified in a statistically viable model, there would be no need to continue into preference testing.

Focus on simplifying the test as much as possible by constraining the elements being evaluated and maximizing the number of test runs.  More data will somewhat mitigate the risk of small sample size not giving representative results.


----------



## bigshot

You're right. That's the sort of strategies on the best way to test that we should be making. All we need is a cable to test. We'll see if that turns up. I suggested that jambajoe contact the shop that conducted the test he saw and see if they will loan him one. He hasn't gotten back to me yet. But it's election day and cover and things are upended in this area right now, so we need to be patient.


----------



## Pro-Jules

Anyhow. I am a professional audio engineer and IMHO a/b ing headphone cables is difficult to evaluate for the time it takes to swap them out.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 3, 2020)

Right now, we are talking about A/Bing USB cables. Do you have an opinion on that?

With headphones that have input plugs on both sides, you could put a different cable to each ear I suppose and ask if the ears sound different or the same. Randomize it up with a bunch of different trials and see if you get some sort of pattern. If the two ears heard slightly different, it would still show a pattern if it was different as long as it was randomized. A/A B/A A/B and B/B


----------



## reginalb

Pro-Jules said:


> Anyhow. I am a professional audio engineer and IMHO a/b ing headphone cables is difficult to evaluate for the time it takes to swap them out.



This particular convo is about USB cables, I believe. You're right that with headphone cables it would be tough.


----------



## bfreedma

The cable in question is “powered” with a separate vbus. Have we reached the point where an audiophile USB cable builder could/would place some form of DSP in a cable?  I’m not accusing the vendor in question, but it’s a possibility that may need to be checked before running the testing.


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Nov 3, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> The cable in question is “powered” with a separate vbus. Have we reached the point where an audiophile USB cable builder could/would place some form of DSP in a cable?  I’m not accusing the vendor in question, but it’s a possibility that may need to be checked before running the testing.


The thing is, DSP design is expensive and takes real skill (I've done it. It's very, very difficult work). People who make audiophile USB cables are probably not even engineers.


----------



## pfzar

fun times.


----------



## Pro-Jules

reginalb said:


> This particular convo is about USB cables, I believe. You're right that with headphone cables it would be tough.



Whoops my bad


----------



## colonelkernel8

pfzar said:


> fun times.


Not helpful man.


----------



## taffy2207 (Nov 3, 2020)

bigshot said:


> You're right. That's the sort of strategies on the best way to test that we should be making. All we need is a cable to test. We'll see if that turns up. I suggested that jambajoe contact the shop that conducted the test he saw and see if they will loan him one. He hasn't gotten back to me yet. But it's election day and cover and things are upended in this area right now, so we need to be patient.



TheSourceAV are a Sponsor here so that should make it easier :-

https://www.head-fi.org/members/tsavalan.484310/


----------



## bigshot

If they did put a DSP into the cable, it would be immediately obvious during the listening test. If it is monkeyed with, the next step would be to figure out how. My guess is that power would be split off to avoid interference, even though interference isn’t an issue with certified USB cables.


----------



## pfzar

Here,  read this.


----------



## bfreedma

colonelkernel8 said:


> The thing is, DSP design is expensive and takes real skill (I've done it. It's very, very difficult work). People who make audiophile USB cables are probably not even engineers.



I honestly have no idea if cable based DSP is a thing, but given the price of some of these cables, farming out the engineering for or purchasing a simple DSP (say a slight boost in the right areas for warmth) doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibilities. Agree that the vast majority of “audiophile signal transfer engineers” have neither the knowledge of facilities to execute this internally.

It would be relatively easy to check without ripping into the cable by comparing input and output.  I would love to do a tear down though, to see what connecters and cable are being used.  As you said about DSP,  none of these folks are building the actual components in house.  The cable in question costs $75 for each additional foot - bet that’s a very nice markup.


----------



## Kentajalli

bfreedma said:


> I honestly have no idea if cable based DSP is a thing, but given the price of some of these cables, farming out the engineering for or purchasing a simple DSP (say a slight boost in the right areas for warmth) doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibilities. Agree that the vast majority of “audiophile signal transfer engineers” have neither the knowledge of facilities to execute this internally.
> 
> It would be relatively easy to check without ripping into the cable by comparing input and output.  I would love to do a tear down though, to see what connecters and cable are being used.  As you said about DSP,  none of these folks are building the actual components in house.  The cable in question costs $75 for each additional foot - bet that’s a very nice markup.


Come on guys! Active DSP in a USB interconnect? let's keep at least one toe on the ground.
If they did such a thing, the _Hifi purists _who are the bulk of their potential customers, would spit on the floor and leave the room in disgust.


----------



## bfreedma

Kentajalli said:


> Come on guys! Active DSP in a USB interconnect? let's keep at least one toe on the ground.
> If they did such a thing, the _Hifi purists _who are the bulk of their potential customers, would spit on the floor and leave the room in disgust.



i agree that it’s unlikely, but there are numerous examples of colored gear sold by audiophile companies that their customers loved.  I’m not suggesting the vendor would actually tell the customer, just suggesting one way there could be a real difference in USB cables.

Anyway, it’s not worth worrying about in terms of this test.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bfreedma said:


> I honestly have no idea if cable based DSP is a thing, but given the price of some of these cables, farming out the engineering for or purchasing a simple DSP (say a slight boost in the right areas for warmth) doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibilities. Agree that the vast majority of “audiophile signal transfer engineers” have neither the knowledge of facilities to execute this internally.
> 
> It would be relatively easy to check without ripping into the cable by comparing input and output.  I would love to do a tear down though, to see what connecters and cable are being used.  As you said about DSP,  none of these folks are building the actual components in house.  The cable in question costs $75 for each additional foot - bet that’s a very nice markup.


It's at least a 1000% markup. Most of the expense is in the custom metal housings for the off-the-shelf USB connectors they're using. It's not like they're manufacturing actual USB connectors, that takes very expensive machinery and doesn't make sense to make in small quantities.


----------



## reginalb

colonelkernel8 said:


> The thing is, DSP design is expensive and takes real skill (I've done it. It's very, very difficult work). People who make audiophile USB cables are probably not even engineers.



You assume they would try to do it well.


----------



## taffy2207 (Nov 3, 2020)

colonelkernel8 said:


> It's at least a 1000% markup. Most of the expense is in the custom metal housings for the off-the-shelf USB connectors they're using. It's not like they're manufacturing actual USB connectors, that takes very expensive machinery and doesn't make sense to make in small quantities.



I often think that Companies selling "Audiophile" products like Cables were inspired by the William "Canada Bill Jones" line.

_"It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money"_


----------



## PointyFox (Nov 4, 2020)

InstantSilence said:


> Audio cables are components
> Cables conduct electricity and not numbers
> Cable quality matters.



If cable quality mattered it would also matter for test probe leads for highly sensitive electrical measurement equipment; but it doesn't. If a $5 lead wire is good enough for measurement equipment that can measure differences in signal millions of times smaller than should be perceptible by a human with an audio signal/transducer, a $5 audio cable should be good enough for even the most golden-earred audiophile.

To be clear, we're talking about "quality". This is different from the intrinsic properties of the cable such as resistance and inductance. Those sensitive measurement equipment are calibrated to a particular lead's properties. If the quality of the cable was a factor, calibration wouldn't work reliably and engineers would use higher quality cables if they existed and this was an issue. For audio cables, quality is not a factor but the intrinsic properties are. The instrinsic properties do not degrade or increase the quality of the music. They just cause a shift in the output based on the reaction of the other components.

In regard audiophile believing in cables having a certain "quality", I think the marketing is partly to blame, but also audiophiles themselves. They hear a shift in the signal, and they incorrectly assign a decrease or increase in quality to it based on their preferences and biases.


----------



## PointyFox (Nov 4, 2020)

Here's some measurements on the effect of various cables on the audio output of headphones:










As you can see, there is little to no difference with those cables on this particular setup, which calls into question the blanket statements made by the cable manufacturers in terms of how their cable is supposed to change the signal. It's something that you can't know without taking the other components into account and is by no means based on the "quality" of the cable.

Here's a few of them:



> "The Silver Dragon is the original cable. Silver strands clarify instrument separation, increase soundstage, and find previously lost high and mid-frequency sounds."





> "Our Black Dragon cables feature 99.99998% UP-OCC copper* conductors and a warmer sound signature. It is a warm and fuller sounding cable which provides a small boost to bass frequencies. Lower end sounds have a bit more depth and resonance, but the detail isn't lost from the mid-range or upper end frequencies. When you want a bigger presentation the Black Dragon is more ideal."
> 
> "The cable is extremely smooth sounding with great low end and wonderful voicing. And will remove the veil all Sennheiser headphones just like the Silver Dragon. "





> "The Cardas headphone cable is designed specifically for Sennheiser HD-580, HD-600 and HD-650 headphones. This custom designed cable significantly improves Sennheiser headphone performance by replacing the less than ideal stock wiring. As part of the Parsec family of cables, it offers the characteristic detail and holographic imaging of the rest of the Parsec line, along with the warmth and richness that makes extended listening sessions so enjoyable. Parsec HPC has all the legendary benefits Cardas is known for: richness, warmth, detail, non-fatiguing, musical, etc. "



smh.

This thread has been going on a LONG time. I think the answer is that cables CAN make a difference, but it depends on the setup and the intrinsic properties of the cable. This is not based on cable "quality". No cable will increase the fidelity of the sound or take it away unless it's horribly shielded and has noise leaking in or is broken. It may only change how it sounds, which depending on the listener may be better or worse.


----------



## colonelkernel8

PointyFox said:


> If cable quality mattered it would also matter for test probe leads for highly sensitive electrical measurement equipment; but it doesn't. If a $5 lead wire is good enough for measurement equipment that can measure differences in signal millions of times smaller than should be perceptible by a human with an audio signal/transducer, a $5 audio cable should be good enough for even the most golden-earred audiophile.
> 
> To be clear, we're talking about "quality". This is different from the intrinsic properties of the cable such as resistance and inductance. Those sensitive measurement equipment are calibrated to a particular lead's properties. If the quality of the cable was a factor, calibration wouldn't work reliably and engineers would use higher quality cables if they existed and this was an issue. For audio cables, quality is not a factor but the intrinsic properties are. The instrinsic properties do not degrade or increase the quality of the music. They just cause a shift in the output based on the reaction of the other components.
> 
> In regard audiophile believing in cables having a certain "quality", I think the marketing is partly to blame, but also audiophiles themselves. They hear a shift in the signal, and they incorrectly assign a decrease or increase in quality to it based on their preferences and biases.



To be pedantic, there are test probes out there that cost thousands of dollars, but they are also for measuring signals in the GIGAHERTZ range, or digital signals exceeding tens of gigabits per second and sometimes contain active (powered) elements to them. But this drives home the point that spending thousands of dollars on a cable to transmit analog signals in (at most) the kilohertz range and digital signals in the kilobits per second (up to the low megabits per second) range is beyond absurd.

For instance: https://www.tek.com/low-voltage-probe-single-ended

You'll note they don't market their products with nonsense like 8N PURE OCC SINGLE CRYSTAL CRYO-TREATED COPPER ARRANGED IN A MULTI GAUGE STRAND BUNDLE ACCORDING TO THE GOLDEN RATIO. They market it as having low capacitance, high impedance (voltage probes in this case), and a high bandwidth.


----------



## PointyFox (Nov 4, 2020)

colonelkernel8 said:


> To be pedantic, there are test probes out there that cost thousands of dollars, but they are also for measuring signals in the GIGAHERTZ range, or digital signals exceeding tens of gigabits per second and sometimes contain active (powered) elements to them. But this drives home the point that spending thousands of dollars on a cable to transmit analog signals in (at most) the kilohertz range and digital signals in the kilobits per second (up to the low megabits per second) range is beyond absurd.
> 
> For instance: https://www.tek.com/low-voltage-probe-single-ended
> 
> You'll note they don't market their products with nonsense like 8N PURE OCC SINGLE CRYSTAL CRYO-TREATED COPPER ARRANGED IN A MULTI GAUGE STRAND BUNDLE ACCORDING TO THE GOLDEN RATIO. They market it as having low capacitance, high impedance (voltage probes in this case), and a high bandwidth.



I ignored anything that would affect super high frequencies since this is out of scope for audio. It doesn't stop audio cable manufacturers from pretending that improvements to cable design that only affect very high frequencies (e.g. gigahertz) also affect the audio range like with reduction of the "skin effect". They'll take whatever they can get to make supposed  improvements seem scientifically legitimate to a layperson.


----------



## ScareDe2

bigshot said:


> Right now, we are talking about A/Bing USB cables. Do you have an opinion on that?
> 
> With headphones that have input plugs on both sides, you could put a different cable to each ear I suppose and ask if the ears sound different or the same. Randomize it up with a bunch of different trials and see if you get some sort of pattern. If the two ears heard slightly different, it would still show a pattern if it was different as long as it was randomized. A/A B/A A/B and B/B



A/B test is flawed. The brain has the tendency to create cognitive association, or fusioning two elements close in similarities. If you would A/B test headphones, the difference would also be difficult to hear. You will have a hard time telling the difference between warm and "neutral". Tube rollers have experienced this often. The very fact that the troll suggests even amps sound the same shows that all this is just entertainment for him and has nothing to do with a full interpretation of science, just a small portion, allowing him to confuse people for his own amusement. Like when he talks about cognitive biases : sure the brain can trick you into hearing difference where there is none, but it can also trick you into hearing none where there is an appreciable one.


----------



## bfreedma

If the described audible differences in cables can’t be measured and can’t be properly assessed in an A/B, how does the “audiophile cable engineer” test his designs?  Does he buy a variety of cable and parts, assemble them randomly, then hope for the best?

The envisioning of cable manufacturers engineering these cables using the “science” described in their marketing docs yet somehow,  science based principles not being applicable to testing via measurement and A/B testing is, IMO, hypocritical.


----------



## colonelkernel8

bfreedma said:


> If the described audible differences in cables can’t be measured and can’t be properly assessed in an A/B, how does the “audiophile cable engineer” test his designs?  Does he buy a variety of cable and parts, assemble them randomly, then hope for the best?
> 
> The envisioning of cable manufacturers engineering these cables using the “science” described in their marketing docs yet somehow,  science based principles not being applicable to testing via measurement and A/B testing is, IMO, hypocritical.


Don't forget, the more expensive and exotic the materials, the "better" it sounds. Except silver sounds "bright" because it's a white metal and copper sounds "warm" because it's a brown metal.


----------



## PhonoPhi

colonelkernel8 said:


> Don't forget, the more expensive and exotic the materials, the "better" it sounds. Except silver sounds "bright" because it's a white metal and copper sounds "warm" because it's a brown metal.


Right, and recent addition of graphene greatly strengthens an imaginary soundstage.

It often feels as if most of you guys here dearly miss positions of marketing directors in audiophile companies


----------



## colonelkernel8

PhonoPhi said:


> Right, and recent addition of graphene greatly strengthens an imaginary soundstage.
> 
> It often feels as if most of you guys here dearly miss positions of marketing directors in audiophile companies


1. Make s*** up.
2. Sell to rubes with too much money.
3. No ???, just literally profit.


----------



## Hifiearspeakers

ScareDe2 said:


> A/B test is flawed. The brain has the tendency to create cognitive association, or fusioning two elements close in similarities. If you would A/B test headphones, the difference would also be difficult to hear. You will have a hard time telling the difference between warm and "neutral". Tube rollers have experienced this often. The very fact that the troll suggests even amps sound the same shows that all this is just entertainment for him and has nothing to do with a full interpretation of science, just a small portion, allowing him to confuse people for his own amusement. Like when he talks about cognitive biases : sure the brain can trick you into hearing difference where there is none, but it can also trick you into hearing none where there is an appreciable one.



This entire post is just ridiculous.


----------



## KPzypher

ScareDe2 said:


> A/B test is flawed. The brain has the tendency to create cognitive association, or fusioning two elements close in similarities. If you would A/B test headphones, the difference would also be difficult to hear. You will have a hard time telling the difference between warm and "neutral". Tube rollers have experienced this often. The very fact that the troll suggests even amps sound the same shows that all this is just entertainment for him and has nothing to do with a full interpretation of science, just a small portion, allowing him to confuse people for his own amusement. Like when he talks about cognitive biases : sure the brain can trick you into hearing difference where there is none, but it can also trick you into hearing none where there is an appreciable one.



I wouldn't call it flawed.  It's simple.  If the difference is difficult to hear, then it's not a difference worth mentioning.  This is no different than arguing over difference in measurements imperceptible to hearing.  If you can't hear the difference, does anything else really matter?


----------



## Kentajalli (Nov 4, 2020)

KPzypher said:


> I wouldn't call it flawed.  It's simple.  If the difference is difficult to hear, then it's not a difference worth mentioning.  This is no different than arguing over difference in measurements imperceptible to hearing.  If you can't hear the difference, does anything else really matter?


Before I go further, I am a true believer that exotic cables are just bling!
There is a lot of presumptions and if's in your argument.
- No one has established that differences can not be heard, assuming it is a given, is foolish. as _human nature _goes, both sides of the argument claim vistory. Perhaps we should involve the Supreme court !
- again, assuming we can measure everything, what we can not measure does not exist and we understand the measurements fully is another bone of contention.
Measurements are just tools aiding designers, they are just certain _indicators, _ designed based on some scientific assumptions (mostly valid). but lab measurements do not _indicate everything. _ I am not knocking measurements as @bfreedma correctly points out, how else a designer test his designs. we choose what to measure and what not to, based on our assumptions, some valid, some imaginary, some damn right foolish - but never completely.
This whole argument shows how religiously polarized we all have become!

remember, belief does not prove God exists, science doesn't prove he doesn't!

For me I am happy with my exotic USB interconnect that I skilfully put together myself ! 
Made from top quality twin shielded cable (salvaged from my leftover junk pile), hand soldered under a quality magnifying glass.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/diy-cable-gallery.71148/post-15939991
Sounds as good as any £2 commercial cable, under blind test!
Means I had my eyes closed listening to pink floyd with them.


----------



## KPzypher

Kentajalli said:


> Before I go further, I am a true believer that exotic cables are just bling!
> There is a lot of presumptions and if's in your argument.
> - No one has established that differences can not be heard, assuming it is a given, is foolish. as _human nature _goes, both sides of the argument claim vistory. Perhaps we should involve the Supreme court !
> - again, assuming we can measure everything, what we can not measure does not exist and we understand the measurements fully is another bone of contention.
> ...



Presumptions??

What are you even talking about?

measurement is beside the point.

As the end user, if the difference is too subtle for my ears to detect, then it doesn't matter what the measurements indicate.  At that point, its just equally good or equally bad to whatever else you're comparing it to.


----------



## bigshot

Kentajalli said:


> If they did such a thing, the _Hifi purists _who are the bulk of their potential customers, would spit on the floor and leave the room in disgust.



What about the hifi purists who love tube amps?


----------



## bigshot

PointyFox said:


> This thread has been going on a LONG time. I think the answer is that cables CAN make a difference, but it depends on the setup and the intrinsic properties of the cable. This is not based on cable "quality". No cable will increase the fidelity of the sound or take it away unless it's horribly shielded and has noise leaking in or is broken. It may only change how it sounds, which depending on the listener may be better or worse.



The problem with saying it like that is that audiophools will read "the answer is that cables CAN make a difference" and not read any further. It's better to say...

If properly designed and manufactured to match the intended use, there is no reason for a cable of any price point to sound different from any other cable.


----------



## Kentajalli

bigshot said:


> What about the hifi purists who love tube amps?


Well I am one of them! 
(but what do you care? all amps sound the same, right?)
But I am a _casual purist _not a zealot.
As I have said before _My hypocrisy only goes so far!_


----------



## bigshot

My point is that a lot of audiophiles aren't purists. If they were, they would pursue fidelity, not coloration. I'm not a purist either. Stuff I can't hear means nothing to me. The people who are purists are the numbers chasers.


----------



## Kentajalli

bigshot said:


> My point is that a lot of audiophiles aren't purists. If they were, they would pursue fidelity, not coloration. I'm not a purist either. Stuff I can't hear means nothing to me. The people who are purists are the numbers chasers.


You have a weired take on Hifi purism!
Hifi Purists believe less is more.
If you can design an amp with less components in signal path it is better.
Less signal processing, less tone controls ..... you get the gist.
ofcourse if it sounds worse, or the components are needed, the purist is not an idiot - basically results matter, but through a minimalist approach.
That is my understanding of it.
But I beg of you, let's not drag this to kingdom come.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 6, 2020)

If "less is more" is Hifi purism, then there aren't many purists on Headfi. I look at pictures of people's portable rigs and they don't look simple at all. DAPs, DACs, amps, laptops, battery packs, storage cards... all separate with a tangle of expensive wires connecting them. They look like a hotel switchboard and they require a backpack to schlep it all around in. If that is the definition, then I'm a purist because I have an iPhone and headphones and that is it.


----------



## tgx78 (Nov 15, 2020)

Trying to do some blind tests tonight motivated by this thread.


----------



## subguy812 (Nov 15, 2020)

tgx78 said:


> Trying to do some blind test tonight.


I think you have a full night ahead of you!

I must tell you that photo made my OCD shoot up like watching that Hoarders Buried Alive show on TV


----------



## subguy812 (Nov 15, 2020)

edit: in above post


----------



## megabigeye

tgx78 said:


> Trying to do some blind tests tonight motivated by this thread.


How are you planning on doing _blind_ testing with IEM cables?  Seems like it would be very difficult?

And yeah.  That picture, my OCD.  I can feel my blood pressure going up just thinking about the tangles..


----------



## KeithPhantom

Before I thought IEMs were just a convenient solution to quality audio, but I still don't believe my FH7 are better than my Clears. I still don't...


----------



## colonelkernel8

tgx78 said:


> Trying to do some blind tests tonight motivated by this thread.


While admirable, I don't think it's worth the trouble...I'm not even sure it's possible to do this blindly since you'll need to remove the earphones and reinstall a cable each time. I'll rely on the objective measurements and the physics to tell me that cables, most of all headphone cables (or speaker cables), being past the point of amplification, cannot make an audible difference in the sound the headphones or earphones produce, full stop.


----------



## megabigeye (Nov 16, 2020)

colonelkernel8 said:


> While admirable, I don't think it's worth the trouble...I'm not even sure it's possible to do this blindly since you'll need to remove the earphones and reinstall a cable each time. I'll rely on the objective measurements and the physics to tell me that cables, most of all headphone cables (or speaker cables), being past the point of amplification, cannot make an audible difference in the sound the headphones or earphones produce, full stop.


I think it's worth doing.
Not for you or the other people that don't believe there's a difference, but for himself and anybody that doesn't believe measurements are a reliable indication of their hearing. I just hope that he doesn't try to skew the results and is relatively careful in his testing.

I'm still genuinely curious how he's planning to do a blind test. I have an idea how it could be done, but you'd need cables, connectors, and switches that are already proven to be transparent.

EDIT: I also think it's worth doing simply for the sake of science. Not to prove anything, but to hopefully discover something.


----------



## colonelkernel8

megabigeye said:


> I think it's worth doing.
> Not for you or the other people that don't believe there's a difference, but for himself and anybody that doesn't believe measurements are a reliable indication of their hearing. I just hope that he doesn't try to skew the results and is relatively careful in his testing.
> 
> I'm still genuinely curious how he's planning to do a blind test. I have an idea how it could be done, but you'd need cables, connectors, and switches that are already proven to be transparent.
> ...


What phenomena do you think we cannot measure? We can measure bass, we can measure treble, and we can measure dynamics and impulse response, all to a further degree than the human ear by many, many orders of magnitude. Audio signals are *fully* understood from a physics standpoint. There is no magic yet to be discovered.


----------



## megabigeye

colonelkernel8 said:


> What phenomena do you think we cannot measure? We can measure bass, we can measure treble, and we can measure dynamics and impulse response, all to a further degree than the human ear by many, many orders of magnitude. Audio signals are *fully* understood from a physics standpoint. There is no magic yet to be discovered.


Yes, I understand this.  My point is that not everybody understands or believes this, so it's good to allow them to discover it for themselves and not discourage them from doing so.


----------



## colonelkernel8

megabigeye said:


> Yes, I understand this.  My point is that not everybody understands or believes this, so it's good to allow them to discover it for themselves and not discourage them from doing so.


My only issue is that they won't give the test a fair shake (in this case I doubt it's possible) and it will only further reinforce a bias towards cables making a difference because of the money they spent.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 17, 2020)

megabigeye said:


> Yes, I understand this.  My point is that not everybody understands or believes this, so it's good to allow them to discover it for themselves and not discourage them from doing so.



It's easier to just explain how cables work. If they don't believe it, they can enjoy marinading in their ignorance!

But I think audiophools know they are wrong. They just try to discredit any test or scientific theory that might prove they're wrong. It has nothing to do with whether cables sound different or not. It's only about their own ego.


----------



## etlouis

colonelkernel8 said:


> What phenomena do you think we cannot measure? We can measure bass, we can measure treble, and we can measure dynamics and impulse response, all to a further degree than the human ear by many, many orders of magnitude. Audio signals are *fully* understood from a physics standpoint. There is no magic yet to be discovered.



I am quite convinced of 2 factors that affect audio quality, and I am 100% sure I hear them:

1. Material of the cable
2. Gauge of the cable

Material. Any mix of silver and copper does well. Full silver is leaner sounding, full copper is thicker and has more bass.

Gauge. Thinner = slightly less details.

IMO any iem cable that is thick enough and made of decent metal is good enough to get the job done. The rest is brand loyalty and fashion points.

I don't think anyone also did "reverse testing", to take the worst, cheapest cables out there and do A-B tests using sensitive equipment.

Maybe the real differences exist in the extremes.



Cables contribute less to the listening experience with portable setups (DAP+IEM) than... other things like:

1. Noise from the outside world
2. The artist and his recording environment
3. The type of music you're listening to
4. Your mood


----------



## bigshot (Nov 17, 2020)

etlouis said:


> I am quite convinced of 2 factors that affect audio quality, and I am 100% sure I hear them



The way to be 100% sure is to do a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind listening test.



etlouis said:


> I don't think anyone also did "reverse testing", to take the worst, cheapest cables out there and do A-B tests using sensitive equipment.



See the "coathanger test" in the audiophile myths thread pinned at the top of this forum.


----------



## old tech

etlouis said:


> I don't think anyone also did "reverse testing", to take the worst, cheapest cables out there and do A-B tests using sensitive equipment.



Do you think the $1 million Randi institute prize hasn't been enough incentive for someone to prove it over the past 30 years or so?


----------



## colonelkernel8 (Nov 17, 2020)

etlouis said:


> I am quite convinced of 2 factors that affect audio quality, and I am 100% sure I hear them:
> 
> 1. Material of the cable
> 2. Gauge of the cable
> ...



Being convinced and being correct are two different things. This isn't politics, we can arrive at real, physical truths.

1. No.
2. No.

Material: No. Physically impossible. Either material carries the same signal the same way, and in a headphone cable, the driver is likely going to be way higher impedance than the cable, and it will not affect the transmission whatsoever. The material of the cable cannot cause high or low pass filtering in the audible range.

Gauge: So long as the gauge has a low enough impedance, (which for headphones means a pretty thin cable), it will be audibly transparent. The only time you need big, thick cables is for long runs of cable, huge PA speaker systems, or both. The "thinness" of a cable will not act as a low pass filter in a headphone, unless we're talking REALLY small wire.

Cables contribute nothing to any system.

1. YES
2. YES
3. YES
4. YES


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> It's easier to just explain how cables work. If they don't believe it, they can enjoy marinading in their ignorance!
> 
> But I think audiophools know they are wrong. They just try to discredit any test or scientific theory that might prove they're wrong. It has nothing to do with whether cables sound different or not. It's only about their own ego.


On the contrary I think it's rare for people to know they're wrong about their cables and what impact they have on audible sound. For starters, most people just happen to have felt like there were some sort of changes in the sound. Maybe that was initiated by some BS marketing, a price tag or some good looking plugs. Maybe the origin of the bias was an audiophile posting nonsense about the soundstage of silver, or the need to avoid peasant copper electrons? But the strongest aspect for the final belief to take root, is to think we've experienced the effect ourselves. And many do! Once I think something happened to me in person, why would I dismiss that event in favor of some dude on the web posting about about electrical conductors and audio standards? 
From there, the damage is done and the audiophile usually "knows" what he heard. At least he'll believe he does, because of course there is nothing in a casual sighted impression to prove or disprove if the perceived sound difference was at all about sound. That's what IMO makes most audiophiles look so foolish. Clinging onto uncontrolled subjective experiences and demanding to be taken seriously when using that as evidence for objective facts. It's so aberrant that I do get why you'd suspect people to know better and pretend to try and save face. But I just don't think that's the case.
Ignorance, overconfidence, and the many cognitive biases potentially involved here, I think that's more than enough to explain most of what is usually going on.




etlouis said:


> Material. Any mix of silver and copper does well. Full silver is leaner sounding, full copper is thicker and has more bass.
> 
> Gauge. Thinner = slightly less details.


I don't wish to be as extremist as others about the rest of what you posted, but that specific quote is wrong. There isn't even an optimistic way to look at electrical circuits to support that quote. We'd have to reinvent electricity to make this work, it's pure fiction.

I see 2 options here: 
1/ You did experience something like that, where the actual cause may or may not have anything to do with the metal or the gauge. It was a one time accident and your mistake is generalizing over some weirdo anecdotes.
 2/ If you consistently noticed those effects while using various audio equipment and cables. Then you've been fooling yourself all this time, because such consequences would not consistently come out of changing the gauge or the metal in the cable. in practice the impact would rarely reach audible levels with reasonable audio cables. but they also would do something entirely different on occasion. so audibility isn't even a necessary consideration, we can and must reject your idea just because it's objectively false.


ps: I'm aware of the irony, trying to convince you when I just described to bigshot why you probably wouldn't put much trust in my reply.


----------



## etlouis (Nov 18, 2020)

castleofargh said:


> On the contrary I think it's rare for people to know they're wrong about their cables and what impact they have on audible sound. For starters, most people just happen to have felt like there were some sort of changes in the sound. Maybe that was initiated by some BS marketing, a price tag or some good looking plugs. Maybe the origin of the bias was an audiophile posting nonsense about the soundstage of silver, or the need to avoid peasant copper electrons? But the strongest aspect for the final belief to take root, is to think we've experienced the effect ourselves. And many do! Once I think something happened to me in person, why would I dismiss that event in favor of some dude on the web posting about about electrical conductors and audio standards?
> From there, the damage is done and the audiophile usually "knows" what he heard. At least he'll believe he does, because of course there is nothing in a casual sighted impression to prove or disprove if the perceived sound difference was at all about sound. That's what IMO makes most audiophiles look so foolish. Clinging onto uncontrolled subjective experiences and demanding to be taken seriously when using that as evidence for objective facts. It's so aberrant that I do get why you'd suspect people to know better and pretend to try and save face. But I just don't think that's the case.
> Ignorance, overconfidence, and the many cognitive biases potentially involved here, I think that's more than enough to explain most of what is usually going on.
> 
> ...




I do trust you, as much as I trust cable difference. At least with iem/dap systems. Full-sized stereo maybe in a different game where the currents and prices involved aren’t the same.

I'm just trying to put the idea out there that the results are not as conclusive as people think.

Wires do play a role despite being the smallest of roles.

You still need a well constructed piece of wire (decent gauge, decent material), and that beneath a certain price point are these bad cables that probably degrade your audio quality.

To completely disregard the possibility is just as dogmatic as people who blindly believe in premium cables.


----------



## Kentajalli

*POST 2088*
Going back to the subject matter "How do I convince ..." it should be obvious that *You can not convince people!*
2087 previous posts and back-forth's means the subject matter is almost a religious one.
- There are believers , who will swear that cables matter, silver sounds better than coat-hangers and they can hear a feel the improvements.
- And there are non-believers who quote all kinds of science and blind-test experiments to *prove *cables don't matter.
No group can convince the other.
After all similarly in religion, Faith and feelings are meaningless to non religious people, and equaly one can not prove _god does not exist _by logical scientific means to those who believe non-scientific things.
*Just give up!*


----------



## SoundAndMotion

etlouis said:


> You still need a well constructed piece of wire (decent gauge, decent material), and that beneath a certain price point are these bad cables that probably degrade your audio quality.
> 
> To completely disregard the possibility is just as dogmatic as people who blindly believe in premium cables.


Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't consider myself dogmatic. I'm an open-minded skeptic.

But if I claim four $5 bills is _*identical*_ to one $20 bill for the intended purpose (e.g. buying the family lunch at McD's), I may stick with that idea "dogmatically" until shown otherwise.

Perhaps you know a secret. Maybe you know Tim always has too many $20's and prefers the smaller bills for change. He therefore sneaks you a Happy Meal toy if you pay with $5's.

So the gauge and material conductivity combine to give you a resistance/conductance (add geometry and we can talk impedance) of the cable, and I'll agree that that must be sufficient for the purpose. But I guess I'll remain "dogmatic" that two 0.1 Ohm cables of similar geometry will sound the same, whether silver or copper, unless you can tell me the secret.


----------



## Zambu (Nov 18, 2020)

I don't know anything about cables (other than sound goes in and sound comes out), I'm just trying to think about the issue from my personal perspective. So for example, here's my usual portable setup (well I've changed the tips since the picture but whatever). Do note that this is not the stock cable of the IEM, I just didn't like the usability of the adapters that the stock 2.5mm required so I changed it to a generic copper KBear 4.4mm cable (25 dollars). My understanding is that their cables are well-received in the budget cable threads.

Now, I circled couple of examples to look at. So you know, just thinking by logic, if the sound can be affected by a variety of ways in cables, then those are probably pretty bad cables? Like if you loot at that circle on the right, how could it actually be any better than a coat hanger that's built (twisted?) for this purpose? If I would "close those gaps", would the sound become better? If I would stretch it, would the sound become worse?

But it's fairly soft and sturdy so I use it for now. I also have an 80 dollar cable (with good reviews that cite "audible differences")  that I actually kind of dislike as it's so stiff that it makes the experience miserable so it's just gathering dust for now. Maybe at some point I will try to see if I can hear differences between my cables, but at this point I know that I will pick my next cable based on "look and feel" and anything beyond that is extra.

But I'm open-minded about the issue and have no desire whatsoever to pick any "side" in a discussion, this is only about my personal enjoyment of music pretty much. It would be nice if there were relevant differences, since I'll be touching and feeling and looking at those cables for like the next 40-50 years unless I eventually go wireless (or deaf).


----------



## manueljenkin

bigshot said:


> It's easier to just explain how cables work. If they don't believe it, they can enjoy marinading in their ignorance!
> 
> But I think audiophools know they are wrong. They just try to discredit any test or scientific theory that might prove they're wrong. It has nothing to do with whether cables sound different or not. It's only about their own ego.



It is interesting to see bigshot accuse someone else of having ego. 😆


----------



## bigshot

I apologize for hurting your feelings in the past, even if I don't remember who you are.


----------



## Bernard23

It's fairly easy to measure any changes in the signal / data (analogue or digital) and correlate to any change in an audio waveform. No change, means there is is no change. If there is a measurable change, then it's a discussion about whether the human ear / brain can detect it. From my own professional experience, humans are pretty poor at quantifying things using their senses only, so in truth, subjective reviews of audio gear from a scientific perspective are largely meaningless.

There are only differences in cables if you believe they exist, that's how unreliable our subjective assessment is, so it's futile trying to change an opinion either way.


----------



## Kentajalli

Bernard23 said:


> It's fairly easy to measure any changes in the signal / data (analogue or digital) and correlate to any change in an audio waveform. . . . . .


Not that I believe in exotic cables, but that general statement is WRONG!
for the past 50 years, scientists have been sharpening their test equipments and methods, but to claim it is fairly easy, and that we have reached the summit point where we can measure absolutely everything accurately is nothing but an arrogant day dream.
But yesm cables are just cables - silver or a coat hanger do the same job.


----------



## Bernard23

Kentajalli said:


> Not that I believe in exotic cables, but that general statement is WRONG!
> for the past 50 years, scientists have been sharpening their test equipments and methods, but to claim it is fairly easy, and that we have reached the summit point where we can measure absolutely everything accurately is nothing but an arrogant day dream.
> But yesm cables are just cables - silver or a coat hanger do the same job.


Where did I say absolutely accurately? I'm well aware of the principle of measurement uncertainty. Are you suggesting that the uncertainty in taking standard electromagnetic measurements (i.e. traceable to the SI reference) from a set of different cables is higher than that in the subjective assessment of their audible differences? I'm familiar with the former, not the latter, but I'd find that hard the believe!


----------



## manueljenkin (Nov 25, 2020)

Some YouTube videos show differences with power cables. Even the spectrogram and audio waveforms look different.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

I was very skeptical that cables make much of a difference in sound quality.   After hundreds of hours of doing A/B testing across all combinations of amps/dacs/streamers/headphones/IEMs/ear tips/cables/music source, etc, I have a decent feel for what improves sound and by how much across all of the 4 headphones, 6 amplifiers and 5 IEMs I own.   I came in with an open mind and I only trust my own ears.   I was a Jazz musician, so I have a pretty good ear. 

After that exercise, I can say with some conviction that cable quality absolutely matters and makes a difference in sound quality.  Much more than I expected.    The biggest improvement was with my current Vision Ear VE8 IEMs.   When I did a listening test across all of my demo tracks, I heard sibilance on certain tracks.  Then, I read some reviews where other reviewers detected the same thing.  For a person who is sensitive to treble, this is a potential showstopper for an audio product.    I replaced the stock cable and silver plated cable that the prior owner included with a high end sliver plated copper wire and wow did that make a difference.   There was a noticeable reduction in harshness of the highs and the sibilance is gone.    The Sound stage increased as did the clarity and tightness of the bass.

So, to answer the question of the OP, there is nothing you can say or do to change what I have experienced with my own ears.   Cable quality makes a difference to sound quality.  Your opinion and your data does not trump my personal experience.


----------



## Kentajalli (Nov 25, 2020)

Bernard23 said:


> Where did I say absolutely accurately? I'm well aware of the principle of measurement uncertainty. Are you suggesting that the uncertainty in taking standard electromagnetic measurements (i.e. traceable to the SI reference) from a set of different cables is higher than that in the subjective assessment of their audible differences? I'm familiar with the former, not the latter, but I'd find that hard the believe!


as I said, to me cables are cables.
there is no such thing as superior cable, but I do believe in bad and faulty cables.
just my opinion.


----------



## KeithPhantom

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> I was very skeptical that cables make much of a difference in sound quality.   After hundreds of hours of doing A/B testing across all combinations of amps/dacs/streamers/headphones/IEMs/ear tips/cables/music source, etc, I have a decent feel for what improves sound and by how much across all of the 4 headphones, 6 amplifiers and 5 IEMs I own.   I came in with an open mind and I only trust my own ears.   I was a Jazz musician, so I have a pretty good ear.
> 
> After that exercise, I can say with some conviction that cable quality absolutely matters and makes a difference in sound quality.  Much more than I expected.    The biggest improvement was with my current Vision Ear VE8 IEMs.   When I did a listening test across all of my demo tracks, I heard sibilance on certain tracks.  Then, I read some reviews where other reviewers detected the same thing.  For a person who is sensitive to treble, this is a potential showstopper for an audio product.    I replaced the stock cable and silver plated cable that the prior owner included with a high end sliver plated copper wire and wow did that make a difference.   There was a noticeable reduction in harshness of the highs and the sibilance is gone.    The Sound stage increased as did the clarity and tightness of the bass.
> 
> So, to answer the question of the OP, there is nothing you can say or do to change what I have experienced with my own ears.   Cable quality makes a difference to sound quality.  Your opinion and your data does not trump my personal experience.


Was it double blind? Controlled by a non-interested third party? Would you mind to share your methodology for replication and analysis?


----------



## Bernard23

I'm inclined to agree, but for the reasons I posted. I suspect, but could be wrong as I've not seen any research to prove it either way, that the measurable differences in standard lab conditions are far lower than those which we could correlate to measurable subjective differences, which also probably have a much higher level of uncertainty associated with the data. I'm aware of some research programmes that my institute has conducted around subjective assessments of material characteristics (so not at all audio related unfortunately) where the level of uncertainty rendered the results of limited use.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2020)

Kentajalli said:


> for the past 50 years, scientists have been sharpening their test equipments and methods, but to claim it is fairly easy, and that we have reached the summit point where we can measure absolutely everything accurately is nothing but an arrogant day dream.



No one is saying that. What we are saying is that we can measure everything HUMAN EARS CAN HEAR. Our testing equipment is more sensitive and accurate than our ears.

It's possible to measure differences between cables, but those differences are probably far below the threshold of hearing.


----------



## Kentajalli

bigshot said:


> No one is saying that. What we are saying is that we can measure everything HUMAN EARS CAN HEAR. g.


How do you spell a raspberry being blown?
Blurrrrrrrrr....


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

KeithPhantom said:


> Was it double blind? Controlled by a non-interested third party? Would you mind to share your methodology for replication and analysis?


No, it was a double deaf.    In one case, my ears were searing and hurt.   In the other, they didn’t.


----------



## manueljenkin (Nov 25, 2020)

bigshot said:


> No one is saying that. What we are saying is that we can measure everything HUMAN EARS CAN HEAR. Our testing equipment is more sensitive and accurate than our ears.
> 
> It's possible to measure differences between cables, but those differences are probably far below the threshold of hearing.



Go tell that to the thousands of people still trying to solve human cognition limits and bounds using sophisticated equipment. The limits/bounds of hearing perception is still not well defined scientifically yet. You love to speak your personal opinions, and disguise them as if they were facts.

Now if you cannot even determine conclusively what one can hear and what one cannot hear, how can you conclusively attribute parameters of some random measured phenomena, assign weights, and conclude sound quality?


----------



## Bernard23

Kentajalli said:


> How do you spell a raspberry being blown?
> Blurrrrrrrrr....


Why do you say that? I'm genuinely intrigued as to what measurands we could investigate to characterise human hearing better then we have done so far?


----------



## Bernard23

manueljenkin said:


> . The limits/bounds of hearing perception is still not well defined scientifically yet. You love to speak your personal opinions, and disguise them as if they were facts.


You're not proposing a sound alternative though! I ask the same question, what else can we do, other than sit large groups of people in rooms and ask them to listen to things, analyse the data and draw conclusions from that data. What other measurands could we investigate to define "what" and "how much" we hear, that we haven't tried or defined already?


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

Bernard23 said:


> Why do you say that? I'm genuinely intrigued as to what measurands we could investigate to characterise human hearing better then we have done so far?


You would not  do straight measurements.    You would use sound signatures and artificial intelligence matching programs to predict which sound would be preferred by a user based on their stored database of preferences as they relate to other peoples similar preferences.   Patterns of preferences will predict quality.


----------



## Bernard23

By the way, I haven't looked for the thread about "what is PRAT" and why humans like harmony, which has often simple mathematical patterns....


----------



## Bernard23 (Nov 25, 2020)

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> You would not  do straight measurements.    You would use sound signatures and artificial intelligence matching programs to predict which sound would be preferred by a user based on their stored database of preferences as they relate to other peoples similar preferences.   Patterns of preferences will predict quality.


what is a sound signature? and surely we are still in a room full of blindfolded people to define preference?


----------



## manueljenkin

Bernard23 said:


> You're not proposing a sound alternative though! I ask the same question, what else can we do, other than sit large groups of people in rooms and ask them to listen to things, analyse the data and draw conclusions from that data. What other measurands could we investigate to define "what" and "how much" we hear, that we haven't tried or defined already?



Well it's not really necessary to do that to show up a hole in your arguments. You're trying to be conclusively dismissive of the possibilities, which is wrong since the limits/weights is not well defined yet. So about "measuring" these changes with cables, I'm not sure, we'll first have to solve cognition first again, get our correlation matrices wrt thresholds and weights right then we can be fairly conclusive of things. For now the only option is to be open to things. No need to accept what some one else says, just be open to the possibilities.


----------



## manueljenkin

Kentajalli said:


> *POST 2088*
> Going back to the subject matter "How do I convince ..." it should be obvious that *You can not convince people!*
> 2087 previous posts and back-forth's means the subject matter is almost a religious one.
> - There are believers , who will swear that cables matter, silver sounds better than coat-hangers and they can hear a feel the improvements.
> ...



There's nothing proven. Go check out YouTube videos of recordings of power cables, etc and just compare the waveforms. That's enough to see a very noticeable delta. Besides, you cannot really "prove" the non-existence or impossibility of something, for most scenarios. Human cognition and perception limits are extremely non linear, situation dependant (with lots of masking and priorities etc, so you just cannot take learning from tests done using sine sweep to overall hearing) and are still a puzzle to researchers. It's an active area of research, and it's funny to see you guys try to be conclusive about your analysis on this topic.


----------



## Bernard23 (Nov 25, 2020)

manueljenkin said:


> Well it's not really necessary to do that to show up a hole in your arguments. You're trying to be conclusively dismissive of the possibilities, which is wrong since the limits/weights is not well defined yet. So about "measuring" these changes with cables, I'm not sure, we'll first have to solve cognition first again, get our correlation matrices wrt thresholds and weights right then we can be fairly conclusive of things. For now the only option is to be open to things. No need to accept what some one else says, just be open to the possibilities.


I think you missed my point, sorry. I'm not being dismissive, quite the opposite. Challenging yes! I haven't actually made any hypothesis (to shoot holes in) I'm merely asking what else can you do, that hasn't been done already? I don't accept opinion either, it needs to be supported by repeatable evidence that's all. The correlations, the theories all need to be consistently repeatable within acceptable margins of uncertainty otherwise it's not accepted as "fact". That's not my definition by the way.


----------



## manueljenkin (Nov 25, 2020)

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> You would not  do straight measurements.    You would use sound signatures and artificial intelligence matching programs to predict which sound would be preferred by a user based on their stored database of preferences as they relate to other peoples similar preferences.   Patterns of preferences will predict quality.


Just blindfold the cable and make it a triple blind test (now the cable doesn't know who's listening to it). Best scientific test ever.


----------



## Kentajalli

Bernard23 said:


> Why do you say that? I'm genuinely intrigued as to what measurands we could investigate to characterise human hearing better then we have done so far?


That's the million dollar question!
We as yet don't know enough to say we can measure everything, we don't know what everything is - in the first place.
Again - I believe fancy cables are just bling - @HiFiHawaii808 doesn't.
But what does it matter? if he can believe and possibly can hear differences, it is his money - his decision.
It is absolute madness for some wanna-be- scientists to claim " I can and have measured everything there is to measure, and I can tell for sure - you are full of ...".
I can not measure nor hear any differences, so I won't buy.
Good luck to others who do.


----------



## manueljenkin (Nov 25, 2020)

Bernard23 said:


> I think you missed my point, sorry. I'm not being dismissive, quite the opposite. Challenging yes! I haven't actually made any hypothesis (to shoot holes in) I'm merely asking what else can you do, that hasn't been done already?



If I have an answer for that I'll also have been working on those research labs now, instead of chatting in this forum. But I do have fair idea about the limits where our present understanding of audio perception somewhat ends (have worked along similar lines on a project). If that was solved you'd have 100% perfect auto generated subtitles in youtube videos regardless of noise levels and audio chaos in the video. (By that, I mean, it being able to auto caption reliably, every single scenario a human ear can discern and make information out of).


----------



## Bernard23

Kentajalli said:


> That's the million dollar question!
> We as yet don't know enough to say we can measure everything, we don't know what everything is - in the first place.
> Again - I believe fancy cables are just bling - @HiFiHawaii808 doesn't.
> But what does it matter? if he can believe and possibly can hear differences, it is his money - his decision.
> ...


I have a semi professional interest in this topic, since I work in a metrology institute. We spend a lot of time responding to industrial and societal demands to develop capability to measure things we haven't done before, or things we have but to greater accuracy and consistency. I can come up with many physical attributes of an electrical conductor that we can measure to a low level of uncertainty (ie directly traceable to the SI units), and genuinely can't think of any attributes that we could explore, unless we get into quantum gravity effects! 
I see it this way, rightly or wrongly; if we can hear a difference, and we can't measure it scientifically, then either we don't have sufficiently accurate instruments, or the subjective response is some kind of placebo or bias. What I do know from my own ears, is that they are often swayed by some form of bias, and so as singular instruments are probably hopelessly unreliable as a scientific instrument, hence any subjective trials are done with large groups.
This is an interesting debate, and we haven't got into the question of existentialism yet!


----------



## Kentajalli

Bernard23 said:


> I have a semi professional interest in this topic, since I work in a metrology institute. We spend a lot of time responding to industrial and societal demands to develop capability to measure things we haven't done before, or things we have but to greater accuracy and consistency. I can come up with many physical attributes of an electrical conductor that we can measure to a low level of uncertainty (ie directly traceable to the SI units), and genuinely can't think of any attributes that we could explore, unless we get into quantum gravity effects!
> I see it this way, rightly or wrongly; if we can hear a difference, and we can't measure it scientifically, then either we don't have sufficiently accurate instruments, or the subjective response is some kind of placebo or bias. What I do know from my own ears, is that they are often swayed by some form of bias, and so as singular instruments are probably hopelessly unreliable as a scientific instrument, hence any subjective trials are done with large groups.
> This is an interesting debate, and we haven't got into the question of existentialism yet!


Correct me if I am wrong, when you measure anything, I bet you have certain criteria for your test, otherwise an open ended test takes forever and costs whatever.
The limit of the measurement is going to be the intended purpose of the device to be tested.
Say, for example, in this case, some interconnect cables - you would probably measure the tearing limit of the cable, impedances, capacitive and inductive qualities etc.
Evert cable is going to give different results, but assumptions are made as to what is relevant, what is not! say a capacitance of 20pF or less is regarded as inconsequential, right?
So problem is in few folds, are there tests we are omitting? are our assumptions for what is relevant correct? are there tests we haven't even imagined yet?
My assertion is an academic one! Do not assume we know everything yet.
Personal bias maybe at play here, misconception, snake-oil ..... but then again, perhaps one day we could scratch beneath the surface of this belief "that cables matter" .
Till then, everyone to their own. No science can prove otherwise.


----------



## manueljenkin

Kentajalli said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, when you measure anything, I bet you have certain criteria for your test, otherwise an open ended test takes forever and costs whatever.
> The limit of the measurement is going to be the intended purpose of the device to be tested.
> Say, for example, in this case, some interconnect cables - you would probably measure the tearing limit of the cable, impedances, capacitive and inductive qualities etc.
> Evert cable is going to give different results, but assumptions are made as to what is relevant, what is not! say a capacitance of 20pF or less is regarded as inconsequential, right?
> ...


Even cable risers theoretically make a difference in measurable parameters (capacitance to ground, and the related antenna effects since they actually refuse to obey lumped models that well, atleast for hv electric lines). The problem is how to really see its influence on sound output, which to some extent is already seen in recordings of playback systems, and it's perceivable sq changes (which cannot be concluded without solving cognition). As you said, the overall analysis we can do as of now, is very open ended.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2020)

manueljenkin said:


> The limits/bounds of hearing perception is still not well defined scientifically yet.



Most of the major thresholds of hearing have been established for almost a century. It's very easy to test a perceptual threshold. You just use a double blind test. Here in sound science, we consider that proof.

If you want to find out if two cables sound different, a simple double blind test will tell you that in a jiffy. There are plenty of examples in the first post in the audio myths thread pinned to the top of this forum.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 25, 2020)

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> You would not  do straight measurements.    You would use sound signatures and artificial intelligence matching programs to predict which sound would be preferred by a user based on their stored database of preferences as they relate to other peoples similar preferences.   Patterns of preferences will predict quality.



That isn't a threshold of perception. That is testing for preference. We aren't talking about tastes and preferences. We're talking about whether human ears can hear a particular type of sound or not. Ears can be degraded, but there is a limit to what undegraded ears can hear, and it is very consistent on most measures of audio fidelity.

By the way, the argument, "We don't know everything so we can't know anything." is a logical fallacy. And if the body of scientific testing shows that humans can't perceive ultrasonic frequencies or very very low level sounds, it's the responsibility of the person claiming those things might be perceptible. Show me a controlled test where someone was able to hear distortion at -80dB under music, or frequencies above 25kHz. THEN we will have something to talk about.


----------



## bigshot

manueljenkin said:


> If I have an answer for that I'll also have been working on those research labs now, instead of chatting in this forum. But I do have fair idea about the limits where our present understanding of audio perception somewhat ends (have worked along similar lines on a project). If that was solved you'd have 100% perfect auto generated subtitles in youtube videos regardless of noise levels and audio chaos in the video.



Audio fidelity doesn't depend on interpretation. You compare one signal to another and it is either the same to human ears or it isn't. Perception is separate from fidelity.


----------



## sander99

manueljenkin said:


> But I do have fair idea about the limits where our present understanding of audio perception somewhat ends (have worked along similar lines on a project). If that was solved you'd have 100% perfect auto generated subtitles in youtube videos regardless of noise levels and audio chaos in the video. (By that, I mean, it being able to auto caption reliably, every single scenario a human ear can discern and make information out of).


You are talking about interpretation and recognition of sound and speech. That is a completely different matter than reproduction of sound and speech. As you are kind of hinting at yourself, noise and chaos don't necessarily prevent the human brain from doing a good job in those areas, in other words: audio fidelity doesn't play a key role in this! What you say is like saying perfect 8k video (overkill in most situations) is not good enough because the tv can not read the lips and body language of the people in the picture, and (taking it another step further) can not understand what they are philosophizing about!
The complex processing of the human brain is exacly about creating something understandable from a big chaotic mess of sensory input that by itself is much less precise than we would think based on the 'precise experiences' resulting from that brain processing.


----------



## Bernard23

bigshot said:


> Most of the major thresholds of hearing have been established for almost a century. It's very easy to test a perceptual threshold. You just use a double blind test. Here in sound science, we consider that proof.
> 
> If you want to find out if two cables sound different, a simple double blind test will tell you that in a jiffy. There are plenty of examples in the first post in the audio myths thread pinned to the top of this forum.


And if you can demonstrate that there are no known physical differences between them that's pretty conclusive. We're pretty good at understanding electromagnetics, so again, unlikely there is some physical characteristic of a cable that we haven't already considered and defined. 

It's easy to prove beyond doubt that cables cannot be sonically different, it's a lot harder to prove the opposite.


----------



## colonelkernel8

manueljenkin said:


> Some YouTube videos show differences with power cables. Even the spectrogram and audio waveforms look different.


No. No they don't. If they are they're lying to you.


----------



## colonelkernel8

manueljenkin said:


> Go tell that to the thousands of people still trying to solve human cognition limits and bounds using sophisticated equipment. The limits/bounds of hearing perception is still not well defined scientifically yet. You love to speak your personal opinions, and disguise them as if they were facts.
> 
> Now if you cannot even determine conclusively what one can hear and what one cannot hear, how can you conclusively attribute parameters of some random measured phenomena, assign weights, and conclude sound quality?


Human cognition has nothing to do with the very mechanical, and very well understood apparatus that is our ears.


----------



## colonelkernel8

manueljenkin said:


> Well it's not really necessary to do that to show up a hole in your arguments. You're trying to be conclusively dismissive of the possibilities, which is wrong since the limits/weights is not well defined yet. So about "measuring" these changes with cables, I'm not sure, we'll first have to solve cognition first again, get our correlation matrices wrt thresholds and weights right then we can be fairly conclusive of things. For now the only option is to be open to things. No need to accept what some one else says, just be open to the possibilities.


Imagine making and selling a product based solely on the possibility it "sounds" better than a competing product and offer no tangible reason as to why.

Tell me, has anyone ever given a negative review of a cable on this website? A negative review of a DAC (from the sound perspective, not from the usability/functionality perspective)?


----------



## bigshot

I keep asking people to share a DAC with me that is clearly inferior sounding, and no one yet has offered one. It's the same with cables. As soon as we start talking about doing controlled listening tests to verify their impressions, they ghost us.


----------



## Bernard23

bigshot said:


> I keep asking people to share a DAC with me that is clearly inferior sounding, and no one yet has offered one. It's the same with cables. As soon as we start talking about doing controlled listening tests to verify their impressions, they ghost us.


As far as I know, no "expert" gear reviewer has ever run a remotely scientific evaluation of any gear, certainly not in the world of magazine journalism. Once I started reading that USB cables made a noticeable sonic difference, then I stopped reading, but then I believe hi res audio isn't necessary, and nothing more than a piece of clever marketing.


----------



## XPHXPH

you need a good measurement or enough sample of blind AB test.

if that is not working, then let it go.


----------



## castleofargh (Nov 27, 2020)

A lot of troublesome stuff written in the last pages. I'll never see the end if I reply to each quote, so I'll just go for the main ideas.

1/ can we measure differences in cables?
Of course. It's not 1432 anymore. Let's not drag all of science and engineering down to the level of the most ignorant persons on a subject.
But most people want to know if swapping a cable can be audibly different. That obviously requires a listening experiment, not measurements.

2/ nothing about hearing differences can or should be stated before we properly establish audibility(or fail to). And that's the problem most audiophiles have. They strictly refuse or are too lazy to do a listening test. We ask for blind test, they turn a death ear and "listen" with their eyes.
Having an open mind isn't limited to considering that we don't know everything about measurements or the science behind electrical conductors. Being open minded means considering all possible options. That includes looking in a mirror once in a while and acknowledging our many human flaws and limitations.
We can't help being biased, but we can acknowledge it and come up with testing methods that won't be as biased as we are.


We know that one sensory input will affect how we perceive another one. Seeing the cable and seeing the swap, will influence how we hear the music.
We know that when being fooled into imagining certain changes in sound, the brain can activate the same areas of the auditory cortex it would if we actually heard the audio change. So under such conditions, the listener will feel like he's hearing the change. For the brain, as far as we know, it's pretty much happening. The audio cue on the other hand, doesn't even have to exist.

Aaaa-ni-maniii-acs, those are the facts!

makes a pretty good case for blind testing IMO. not that blind testing needed support when it comes to subjective impressions. as it's been a standard method used in all relevant research sectors for decades. only amateur audiophiles work real hard into rationalizing why being a lazy overconfident ignoramus is the cleverest most accurate source of information.




In conclusion:
Yes in some special circumstances(some IEMs) or with one really weirdo cable, you might end up with truly audible differences between 2 cables. But most cabling in audio follows some standard, so it's much more likely that you'll get similar cables for a given purpose leading to no experience of change as far as sound is concerned. But getting biased by the look, the price and some marketing crap is still on the table for all users.

Yes it's irritating to read absolutist statements like "all cables are the same and sound the same". Obviously there are many different types of cables with different electrical characteristics. in some cases plugged into some gears, the differences could have impacts of audible magnitude. again the possibility is there. Lower your expectations in term of impact(or make them up in your head), because at the end of the day, audio cables are short conductors carrying pretty slow signals. It's not challenging to do it well for cheap.

Yes it's irritating to read claims about the sound of cables that are systematically sponsored by "dude trust me" from the interweb. If someone claims that a sighted impression is the most accurate window into objective sound, I'm going to trust nothing that guy says. It's just a level of wrong that kills the mood.

I read everything and I hate most of you. have a wonderful day(or night).


----------



## playmusic

I came across a video titled "This high-end dealer doesn’t recommend expensive cables!"
The main message of the dealer is to spend money on speaker, amplifier, DAC, CD-player rather than on cables.
But at 1:44 (link) he states that it is "absolutely true that better cables make a difference".
He goes on to cite a DBT from stereo review 1983 as evidence.

So, I looked up the test (link).
On page 3 of this article, it is stated: "A 1- to 2-dB decrease in sound level was measured for the 24-gauge wire during the pink-noise listening tests [...]".
This is in line with physics because a thinner cable has a higher resistance. Btw, the three tested cables were 30 foot.
On the next page, it is stated: " For one of the Monster Cable/24-gauge comparisons the two cables were matched in gain level within 1 dB using a potentiometer [...]".
A difference of 1 dB SPL is clearly audible, so the "evidence" only shows that listeners were able to differentiate sounds within 1 dB. Quite easy for people with normal hearing.

So, either a) the interviewee/interviewer were not aware of the details of the test or b) the catchy title was only selected by the interviewer to advertise the benefits of cables via the backdoor.


----------



## Kentajalli

playmusic said:


> I came across a video titled "This high-end dealer doesn’t recommend expensive cables!"
> The main message of the dealer is to spend money on speaker, amplifier, DAC, CD-player rather than on cables.
> But at 1:44 (link) he states that it is "absolutely true that better cables make a difference".
> He goes on to cite a DBT from stereo review 1983 as evidence.
> ...


Am I right, that these cables were all speaker cables?
the interaction between a speaker and the amp is a little complicated.
Certain speakers, drop their impedance to very low ohms at certain frequencies. Now if the amp's internal output impedance should be high enough ( above 1 ohm), then at these special circumstances, the damping factor (ability of the amp to control speaker cone) gets compromised should the speaker cable have a high impedance ( thin and long) - also the tonal signature of the system can alter.
Now we must understand, that this is a worse case scenario, amp and speaker bordering on sub-standard and *Bad cable * being used!
Now if the listeners could hear any difference (or measure anything) between the said Monster Cable and household wiring cable (in UK 32amp, solid core, cheap builders cable).
The speaker cable's inductive and capacitive values can cause more trouble than impedance, as most amps, take global feedback directly at speaker terminals.
Bottom line:
don't cheap out by using bell wire, nor work with long lengths of wire.
Keep it real and short, then a £1/m cable is as good as any diamond encrusted, vacuum packed thick silver cable at £1000/m.


----------



## playmusic

Kentajalli said:


> Am I right, that these cables were all speaker cables?
> the interaction between a speaker and the amp is a little complicated.


Yes, indeed. Good point to mention this.

Also for headphones, impadance can vary across the frequency spectrum, e.g. for a Sennheiser HD 650 from 500 Ohm at 100 Hz to 300 Ohm at 1000 Hz. (Innerfidelity measurement)
As you pointed out, output impedance and cable impedance impact the frequency respones.
This effect was also mentioned in the article.

Out of the 6 DBT, they matched levels in only one test. And this only within 1 dB.
The article states an expected difference in level of 1-2 dB between 24-gauge and the monster cable.
So, the test would quite likely show an audible difference between the cables in DBT.

Still, only for pink noise and unmatched levels, a psychoacoustically significant (p.s.) difference (> 75% hits) was observed between 24-gauge and 16-gauge resp. monster cable.
No p.s. difference was observed for choral music or matched levels.

Technically, the interviewee in the video is correct in citing the test that cables make a difference.
But if the obviously required level matching is applied, the test does not show it.


> The speaker cable's inductive and capacitive values can cause more trouble than impedance, as most amps, take global feedback directly at speaker terminals.


I wish I had a better electronics knowledge to understand this argument. Nevermind, I will read up on this when I have some spare time.


> Keep it real and short, then a £1/m cable is as good as any diamond encrusted, vacuum packed thick silver cable at £1000/m.


Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Kentajalli

playmusic said:


> Yes, indeed. Good point to mention this.
> 
> Also for headphones, impadance can vary across the frequency spectrum, e.g. for a Sennheiser HD 650 from 500 Ohm at 100 Hz to 300 Ohm at 1000 Hz. (Innerfidelity measurement)


Actually, that argument is only valid, when impedances get close to each other, meaning the output impedance of the amp, the cable and the varying impedances of speaker/headphone.
Most headphone amps have output impedances of around 1 ohm or less (decent ones), so a headphone impedance of few hundred ohms, makes no difference at all.
Even few 10s of ohms do not make an audible change.
But when it comes to speakers and dipping impedances of 3 or 4 ohms together with 10 feet of cable, dodgy binding posts then it all starts to interact!


----------



## bigshot (Dec 10, 2020)

Impedance has nothing to do with the quality of a cable. It's choosing the right cable for the purpose. You wouldn't try to play an LP with a steel needle designed to play 78s. And if you did and the LP sounded horrible and shredded into bits of plastic, that wouldn't mean that there was something wrong with the steel needle.

It's assumed that you are using the right wire for the job. If you are doing that, it doesn't matter if it's a cheap wire or an expensive wire. None will perform any better than any other. If you use the wrong wire, of course the sound will be degraded. No one argues with that.

It really isn't hard to pick the right cable for the job. You go to Amazon and search for their Amazon Basics line. You find the interconnect that works by reading the description. Boom! Perfection.


----------



## playmusic

Kentajalli said:


> Actually, that argument is only valid, when impedances get close to each other, meaning the output impedance of the amp, the cable and the varying impedances of speaker/headphone.


Thank you for careful reading. You are correct. 
The impact of cables is larger for speakers than for headphones.

An adequate example for a headphone would be the Campfire Audio Andromeda Gold.
Its impedance varies between 3 Ohm @ 100 Hz and 12 Ohm @ 15 kHz.
If the output impedance of the amp is close to zero then a 1 Ohm cable would change the relation of the frequency responses @ 100 Hz and 15 kHz by ca. 1.8 dB which should be audible.

The impedance behaviour of this specific IEM is rather unusual. 
For most headphones and cable combinations, the effect is closer to 0.1 dB. 
So, cables for headphones are a non-issue for me, I just take whatever cable comes with the headphone.

The output impedance can have a larger effect, so a close to zero Ohm amp would be my choice, too.


----------



## castleofargh

playmusic said:


> Thank you for careful reading. You are correct.
> The impact of cables is larger for speakers than for headphones.
> 
> An adequate example for a headphone would be the Campfire Audio Andromeda Gold.
> ...


The general idea is correct, and increasing the cable's impedance would make the 12ohm area go up in dB by some amount relatively to the 3ohm frequency region. But even imagining a near zero ohm amp(not typical for portable gears), we deal with variations between 2 cables, so it's not 0ohm VS 1ohm. It's more likely to be at least 0.5ohm or more(of the other cable) VS the 1ohm in your example.


----------



## ocramida

These sorts of discussions give me a headache. Pretty much a battle you cannot won because based on emotion and intangibles. Not to mention humans are not exact physiological duplicates. Imo


----------



## bigshot

ocramida said:


> These sorts of discussions give me a headache. Pretty much a battle you cannot won because based on emotion and intangibles. Not to mention humans are not exact physiological duplicates. Imo



That's exactly why level matched, direct A/B switched, blind tests are so useful!


----------



## Kentajalli

castleofargh said:


> The general idea is correct, and increasing the cable's impedance would make the 12ohm area go up in dB by some amount relatively to the 3ohm frequency region. But even imagining a near zero ohm amp(not typical for portable gears), we deal with variations between 2 cables, so it's not 0ohm VS 1ohm. It's more likely to be at least 0.5ohm or more(of the other cable) VS the 1ohm in your example.


well a zero ohm output impedance would make the amp a theoretical "voltage amplifier" , such an amp would be immune to any variations in load impedance, be it the cable or the transducer (speaker, earphones etc.).
problem arises when the amp's output impedance is higher!
when amp's output impedance gets close to load impedance, things inter react. let us not forget contact impedance at socket and jack. It can be higher than cable impedance sometimes.


----------



## castleofargh

Kentajalli said:


> well a zero ohm output impedance would make the amp a theoretical "voltage amplifier" , such an amp would be immune to any variations in load impedance, be it the cable or the transducer (speaker, earphones etc.).


The amp maybe, as the cable is then part of the load. But from the perspective of the Andromeda's crossover+drivers, the cable is on the other side with the source. If you increase the impedance of the cable, the change in response will be as if the amp had higher impedance.  



Kentajalli said:


> let us not forget contact impedance at socket and jack. It can be higher than cable impedance sometimes.


Absolutely. That's why I went for a tentative made up 0.5ohm as lower value basis for an IEM cable. Even though I have 20 meter of random cheap wire with me that don't even reach that in its entire length. Plugs plugs plugs! I often say that when I'm general of the world I'll demand banana plugs for all audio connections. It only passes as a joke because I haven't got the job yet. But "it will be mine, oh yes, it will mine".


----------



## playmusic

ocramida said:


> These sorts of discussions give me a headache. Pretty much a battle you cannot won because based on emotion and intangibles. Not to mention humans are not exact physiological duplicates. Imo


Not sure what you refer to.
Do you refer to this thread with 2000+ posts as a whole?
Or the last point about physical effects of output impedance and cables?


----------



## playmusic

bigshot said:


> That's exactly why level matched, direct A/B switched, blind tests are so useful!


Fully agreed.

That's why the 1983 article is so interesting.
In blind tests, there was only one setup in which a hit rate >75% was achieved: One out of five not level-matched setups.
This means that in four out of five not-level matched setups the hit rate was lower.
Level matching would have very likely significantly reduced the hit rate even further.
Not surprisingly, in the one level-matched setup in 1983, no signficant hit rate was observed.


----------



## Deolum

Someone here who thinks cables make a difference. I have a few questions for you guys.

1. Why would you even want other people to convince this? I never had interest in convincing other peoples that cables sound.

2. Why are you discussing 143 pages on this thread? Are you guys maybe even unsure?

3. There is no way of convincing me. And i think this goes for a lot of people so save your time


----------



## ocramida

I've been an audiophile for 30+ years and have gone full circle. And I've come to realize that arguing the merits of cables and other aspects of audio is really no different than arguing why some people like chocolate or vanilla. Science does have something do do with it, but the science of psychology. Basically, whatever floats your boat. This isn't a groundbreaking opinion, and is pretty much what drives capitalism. IMO


----------



## ocramida

playmusic said:


> Not sure what you refer to.
> Do you refer to this thread with 2000+ posts as a whole?
> Or the last point about physical effects of output impedance and cables?


The whole thread. 😁

But then again, I'm a recovering audiophile and relapse often. So give me a minute. 😅


----------



## playmusic (Dec 12, 2020)

I think that in 99.999% (synonym for 'very close to 100%') of all combinations of headphone, head amp and cable there is no audible difference (edited: between the cables) in a DBT.

Here is a very special cases in which a cable can make a difference.

    Select a head amp with the lowest possible output impedance (close to zero Ohm),
    Select a headphone with a very low average impedance and a very high ratio of minimal and maximal impedance over the audible frequency range,
    Select cable 1 with very low impedance (close to zero Ohm) and cable 2 with an impedance of one Ohm.
    Level match setup 1 (with cable 1) and setup 2 (with cable 2) at some frequency, say where the headphone impedance is minimal.
    Then perform a DBT between setups 1 and 2.
Setup 1 will have a higher dB SPL than setup 2 across the frequency range except where the headphone impedance is minimal.

The Campfire Audio Andromeda Gold has (in a simplified description) its minimal impedance of 3 Ohm in the range 20 Hz - 1 kHz. Then it increases continuously to 12 Ohm at 15 kHz.

So, setup 1 differs from setup 2 by an EQ across the range 1 kHz - 15 kHz: 0 dB at 1 kHz, 1.4 dB at 5 kHz, 1.8 dB at 15 kHz.
This effect E will be audible in a DBT.

This is for output impedance zero Ohm and cable 1 zero Ohm.
The effect E will be decreased in real life: when output impedance and cable 1 are very small, but non-zero.
On the other hand, the contact impedance can even increase the effect E if cable 2 has worse contacts than cable 1.

In summary: It is (for me) very plausible that a DBT can be constructed in which two specific cables can be discriminated.
Nevertheless, for most use cases with regular headphones, the effect is significantly lower and rather in the range 0.01 dB - and thus not detectable in a DBT.

Looking back, the Randi challenge was about two specific cables with (as I understood) similar impedances.
So the million $ prize money was about detecting differences that cannot be explained by physics.
In my above example, a ca. 1 dB increase in the treble exists.


----------



## PhonoPhi

playmusic said:


> I think that in 99.999% (synonym for 'very close to 100%') of all combinations of headphone, head amp and cable there is no audible difference in a DBT.
> 
> Here is a very special cases in which a cable can make a difference.
> 
> ...


BAs are very reactive loads, so their response times (the times to reach 90-95% amplitude/power) are very sensitive to the power available.

So the crispness of the sound, well represented for instance by how the bow engages the strings are strongly affected.

If you ever listened to multi-BA IEMs with the low impedance powered from portable sources, you could hear the difference with the most cables (1/8 rule works very well, it is 1/16 for a single conductor values commonly cited).

So this "99.999" statement is so much untrue, in my opinion, and is really damaging to the very credibility of this forum


----------



## playmusic

PhonoPhi said:


> So this "99.999" statement is so much untrue, in my opinion, and is really damaging to the very credibility of this forum


Just to be clear: What I referred to was that the cables cannot be discriminated in 99.999% of combinations of headphones, head amps and cables.
Which is in line with my previous posts.
I edited my post above for clarity.

I did not intend to state that 99.999% of all combinations of headphones, head amps and cables sound the same.
Obviously, headphones differ a lot.


----------



## bfreedma

Deolum said:


> Someone here who thinks cables make a difference. I have a few questions for you guys.
> 
> 1. Why would you even want other people to convince this? I never had interest in convincing other peoples that cables sound.
> 
> ...



1.  To make a counterpoint to the pro cable/anti science crowd who influence those, many who can’t really afford it to drop big $ on cables, or recommending cables as solutions to problems that should be solved elsewhere, or recommending spending thousands of dollars on cables to “improve” sound instead of putting the money into transducers that would provide the targeted sound signature.

2.  There are 143 pages because posters like you drop in, don’t bother to read the thread and the information presented, make a post like yours with the intent of stirring the pot.  This inevitably leads to responses like this.  

3.  That’s sad.  Are you saying you’re uninterested in learning or incapable?  Many of the people in this thread at one time shared your opinion.  But when presented with the physics involved, measurements, test results, and other evidence, functional reality was hard to ignore.


----------



## bigshot

ocramida said:


> I've come to realize that arguing the merits of cables and other aspects of audio is really no different than arguing why some people like chocolate or vanilla. Science does have something do do with it, but the science of psychology. Basically, whatever floats your boat. This isn't a groundbreaking opinion, and is pretty much what drives capitalism. IMO



Some pieces of gear can actually improve the sound fidelity, and some are placebo devices. The higher you go in home audio, the more likely the needle will tip to placebo device.


----------



## old tech

Deolum said:


> Someone here who thinks cables make a difference. I have a few questions for you guys.
> 
> 1. Why would you even want other people to convince this? I never had interest in convincing other peoples that cables sound.
> 
> ...


Well, given you seem attracted to this thread despite not having an interest, perhaps you can answer the rational questions asked of other believers which inexplicably, draws absolute silence from them.

1. Why haven't you claimed or tried to claim the $1 million Randi Institute prize by taking part in a controlled test to prove you can hear a difference?

2. Are you so wealthy that it is not worth the effort to claim a lazy $1 million?  And if so, surely the bragging rights here and everywhere else would be priceless?

3. Even if physics are not your thing, do you ever engage in critical thinking to wonder why no so called high end cable manufacturer has taken up the challenge when it would be priceless being able to market objective proof, rather than unsupported claims based on pseudoscience?

I have no interest in convincing you as belief is a powerful human emotion, but surely you could try and present a cogent response to the above three questions, or are you unsure?


----------



## bigshot

The reason this thread keeps going has nothing to do with audio or physics and everything to do with ego and placebo.


----------



## old tech

bfreedma said:


> Many of the people in this thread at one time shared your opinion.  But when presented with the physics involved, measurements, test results, and other evidence, functional reality was hard to ignore.


And, once they faced their beliefs with an open mind and objective testing, they no longer heard these phantom differences.  Not only have they saved a lot of unnecessary future expense, they actually got to a higher level of enjoyment their music/stereos.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

I just found this article by Crinacle from April 2019 and thought of this thread.   I would be surprised if this hasn't already been posted several times by other posters over the past 1.5 years since it was published.

https://crinacle.com/2019/04/01/on-the-record-cables/

The guy who has done the most objective testing of IEMs in the entire industry believes that cables make a difference to sound quality.   Not only does he believe they make a difference, but he believes they make a big difference.   

Before seeing his article, I have tested many different cables and I can confirm that in many cases they do make a big difference.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

old tech said:


> And, once they faced their beliefs with an open mind and objective testing, they no longer heard these phantom differences.  Not only have they saved a lot of unnecessary future expense, they actually got to a higher level of enjoyment their music/stereos.


I think the opposite is true.  I think people like you are so convinced of your opinion that you aren't doing the A/B testing that would prove the thesis that cables do make a difference because anyone who actually has done just a moderate amount of testing would conclude that cables do matter.   Maybe you don't trust your own ear or you don't have good hearing.


----------



## Amrit-R

Carl Sagan in ‘The Demon Haunted World’;
_
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”_


----------



## playmusic

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> I just found this article by Crinacle from April 2019 and thought of this thread. [...]
> Before seeing his article, I have tested many different cables and I can confirm that in many cases they do make a big difference.


I consider the following reasons why you are posting Crinacle's April fools' day article:

Your post was meant to be ironic.
You are serious and take Crinacle's mockings at face value.
You are trolling.
If your posts #2145 and #2146 are meant to be ironic, please consider explicitly indicating irony in your future postings.

Unfortunately, your subsequent post (#2146) makes options 2 and 3 more likely.


----------



## taffy2207 (Dec 13, 2020)

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> I just found this article by Crinacle from April 2019 and thought of this thread.   I would be surprised if this hasn't already been posted several times by other posters over the past 1.5 years since it was published.
> 
> https://crinacle.com/2019/04/01/on-the-record-cables/
> 
> ...



*coughs* April Fool *coughs*  🤦‍♂️

Edit. As stated above, I guess I should have posted this before I made my Cuppa. Brits and their Tea, eh?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

How do I convince people that you can NOT convince anybody of anything


----------



## bigshot

APRIL FOOLS!


----------



## bigshot

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> I think the opposite is true.  I think people like you are so convinced of your opinion that you aren't doing the A/B testing that would prove the thesis that cables do make a difference because anyone who actually has done just a moderate amount of testing would conclude that cables do matter.   Maybe you don't trust your own ear or you don't have good hearing.



If you have a controlled testing method to discern a difference that doesn't involve the possibility of bias or perceptual error, I would like to hear about it. Tell us about the way you test that makes you believe that you can hear differences between cables. My bet is that you've never done a single careful comparison.


----------



## bfreedma (Dec 13, 2020)

.


----------



## bigshot

Read the last line of the article. The problem is that his idea of comedy was a bit too dry.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Read the last line of the article. The problem is that his idea of comedy was a bit too dry.



missed that


----------



## bigshot

Satire is a dangerous business. It should be left to professionals.


----------



## taffy2207

bigshot said:


> Satire is a dangerous business. It should be left to professionals.



Indeed. It's like tightrope walking on a Razors Edge wearing an extremely heavy Hat


----------



## gimmeheadroom




----------



## old tech

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> I think the opposite is true.  I think people like you are so convinced of your opinion that you aren't doing the A/B testing that would prove the thesis that cables do make a difference because anyone who actually has done just a moderate amount of testing would conclude that cables do matter.   Maybe you don't trust your own ear or you don't have good hearing.


Nice side step. So are you going to try and claim the $1 million prize and if not why not? It beggars belief that you would turn down a life changing windfall.

If i was to take a guess it is cognitive dissonance after you have wasted heaps of money. It is simply not human to otherwise turn down an easy $1 million.


----------



## bigshot

I always think it's funny when someone tries to say that we are biased in the other direction. The difference between him and us is that we admit we're human and subject to the effects of bias. We apply controls to our test to eliminate that possibility. He thinks his perception is infallible and he doesn't need to do blind, level matched, direct A/B switched testing.


----------



## magicscreen

Blind testing a flawed method. Your ear+brain is fallible. And you are using these fallible devices to prove something?


----------



## bfreedma

magicscreen said:


> Blind testing a flawed method. Your ear+brain is fallible. And you are using these fallible devices to prove something?



Blind testing is necessary BECAUSE our ear+brain susceptible to placebo.  What specific issues do you have with a properly setup DBT used to determine if the subject can determine if they perceive a difference between two samples?

If you have a better testing protocol that eliminates bias, please post it.


----------



## bigshot

How would you test whether a difference is perceptible or not without perception? The point of blind testing is to make perception less fallible.


----------



## gimmeheadroom (Jan 6, 2021)

Double-deaf testing is proven to eliminate most but not all differences in audio


----------



## castleofargh

If you decide to feed the troll, please do it in moderation and make sure it's organic food.


----------



## old tech

magicscreen said:


> Blind testing a flawed method. Your ear+brain is fallible. And you are using these fallible devices to prove something?


Not sure if this was meant as humour as the ear + brain fallibility is precisely why controlled double blind testing is the gold standard.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808 (Jan 5, 2021)

Anyone who needs a double blind test to determine that cables make a difference to sound quality has probably actually never conducted a test of various cables themselves.  They think that everyone who buys into cables making a difference is just delusional.  It's why they insist upon double blind tests because they can't actually fathom it being true.    Rather than deny it, just try it.   Then, you will see how silly your objections actually are.   Before I actually tested a bunch of cables, I was very skeptical.   Now I actually own several high quality cables because they make that much difference.   I've found that cables make as much or more difference to sound quality for IEMs as tips do.  It's a dramatic difference.   Just take a high quality copper cable and test it against a high quality silver cable.   If you do, you may have a hard time figuring out which IEM was yours in a blind test with multiple IEMs since the sound signature is so dramatically altered by the cable.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 5, 2021)

It's a given that if you use the wrong kind of cable for the purpose, it may very likely degrade the sound. But if you compare an inexpensive and expensive cable of the same basic design, you won't be able to discern a difference.

But your bias will prevent you from knowing for sure if you refuse to do a controlled test. And based on your biased conclusions, I am quite sure you've never done one. If you would like to try, there are people here who can help you set up a fair listening test. I guarantee you that you will be surprised.


----------



## sander99

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> Anyone who needs a double blind test to determine that cables make a difference to sound quality has probably actually never conducted a test of various cables themselves.


Anyone who thinks he can determine that cables make a difference to sound quality - in cases where this is not to be expected, so not cases where a totally wrong-for-the-job cable is compared to a suitable-for-the-job cable - without conducting a well controlled level matched double blind ABX test clearly does not understand the first thing about human sound perception, in particular does not understand that the influence of expectation bias and many, many other non pure sound related factors can make anyone hear even night and day differences even where there is no audible difference at all! This last statement is true regardless of whether or not there are audible differences in cables, it is a logical implication of the well established fact how human hearing perception depends on many things besides actual sound itself.

Roughly three types of cases can be distinguished:
1. Cases in which theory, measurements and calculation tell us the differences are clearly far below the general accepted tresholds of audibility. In these cases we don't need a listening test to conclude that there is no audible difference for anyone.
2.Cases in which theory, measurements and calculation tell us the differences are clearly far above the general accepted tresholds of audibility. In these cases we don't need a listening test to conclude that there is an audible difference.
3. Cases in which theory, measurements and calculation tell us the differences are close to the general accepted tresholds of audibility. In these cases - if applicable - the only way to prove that there is an audible difference of course is by conducting a well controlled level matched double blind ABX test with a suitable outcome.


----------



## old tech (Jan 6, 2021)

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> Anyone who needs a double blind test to determine that cables make a difference to sound quality has probably actually never conducted a test of various cables themselves.  They think that everyone who buys into cables making a difference is just delusional.  It's why they insist upon double blind tests because they can't actually fathom it being true.    Rather than deny it, just try it.   Then, you will see how silly your objections actually are.   Before I actually tested a bunch of cables, I was very skeptical.   Now I actually own several high quality cables because they make that much difference.   I've found that cables make as much or more difference to sound quality for IEMs as tips do.  It's a dramatic difference.   Just take a high quality copper cable and test it against a high quality silver cable.   If you do, you may have a hard time figuring out which IEM was yours in a blind test with multiple IEMs since the sound signature is so dramatically altered by the cable.


Here you go again, after you totally ignored the question posed to you earlier.  If you are so confident that you can tell a difference in a controlled blind test then why are you not trying to claim the $1 million prize from the Randi Institute?  Only a very irrational person would not try and claim a cool $1 million if they were so sure of themselves (not to mention becoming famous in the audio community as the first person to do so). It's a bit like having a $1 million win in a lottery and then not claiming on the ticket.

There is no point in retreating and pausing your posts for a while rather than answering the simple question and then repeating the same nonsense over and over again, it is not a good look.

Btw, was it you or the other believer that posted that April fools day article as scientific proof a few weeks ago?


----------



## Roland P

How bad must a cable be to notice obvious differences?


----------



## bigshot

Roland P said:


> How bad must a cable be to notice obvious differences?



Either unsuitable for the purpose or defective.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (Jan 6, 2021)

old tech said:


> Here you go again, after you totally ignored the question posed to you earlier.  If you are so confident that you can tell a difference in a controlled blind test then why are you not trying to claim the $1 million prize from the Randi Institute?  Only a very irrational person would not try and claim a cool $1 million if they were so sure of themselves (not to mention becoming famous in the audio community as the first person to do so). It's a bit like having a $1 million win in a lottery and then not claiming on the ticket.
> 
> There is no point in retreating and pausing your posts for a while rather than answering the simple question and then repeating the same nonsense over and over again, it is not a good look.


It's also not a good look to repeat the Randi $1 million nonsense over and over again. I understand what you're trying to do, but there are better ways to do it.

- The $1 million challenge ended in 2015 when James Randi retired from JREF (James Randi Education Foundation - I think)
- For the final several years (7...8...?), they wouldn't accept just anyone off the street. You had to be associated with an organization.
- JREF's three (IIRC) encounters of the audio kind are mixed. One good, one bad, one dodgy.

Why not just say: "If you can demonstrate what you claim, you'd be a hero to subjectivists, and make most objectivists look silly." Just tell him he's not convincing, and don't try to shame him into submission. Won't work, in most cases.


----------



## Roland P

bigshot said:


> Either unsuitable for the purpose or defective.





> It's a given that if you use the wrong kind of cable for the purpose, it may very likely degrade the sound


I still wonder what kind of cable that is.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Roland P said:


> I still wonder what kind of cable that is.


Unsuitable: filamentous earbud cable for speakers, lamp cord between turntable and phono preamp, ribbon cable for 5m ethernet cable...
Defective: cheap manufactured cable with broken connection, dog-chewed wire, a cable my wife uses (she's destroyed about 10 Lightning cables)...


----------



## gimmeheadroom

SoundAndMotion said:


> Unsuitable: filamentous earbud cable for speakers, lamp cord between turntable and phono preamp, ribbon cable for 5m ethernet cable...
> Defective: cheap manufactured cable with broken connection, dog-chewed wire, a cable my wife uses (she's destroyed about 10 Lightning cables)...


LOL you kinda read my mind with some of those answers


----------



## Roland P

SoundAndMotion said:


> Unsuitable: filamentous earbud cable for speakers, lamp cord between turntable and phono preamp, ribbon cable for 5m ethernet cable...


I agree. But what about headphones? Is there anything that would alter the sound? I think if it conducts good, and is not short circuited in any way, it will be fine.

[Slightly unrelated] I was looking for some headphone wires to connect my AH-D9200 to my ZX300 with a 4.4mm connector (I know, balanced, therefore questionable in this forum) and I see the most ridiculous designs for the most ridiculous prices. I just want something that's cheap, conducts, and doesn't look ridiculous lol.


----------



## Amrit-R

I for one am very pleased! Not having to worry about cables saves a lot of money!

Possibly however, others don’t mind spending all that cash. Could be my own cultural bias, I’m Dutch


----------



## Amrit-R

.


Roland P said:


> I agree. But what about headphones? Is there anything that would alter the sound? I think if it conducts good, and is not short circuited in any way, it will be fine.
> 
> [Slightly unrelated] I was looking for some headphone wires to connect my AH-D9200 to my ZX300 with a 4.4mm connector (I know, balanced, therefore questionable in this forum) and I see the most ridiculous designs for the most ridiculous prices. I just want something that's cheap, conducts, and doesn't look ridiculous lol.


something like this?:  https://www.amazon.com/NewFantasia-...934744&sprefix=NewFantasia+4.4,aps,238&sr=8-6

Not sure if it fits. I recently bought a cable from this brand for my Audioquest, which has a rather terrible stock cable. Don’t know how it will last, but works great for now.


----------



## old tech (Jan 6, 2021)

SoundAndMotion said:


> It's also not a good look to repeat the Randi $1 million nonsense over and over again. I understand what you're trying to do, but there are better ways to do it.
> 
> - The $1 million challenge ended in 2015 when James Randi retired from JREF (James Randi Education Foundation - I think)
> - For the final several years (7...8...?), they wouldn't accept just anyone off the street. You had to be associated with an organization.
> ...


Actually i didnt know the $1 million challenge ended so apologies for giving you a bad look. I remember when one of the high price cable makers agreed to the challenge (Monster i think) but piked out. The fact remains though that in the 40 odd years it operated, not one subjectivist or cable manufacturer making these claims was able to claim the prize.

The fact that until in its final years they wouldnt accept anyone from the street is hardly surprising. The James Randi prize was available to anyone who could prove they had paranormal abilities, those convinced they had paranormal hearing abilities with audio cables were tiny compared to clairvoyants, astrologists and so on, noone has the capacity to test everybody. They had to filter out the more obvious cranks and require claimants to do some basic testing themselves. Requiring them to be part of an organisation was a way to do it.


----------



## Roland P (Jan 6, 2021)

Amrit-R said:


> .
> 
> something like this?:  https://www.amazon.com/NewFantasia-Balanced-Compatible-NW-WM1Z-Stereos/dp/B07Z4V7BNH/ref=sr_1_6?crid=2LE1EZKGJFGGZ&dchild=1&keywords=newfantasia+4.4mm&qid=1609934744&sprefix=NewFantasia+4.4,aps,238&sr=8-6
> 
> Not sure if it fits. I recently bought a cable from this brand for my Audioquest, which has a rather terrible stock cable. Don’t know how it will last, but works great for now.


That cable looks incorrect. Well, it goes from balanced to unbalanced, so the 'cold' wires aren't connected I guess.

I settled for this: https://nl.aliexpress.com/item/1005...earchweb0_0,searchweb201602_,searchweb201603_
It's a nice looking cable, I prefer the unexposed wires. Specs say it's made of copper, so it should be good 😁.


----------



## Deolum (Jan 7, 2021)

I'm really torn between both sides. I'm a highly rational human being. I studied law and my peer group studies law, maths, physics, IT etc. Ofc my IT friend say what the when i tell them i use 100€ USB Cables because they sound different.

On the other hand i can't deny what i hear. I know much about human psychology and the power how the perceived world is ultimately only created by us because we can't even see the objective reality.

I also think that science can't explain everything and that music is one of those parts.Thinking that science which is discovered by the limited perception of humans can explain everything is imo a quite arrogant attitude.

So why shouldn't music interact with the materials it flows through? If music could really be pictured in a binary code of 1 and 0 it wouldn't create such emotions in people nor have such a large influence on the human kind during all of history. I really like the painting la trahison des images with it's famous subtitle ceci n'est pas une pipe.

What makes me think the most that cables sound different is when i have a system that is at the very peak of treble amount i can listen to before it hurts. When exchanging cables now there are cables that actually make me feel physical pain while i can listen to others way longer.

What i also wonder is why i never met anyone who has a high end system and says cables don't matter. I know a lot of people who have high end systems and everyone of those uses good cables. But of course i can't know everyone.

The two groups who say cables don't matter are in my experience either

a) musicians

They use the music to work with it which is imo a completely different condition than using it to experience the very subtle emotions. I've also never met a musician with a highend setup. Most use DT770 or AKG K701.

b) people who have a really bad setup

like my good IT buddy who uses a 80€ bluetooth headphone and a 150€ Logitech Surround speaker setup. Sadly he never heard mine setup yet because he moved a bit away. However i'd be surprised if he heard a difference because until you notice that you must be very familiar with the setup.

Now if we just create the hypothesis that cables actually sound different but humans don't have the methods to measure that then we can also turn the placebo argument around and say that the people who think cables don't sound different because science can't measure it are the ones who are subject to their placebo.

Why i don't do a blindtest? I think the difference is really subtle. I'd identify the right cable maybe 55-60% of the time. To prove that i'd need a very high amount of samples in an area of 20-100 to get reliable data. Which means someone had to plug und unplug the cable 40-200 times out of my system. I already damaged my old chord 2qute Dac with massive cable plugging and unplugging so i'm not eager to try that again.

However with the treble peak method i consider it to be more likely doable so maybe i will.

There are also two things that don't convince me about the placebo effect:

1. Why are cables so overprominent here? There are so many voodo treats for example schubert resonance generators or laying stones on the amps. If there really wasn't any effect then why would cables and power be accepted widely more than those other things? Maybe the social factor is determining that okay.

2. Why do i so many times prefer the cheaper cable over the more expensive one? Why do i notice (large) improvemens almost everywhere jumping from 10€ to 50€ but almost never when jumping from 50€ to 300€?


----------



## Deolum (Jan 7, 2021)

Two things i want to add:

1. I see many unconvincing blind tests that people use to say cables make no difference. These blind tests often use a small sample size like 4 tracks or are completely wrong. I remember one test where someone invited 6 people who thought they'd hear cables differences and let them compare two cables 7-10 times. The perception of the audience was highly variating. In the end he said that he just used the same cable all the time. Of course that's completely wrong because the only thing he proofed is that placebo exists and not that cables don't sound different.

2. Why don't high end shop owners say that cables don't make a difference? At least i've never seen one. Usually they even use the very best cables in their own demo room. And they are exposed to six and seven figure systems.

Now you may want so say: because they want to sell the cables. But that makes no sense for me. There are so many highend shops out there and a limited number of clients. Meanwhile according to you audio scientists there should be a decently large number of highend system owners who don't think cables make a difference (which i never met). If there are 100 highend shops in the country and everyone claims that cables make a difference then the 101th shop would have a massive competitive advantage if he states that cables don't make a difference because he'd gain the trust of all those numerous high enders who don't think cables matter (which i never met).


----------



## sonitus mirus

Find a way to switch cables where you can't tell which one is being used and try your treble test to see if you can really identify a difference between them.  Are you guessing or is it obvious to you?  Just do that for yourself.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 7, 2021)

Deolum said:


> I see many unconvincing blind tests that people use to say cables make no difference.



The purpose of those tests isn't to convince you. If you want to be convinced, set up a simple double blind test yourself. Get a switch box and find out. Most everyone here in Sound Science have done basic controlled tests. It isn't hard, nor expensive. It just takes getting up and finding out for yourself. Once you've done a couple of tests, you might find those blind tests are more convincing.

We don't say proper cables don't make a difference because that is what we believe. We say that because we've made the effort to know.


----------



## Roland P (Jan 8, 2021)

Deolum said:


> The two groups who say cables don't matter are in my experience either
> 
> a) musicians
> 
> b) people who have a really bad setup



There is another group (me): c) people with an electrical background (23 years ago though...)
I see a cable as a passive component that has three properties: resistance, capacitance and inductance

A cable is just a conductor. The capacitance and inductance aren't high enough to be audible. If the capacitance was high, it would short circuit high frequencies and work as a low pass filter. If the inductance was high, it would block low frequencies and work as a high pass filter. Maybe I'm way off, but I think this is how it works.

I think that a very expensive cable, priced much higher than the materials, feels like a scam, and therefore, I don't wan't to put my money in it. Well maybe if it looked really pretty


----------



## SennheiserNoob (Jan 13, 2021)

I'm sure this has been posted already in the massive 146-page backlog of this thread, but for me one of the more informative posts about this was this page here, where you can listen to a sample of a song with a good USB cable and a bad USB cable: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/01/demo-measurements-what-does-bad-usb-or.html

At least for the digital stuff, the signal either makes it through properly or it doesn't, and when things go wrong, the changes are very nontrivial (pops, static-sound, silent parts from bad decoding, etc), and can't change overall "tone" or color of the song (in order to do that, you'd have to make very consistent changes to a variety of bits which is no longer error but something so specific that the probability is near-zero). To my mind, a cable is either good enough to transmit the signal, or it isn't - in other words you either get the correct sound or you get garbage. You don't get a "better" sound somehow past the bare minimum, is the way I see it.

I think it doesn't help either that you can look at pictures of musicians/DJs/etc at big concert venues who can be seen using very high-end cables - but I think if anything, in a big environment like that (where you may have rain, or a huge crowd with lots of cell phones, lots of equipment, large distances between components, etc), at least there it would seem more defensible to me to get something with beefier shielding, or spring for the gold-plating to resist corrosion better, or the better tech for transmitting a clear signal over longer distances that is less prone to integrity issues, whatever.

But for the average joe with a modest in-home setup with things mere feet apart, it's overkill -- and not even in a "diminishing returns" sense, but just straight overkill, zero added benefit.

I suspect that the placebo effect is just extraordinarily powerful. At least when I've looked around on Google, most of the objections tend to center on AB/blind testing as flawed, but I have not really heard a good reason behind that defense. If I can't tell something apart even with the ability to move seamlessly between them, as far as I'm concerned they're perceptually identical, and I don't see why this is a flawed way to approach it.


----------



## fjf

Take both cables.  Connect with them an external hard drive to your computer, and copy a file to it with each cable.  Then compare both.  If they are the same, it means data is transferred bit-perfect in both cases.  Now, do you believe in evidence?.  Or maybe you'll think that is fake news?.


----------



## Plumbus the Wise

One amusing part of this subject is that often times on very expensive cans (over 1k) the wires used are very minimally shielded inexpensive copper ones.  

So it seems peculiar that the actual creator of the high end cans often put average not special wires in the most crucial part of the headphone yet an expensive outside cable is needed to improve sound...?


----------



## fjf

Just because they have engineers and know a simple copper cable does the job.  You dont need a platinum cable.  There are ways of showing jewelry better...


----------



## castleofargh

I honestly cannot figure out a legitimate reason why silver would have a sound. All else considered equal(which is a fantasy in the world of audio cables), we gain some 6% in resistance of one wire on its own in a straight line. Cool, I guess. for the rest, copper and silver are so very close as conductor they mostly stick together no matter the type of signal or temperature involved, at least for audio stuff and temperature we can survive in. 
I would feel lucky if half of those 6% variation remained with actual cables plugged into a system(arrangement of the wires, insulation, soldering, plugs, contact surface between plugs, how stable the cross section remains throughout the wires). And I would be a little impressed if in practice, the metal in the wire was indeed the main electrical difference between 2 given cables. I mean, the tolerances for audio cable impedance(when they even bother having some) are commonly in the 10 to 20%.

But somehow people try 2 cables, one copper, one silver, often from a different brand and sometimes not even with the same gauge. They feel a change, and go: Eureka! It's the sound of silver.
jumping to conclusion with a classic correlation=causation fallacy, isn't ideal.


On the other hand, you're jogging in the park at night and you come face to face with a werewolf, you're going to feel silly with your copper IEM cable. So, good arguments for both sides? Ahoooo!


----------



## bluecar

Finally, a compelling use-case for silver IEM cables.. We thank you for your wisdom


----------



## Plumbus the Wise

fjf said:


> Just because they have engineers and know a simple copper cable does the job.  You dont need a platinum cable.  There are ways of showing jewelry better...


Yes that is my point.


----------



## reter (Jan 19, 2021)

I bought the superlux hd681evo time ago and changed its cable with some KLOTZ which changed the audio somehow so dunno, maybe it's an exception for me with that headset


----------



## bigshot

reter said:


> I bought the superlux hd681evo time ago and changed its cable with some KLOTZ which changed the audio somehow so dunno, maybe it's an exception for me with that headset



Did you do a blind comparison?


----------



## reter

bigshot said:


> Did you do a blind comparison?


Sadly no, but i still have that cable so i can try the blind test and tell everyone but there's a problem: i live alone, so who can help me to do the blind test? lol


----------



## Kentajalli

bigshot said:


> Did you do a blind comparison?


I know a guy who has lost one eye - I use him for single blind tests - but his cousin who was born blind in both eyes, has such sharp ears, he can tell the diffrence between different brands of coat hangers used as cables, never mind standard cables.


----------



## reter

Kentajalli said:


> I know a guy who has lost one eye - I use him for single blind tests - but his cousin who was born blind in both eyes, has such sharp ears, he can tell the diffrence between different brands of coat hangers used as cables, never mind standard cables.



What is this true or you are just trolling? I know about blind people that enhance their hearing sense but isn't this too...exaggerated?


----------



## Kentajalli

reter said:


> What is this true or you are just trolling? I know about blind people that enhance their hearing sense but isn't this too...exaggerated?


trolling!


----------



## reter

Kentajalli said:


> trolling!



damn i was hoping the opposite, happy for the troll tho

anyway i'll try...



not to make me blind... to test the old cable


----------



## bigshot

reter said:


> Sadly no, but i still have that cable so i can try the blind test and tell everyone



Bias and perceptual error can turn yes into no and black into white. If you don't compare filtering out the possibility of error, your comparison is just a guess. You are in the Sound Science forum. This is the only forum in Head-Fi where we don't accept anecdotal impressions. You need to make an effort to verify your results objectively if you want us to listen. Blind tests are not difficult to do. If you are interested in finding out for sure, we would be happy to help you set up a good testing method.

But just to let you know, there is no scientific reason why two cables of similar design would sound any different than each other. The burden of proof is on you to prove it isn't bias. Your impression has most likely been colored by bias. You don't need to convince us. You need to find out the truth for yourself.


----------



## F700 (Jan 19, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Blind tests are not difficult to do. If you are interested in finding out for sure, we would be happy to help you set up a good testing method.


This is something I am interested in. I would like to blind test one pair of IEM with 3 different cables.


----------



## bigshot

The problem is fast switching. Auditory memory is only a couple of seconds for similar sounds. Taking them out of your ear to swap cables and putting them back in would take longer than you can remember the sound. I would recommend comparing two cables at a time, not 3. If you want to add a third, compare it one at a time with the other two after your first comparison test. To avoid problems with auditory memory, I would suggest running the two cables from the source using a splitter to a switch box, and then running the third cable from the switch box to the IEMs. See if you can determine a difference between the two in a few dozen blind comparisons, then move the cables so one of your test cables is now the one from the switch box to the IEMs and do another round of comparisons. Then rotate the cables another time and do it again. You would be hearing the sound through two cables at once, but if there is no pattern of being able to discern any of the combinations from each other, you can safely assume that at least two of the cables sound the same.

If you had two copies of each cable and two switch boxes you could test each one against each other, but that might involve considerable cost if the cables are expensive.

This is just off the top of my head. Does anyone else have a better suggestion for a testing procedure?


----------



## F700

bigshot said:


> The problem is fast switching. Auditory memory is only a couple of seconds for similar sounds. Taking them out of your ear to swap cables and putting them back in would take longer than you can remember the sound. I would recommend comparing two cables at a time, not 3. If you want to add a third, compare it one at a time with the other two after your first comparison test. To avoid problems with auditory memory, I would suggest running the two cables from the source using a splitter to a switch box, and then running the third cable from the switch box to the IEMs. See if you can determine a difference between the two in a few dozen blind comparisons, then move the cables so one of your test cables is now the one from the switch box to the IEMs and do another round of comparisons. Then rotate the cables another time and do it again. You would be hearing the sound through two cables at once, but if there is no pattern of being able to discern any of the combinations from each other, you can safely assume that at least two of the cables sound the same.
> 
> If you had two copies of each cable and two switch boxes you could test each one against each other, but that might involve considerable cost if the cables are expensive.
> 
> This is just off the top of my head. Does anyone else have a better suggestion for a testing procedure?


Thanks a lot for this very detailed answer, much appreciated. I can reduce my blind test to 2 cables actually. Now, time to get the material.


----------



## bigshot

You’ll want to figure out what kind of connectors your IEMs take and perhaps get adapters to be able to plug into the switch box.


----------



## F700

bigshot said:


> You’ll want to figure out what kind of connectors your IEMs take and perhaps get adapters to be able to plug into the switch box.


Yes, it’s an obvious thing to think about.


----------



## ScrofulousBinturong (Feb 1, 2021)

Kentajalli said:


> I know a guy who has lost one eye - I use him for single blind tests - but his cousin who was born blind in both eyes, has such sharp ears, he can tell the diffrence between different brands of coat hangers used as cables, never mind standard cables.


I tried that test and the only difference i can hear reliability is between those cheap metal hangers from the dry cleaners and Target brand hangers made of plastic.


----------



## Kentajalli (Jan 31, 2021)

ScrofulousBinturong said:


> I tried that test and the only difference i can hear reliability is between those cheap metal hangers feom the dry cleaners and Target brand hangers made of plastic.


So do you agree with me that "dry cleaner" ones sound much better, more sound stage?
And if you should poke yourself in the eye with one, you can do a blind test to confirm.
Who says different cable materials do not make a diffrence??
Glad we agree . . .


----------



## bigshot

Dry cleaner sounds cleaner. Plastic sounds kind of fake. Cables with knitted cloth covering sound warmer. If I use green wires for positive and red ones for negative it sounds backwards.


----------



## magicscreen

You have to be a trained listener to hear the difference between cables (and mp3/wav, hi-res/CD etc).
If you cannot hear the difference you need more training.
It is very easy to make a half-ass try and say 'oh no difference'.


----------



## bigshot

Boloney


----------



## fjf

Yeah, the two old myths:  my golden ears and my hugely expensive-and-oh-so-great equipment.  You dont have those, you cannot tell the difference.


----------



## sonitus mirus

fjf said:


> Yeah, the two old myths:  my golden ears and my hugely expensive-and-oh-so-great equipment.  You dont have those, you cannot tell the difference.


Also, don't forget that blind testing is faulty, so nobody can prove it.


----------



## castleofargh

fjf said:


> Yeah, the two old myths:  my golden ears and my hugely expensive-and-oh-so-great equipment.  You dont have those, you cannot tell the difference.


For the cases where this is accurate, most people will have neither, so they effectively don't notice a difference. Tiny variations that require training and special gear just to make them noticeable by someone, I don't see why I as a listener, should care in the first place.
And the rest of the time, where those statements are made up excuses from people who are really saying "please, look at me I'm special", it's also not a great motivator for me.


----------



## 71 dB

magicscreen said:


> You have to be a trained listener to hear the difference between cables (and mp3/wav, hi-res/CD etc).
> If you cannot hear the difference you need more training.
> It is very easy to make a half-ass try and say 'oh no difference'.


I have always thought the purpose of music listening is to enjoy music, but apparently that's not the case! It's about hearing differences!
Do you also dislike the food you eat on basis "I ate 1 % better spagetti 5 years ago in Milano! I can tell the difference because my mouth is trained!"
I have/use ONLY cheapo cables. I don't care how expensive cables sound. My cheap cables allow me to enjoy music meaning they work for me.


----------



## bigshot

We all have normal human ears. If some people hear differently, it's because of hearing damage, not training. No amount of training will train you to hear things that are inaudible.

As for the quality of equipment... I carefully test every piece of gear I put in my system. For the last four decades, I've found absolutely no correlation between sound quality and price when it comes to electronics. Only with transducers.


----------



## xand

I think cables don't make a difference. 

However, it's sometimes not easy to find an appropriate cable except through "specialist cable makers" who charge quite abit, or doing DIY. 

For most people, spending the money you make elsewhere to pay the specialist cable maker is the choice to make. 



bigshot said:


> For the last four decades...



Wow now I understand your posts more.


----------



## niharspol

I am disappointed in the number of people on this forum itself that think cables make a difference. Furthermore, they argue that it actually changes frequency response, which is pathetic. A really long cable would just increase the noise floor, it wouldn't add distortion.


----------



## xand

niharspol said:


> I am disappointed in the number of people on this forum itself that think cables make a difference. Furthermore, they argue that it actually changes frequency response, which is pathetic. A really long cable would just increase the noise floor, it wouldn't add distortion.



lol. This is an awesome first post. 

Also, relax a little. 

OR ACTUALLY - have a gander at this USD 3k retail cable: https://www.effectaudio.com/hall-of-fame/horusocta.html


----------



## redrol (Feb 6, 2021)

niharspol said:


> I am disappointed in the number of people on this forum itself that think cables make a difference. Furthermore, they argue that it actually changes frequency response, which is pathetic. A really long cable would just increase the noise floor, it wouldn't add distortion.


I am too, It triggers me greatly because I kind of see it as a scam.



> OR ACTUALLY - have a gander at this USD 3k retail cable: https://www.effectaudio.com/hall-of-fame/horusocta.html



I'd pay about 10 bux for this and even then it's much much too thick for live stage use or on the go mobile use.


----------



## xand

redrol said:


> I'd pay about 10 bux for this and even then it's much much too thick for live stage use or on the go mobile use.



I'm happy to pay 500 bucks. So if you see it at that price or less pick it up and pm me pls. I'll even pay you the difference (so you get 490 if you get it for 10 bucks).


----------



## redrol

xand said:


> I'm happy to pay 500 bucks. So if you see it at that price or less pick it up and pm me pls. I'll even pay you the difference (so you get 490 if you get it for 10 bucks).



I'm probably being stupid here but I actually wonder why you would pay so much?


----------



## xand (Feb 6, 2021)

redrol said:


> I'm probably being stupid here but I actually wonder why you would pay so much?



Looks pretty. 🤣

(And I've seen effect audio cables before they're pretty well built. Almost definitely not close to 500 in raw material value but workmanship is worth something. Plus, I could probably sell it for more than 500...)


----------



## redrol

Thats a legit reason.   Go nuts!


----------



## niharspol

The worst is the expensive USB cables I see now and then. I mean, it's digital. Digital signals in a usb cable of ordinary length will not have a BER (bit error rate) high enough to corrupt our precious audio data, regardless of what the cable is made of. Even then, reducing the length of the cable is the first thing to do. 
I use short interconnects between my dac and amp, but I otherwise don't think about cables.


----------



## bigshot

You might be able to take some wires to a hair salon and have them braid them nicely like that for about #10


----------



## magicscreen

I know that audio cables DO NOT make a difference. 
But it is very interesting that my $20 RCA cable sounds better than my $3 RCA cable. 
Always.
I sometimes changing them and the result is always the same.
This perseverance is very remarkable on the part of the cable, isn't it?  

And I do not care about expensive prices and brands. I am not biased.
I bought a $1000 amplifier and it sounded like crap.
My $80 headphone is way better than my famous $220 headphone.
I bought an hyped, ultra well measured headphone amp and it sounded like crap.


----------



## sonitus mirus

magicscreen said:


> I know that audio cables DO NOT make a difference.
> But it is very interesting that my $20 RCA cable sounds better than my $3 RCA cable.
> Always.
> I sometimes changing them and the result is always the same.
> ...


Audio cables can certainly make a difference.  They are a critical component in the audio chain.  Audio cables that measure similarly should not contribute to audible characteristics that can be identified through hearing.


----------



## bigshot

Everyone is biased. It's unusual for someone to realize the extent of their bias though. Most bias is instinctual and unconscious.


----------



## redrol (Mar 4, 2021)

bigshot said:


> Everyone is biased. It's unusual for someone to realize the extent of their bias though. Most bias is instinctual and unconscious.


The best way to remove bias is do a lot of drugs.  Works for me.  I am one of the only reviewers that forgets which IEM or cable is plugged into whatever I forgot was plugged into what.  Just give me the music.  If it makes me happy and tap my toes and nod my head, its a winner.  

** I mix rock and roll and other forms of music that require people that are not sober.


----------



## bigshot

The internet and social media in particular are hothouses where bias flourishes and blooms!


----------



## redrol

That is for damn sure.  I do a lot of metal and heavier forms of metal and noise based music.   It's hilarious playing this type of music on typical audiophile sets... 90% fail, only a few can actually play more dense compressed forms of music without cutting your head off at a high volume.
When I want to hear if something is tuned well and can follow the Fletcher München volume / freq curve, I turn my volume up to 90-100db and more sometimes.  
When people say they are medium volume listeners I know the set in question has not been vetted well.


----------



## someguyontheinternet

Up to a certain point the cost does make a difference. Mainly in the connectors and how consistently they fit and stay in place rather than the cable's ability to transport signal.
The difference is probably there up to maybe 15-20$, because quality control costs money.


----------



## bigshot

For RCA, I usually buy standard Amazon Basics. For some reason, I have more issues with the fancy gold end ones shorting out more than the regular plastic ones. I think sometimes it can grab on too hard and make it hard to pull a plug without damaging it. HDMI cables can be temperamental about kinks, but that doesn't relate to price as much as it does the stiffness of the cable.


----------



## magicscreen

Here is a different sounding cable. I hope you can hear it.
youtube video


----------



## bigshot (Mar 5, 2021)

That isn't a different sounding cable. That is a cable that is picking up RF interference. If there was no interference, the cable would sound fine. The solution is to either remove the source of interference, or to shield the cable from it. The interference is the problem. The same goes for ground loops. Where I live building codes have pretty much eliminated these kinds of problems, but if you live in the shadow of an AM radio station tower, you have a refrigerator plugged into the same power strip as your stereo, or your house was built many years ago, you might run into this problem.

When I was a kid, I ran into problems like this all the time, but I lived in a house built in the 1920s with ancient two prong plugs in the wall, I had a funky Garrard turntable that buzzed like a son of a gun, and my dad was a ham radio operator and ran his antenna right over the roof above my bedroom.


----------



## Koei (Apr 14, 2021)

You simply cannot convince people they don't make a difference. Already had a user here on the forum stating they heard a cable make changes to the frequency response (more presence, more mid bass and things like that ) but that these changes cannot be measured in the frequency response. Where can you even start to convince somebody like that?

Also understand that there is a huge vested intrest for head-fi to make sure people believe in these things. Its what makes them money. There is a reason you cannot discuss this on the rest of the forum. Even things as simple as advising to listen to cables in a double blind test to figure out which one sounds the best is not allowed as advise. Let me repeat that: telling somebody to actually listen to a product is advise that is not allowed on head-fi.


----------



## redrol

Cables are the worst thing in this hobby imo.  The amount of wasted time effort and money is stunning.


----------



## PointyFox

Koei said:


> You simply cannot convince people they don't make a difference. Already had a user here on the forum stating the heard a cable make changes to the  frequency response (more presence, more mid bass and things like that ) but that these changes cannot be measured in the frequency response. Where can you even start to convince somebody like that?



At least that person described things that could be measured. There are Moon-Audio tier people who will say a cable made the music more "dancing", "liquid", etc.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808 (Apr 14, 2021)

Koei said:


> You simply cannot convince people they don't make a difference. Already had a user here on the forum stating they heard a cable make changes to the frequency response (more presence, more mid bass and things like that ) but that these changes cannot be measured in the frequency response. Where can you even start to convince somebody like that?
> 
> Also understand that there is a huge vested intrest for head-fi to make sure people believe in these things. Its what makes them sponsorship money. There is a reason you cannot discuss this on the rest of the forum. Even things as simple as advising to listen to cables in a double blind test to figure out which one sounds the best is not allowed as advise. Let me repeat that: telling somebody to actually listen to a product is advise that is not allowed on head-fi.


Not all tube distortion from tube amps show up on frequency response measurements.   Are you suggesting that people who like tube amps and delusional because they prefer tube sound over solid state?

I realize you are stuck in your position that cables make no difference.   So, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise.   Perhaps you should try it some time.   You might learn something new.

Meanwhile, I just bought 3 upgrade cables because they make a difference to the sound of my IEMs.   Even Crinacle, the king of IEM measurements asserts that cables make a difference to sound.   I'll take his experience listening to over 833 IEMs in different configurations over an anonymous person post on a message board.   More importantly, I trust my own ears over anything else.


----------



## Koei (Apr 14, 2021)

redrol said:


> Cables are the worst thing in this hobby imo.  The amount of wasted time effort and money is stunning.


The worst part about it, is that the money spend on these cables could have been spend on stuff that actually matters and they would see major gains in fidelity.



PointyFox said:


> At least that person described things that could be measured. There are Moon-Audio tier people who will say a cable made the music more "dancing", "liquid", etc.


No, his point was that it could not be measured. I mean heard changes in the frequency response, but you wouldn't be able to see those changes in the frequency response if you would measure them. How does that even work?



HiFiHawaii808 said:


> Not all tube distortion from tube amps show up on frequency response measurements.   Are you suggesting that people who like tube amps and delusional because they prefer tube sound over solid state?
> 
> I realize you are stuck in your position that cables make no difference.   So, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you otherwise.   Perhaps you should try it some time.   You might learn something new.
> 
> Meanwhile, I just bought 3 upgrade cables because they make a difference to the sound of my IEMs.   Even Crinacle, the king of IEM measurements asserts that cables make a difference to sound.   I'll take his experience listening to over 833 IEMs in different configurations over an anonymous person post on a message board.   More importantly, I trust my own ears over anything else.


If you say there is more mid-bass and treble. then you are definitely talking about frequency response. And even if he was talking about effects of THD...the measurements also showed no change in THD.

And I already have tried multiple cables. I swap them out all the time depending on where I am in the house. Got a cable of the right length at all the places I listen to music. Some originals, some cheap, some more expensive. No difference.

Can you link me to some of Crinacle's measurements of these differences? Curious to see his testing methodology.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Most cables ARE a wash, but it’s true IEM cables alter the sound.


----------



## xand

Koei said:


> The worst part about it, is that the money spend on these cables could have been spend on stuff that actually matters and they would see major gains in fidelity.



I highly doubt this. Most people spend money on cables when they already have spent major dollars on everything else.


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

redrol said:


> Cables are the worst thing in this hobby imo.  The amount of wasted time effort and money is stunning.


The worst thing in this hobby are people who are so sure they know something is true that they try to tell others that their subjective preferences are somehow flawed.


----------



## Koei

xand said:


> I highly doubt this. Most people spend money on cables when they already have spent major dollars on everything else.


There are plenty of people buying $200+ cables for $400 headphones.


----------



## Koei

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> The worst thing in this hobby are people who are so sure they know something is true that they try to tell others that their subjective preferences are somehow flawed.


Nobody is telling you that you don't hear a difference. I am 100% convinced you hear a difference in cables. We only differ in opinion about why you are hearing these differences. Can I ask what kind of education you have had?


----------



## HiFiHawaii808

Redcarmoose said:


> Most cables ARE a wash, but it’s true IEM cables alter the sound.


Shh.  Let these wannabe scientists think everyone else is delusional.    What's most amazing is that their ignorance could be easily cured if they just listened to the cables themselves rather than simply trying to tell everyone else that their minds are playing tricks on them.


----------



## xand

Koei said:


> There are plenty of people buying $200+ cables for $400 headphones.




That's not good... Surely they've also heard of the 10% rule (which means that for $400 headphones, no point buying cables.. hahahaha).


----------



## redrol

AHEM!
You people have the burden of proof. Post proof or this is considered placebo.


----------



## redrol

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> The worst thing in this hobby are people who are so sure they know something is true that they try to tell others that their subjective preferences are somehow flawed.



Yes they are flawed.  This is the one forum where you are required to post proof.  Your emotional response is not going to work here.


----------



## xand

redrol said:


> AHEM!
> You people have the burden of proof. Post proof or this is considered placebo.


I don't think anyone who buys cables REALLY WANTS anyone else to buy cables.

It's more like.. Eh, so you like this TOTL headphone and you're happy, in combination with this TOTL amp.. consider cables.

or...

Eh, the cables of that headphone are quite uncomfortable (physically), you can consider XXX.


----------



## 71 dB

Do differences matter? 

Or should we ask how _much_ do differences matter? 

Let's assume cables A and B sound different. 
Now, if we only used cable A or B and never compared them do we get used to the sound of that cable and just enjoy music without thinking about the sound of the cable? If you always need the "best" to enjoy music you screwed. The second somewhere in the World someone creates something better you must stop enjoying music.

Now, I am not against someone spending $200 on a headphone cable if that cable gives placebo-driven good feeling and looks cool, but this is not an audio hobby. It is something else, something halfway between collecting action figures and audio*. A part of audio hobby is rational balance of how money is spend. 

* Action figures have no other purpose than looking cool and people feel better unless you buy them to be sold years later on eBay for profit.


----------



## bfreedma

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> Shh.  Let these wannabe scientists think everyone else is delusional.    What's most amazing is that their ignorance could be easily cured if they just listened to the cables themselves rather than simply trying to tell everyone else that their minds are playing tricks on them.



I'm quite sure I’m as susceptible to placebo as anyone else including you.  At some point, people who “believe” in cables are going to have to show hard evidence.  Imagine how many cables a vendor would sell if they could actually publish said hard evidence.  I wonder why they don’t.....?


----------



## Marutks

someone posted a link to this   https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-audio-premium-headphone-cable-review.22457/

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/zmf-verite-closed-new-closed-back-zmf-flagship.911505/page-371


----------



## Koei

bfreedma said:


> I'm quite sure I’m as susceptible to placebo as anyone else including you.  At some point, people who “believe” in cables are going to have to show hard evidence.  Imagine how many cables a vendor would sell if they could actually publish said hard evidence.  I wonder why they don’t.....?


This the argument I've been making for years. If you figure out what that "unmeasurable" thing is that makes certain cables sound so good you can make so much money. And think about the prestige, you will most certainly win an AES award for your publications if you can prove you have figured it out. There is even a chance you find some particle that has been unknown to conventional physics. Might net you a Nobel prize. Unfortunately subjectivists have zero interest in pushing sound reproduction to the next level.


----------



## xand

Marutks said:


> someone posted a link to this   https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-audio-premium-headphone-cable-review.22457/



Haha this is a good answer to the question posed by OP.


----------



## Northern

I love slick looking custom cables as well. I need to make a couple for my K371's, stock ones are annoyingly microphonic. Just haven't had the time and energy to source affordable 3-pin mini-XLR connectors yet. 
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest there's any audible difference between two well built and well designed cables. Some people claim they can clearly hear a difference, and I believe them. Reflective autosuggestion is real, and it works.


----------



## Koei

xand said:


> Haha this is a good answer to the question posed by OP.


This is the cable for which a user stated he could hear differences in the frequency response. So this is not an answer to the question posed by OP.


----------



## xand

Koei said:


> This the argument I've been making for years. If you figure out what that "unmeasurable" thing is that makes certain cables sound so good you can make so much money.



This is kinda a bad argument - audio is a hobby, most people don't want to make their hobby become their work.



Koei said:


> There is even a chance you find some particle that has been unknown to conventional physics.


Why would you think the difference is due to some physical particle? Surely it's far more likely that the answer lies in a breakthrough in psychoacoustics? A Nobel possibly, but in Physiology/Medicine not physics.

e.g. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1961/bekesy/facts/


----------



## Northern

xand said:


> Why would you think the difference is due to some physical particle? Surely it's far more likely that the answer lies in a breakthrough in psychoacoustics?


Because audio cables does not transmit sound.


----------



## Koei (Apr 14, 2021)

xand said:


> This is kinda a bad argument - audio is a hobby, most people don't want to make their hobby become their work.


There are hundreds of cable manufacturers. Are you saying none of these have any interest in proving their cables actually do make a difference by publishing peer reviewed articles at AES?


xand said:


> Why would you think the difference is due to some physical particle? Surely it's far more likely that the answer lies in a breakthrough in psychoacoustics? A Nobel possibly, but in Physiology/Medicine not physics.
> 
> e.g. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1961/bekesy/facts/


I don't think that, but that is was certain subjectivists want us to believe. Because they are stating it cannot be measured in the electrical signal running over the cable. The differences that people hear can be easily explained by psychoacoustics. But that is not an acceptable answer to subjectivists. Its like people who believe in homeopathy. The entire body of medical and psychological knowledge shows that the effect its purely placebo. Yet, that is not accepted by people who believe in homeopathy. Subjectivists are in the same boat. So if it cannot be a psychological effect it has to be a physical effect. The burden of proof of that is on them. That's the beauty of science, the entire point is that anybody can prove anyone wrong.


----------



## xand

Koei said:


> There are hundreds of cable manufacturers. Are you saying none of these have any interest in proving their cables actually do make a difference by publishing peer reviewed articles at AES?



Ah, I thought you were referring to people on headfi.

The cable manufacturers absolutely would have no interest, because of subjectivists they already get the sales they want, and if indeed there is some physical process/difference it's probably better kept as a trade secret - not as a patent (which is public and expires), and certainly not as an academic paper/AES.

What I do think has been interesting from a cable perspective is that many IEM manufacturers have started including "better" cables as stock. This of course might also be just a user demand thing. *shrug*.



Koei said:


> I don't think that, but that is was certain subjectivists want us to believe. Because they are stating it cannot be measured in the electrical signal running over the cable. The differences that people hear can be easily explained by psychoacoustics. But that is not an acceptable answer to subjectivists.



Ah, okay. I don't see why the "subjectivists" won't accept that it's psychoacoustics - they'd probably add that it's a presently unknown part of psychoacoustics though.



Koei said:


> Its like people who believe in homeopathy. The entire body of medical and psychological knowledge shows that the effect its purely placebo. Yet, that is not accepted by people who believe in homeopathy. Subjectivists are in the same boat. So if it cannot be a psychological effect it has to be a physical effect. The burden of proof of that is on them. That's the beauty of science, the entire point is that anybody can prove anyone wrong.


The market size of homeopathic products is .. scary.


----------



## Koei (Apr 14, 2021)

xand said:


> Ah, I thought you were referring to people on headfi.
> 
> The cable manufacturers absolutely would have no interest, because of subjectivists they already get the sales they want, and if indeed there is some physical process/difference it's probably better kept as a trade secret - not as a patent (which is public and expires), and certainly not as an academic paper/AES.
> 
> What I do think has been interesting from a cable perspective is that many IEM manufacturers have started including "better" cables as stock. This of course might also be just a user demand thing. *shrug*.


I understand they have vested interest in keeping the status quo. Your argument about patents make no sense though, there are fields where proving you are the best does hold real value: pro audio.


xand said:


> Ah, okay. I don't see why the "subjectivists" won't accept that it's psychoacoustics - they'd probably add that it's a presently unknown part of psychoacoustics though.


Are you really saying cognitive bias is an unknown part of psychoacoustics? Its probably one of the best understood psychological effects in the world. A big reason to why they won't accept this is because it makes them admit their are fallible. Not everybody can accept that they are fallible and influenced by bias and existing preconceptions.


xand said:


> The market size of homeopathic products is .. scary.


Just like the market of audiophile snake oil.


----------



## xand

Koei said:


> I understand they have vested interest in keeping the status quo. Your argument about patents make no sense though, there are fields where proving you are the best does hold real value: pro audio.



It only has value for the time that you, and only you, can make the best products. 

However, if you protect something as a patent, this lasts only for the duration of the patent protection. 

Accordingly, trade secrets are an appropriate route for protection if it is difficult/impossible for the competition to figure out what you did. For other fields patents are king because reverse engineering is easy/possible.



Koei said:


> Are you really saying cognitive bias a an unknown part of psychoacoustics? Its probably one of the best understood psychological effects in the world. A big reason to why they won't accept this is because it makes them admit their are fallible. Not everybody can accept that they are fallible and influenced by bias and existing preconceptions.


Nah, I have no idea why cables sound different. Sure it could be cognitive bias.. *shrug*.



Koei said:


> Just like the market of audiophile snake oil.


Oh is that really huge? I expect it's maybe 1b/year max, given that the entire audio market is only about 25b/year. - homeopathy is anywhere from 5-20 b/year.


----------



## Koei

xand said:


> It only has value for the time that you, and only you, can make the best products.
> 
> However, if you protect something as a patent, this lasts only for the duration of the patent protection.
> 
> Accordingly, trade secrets are an appropriate route for protection if it is difficult/impossible for the competition to figure out what you did. For other fields patents are king because reverse engineering is easy/possible.


In that case the government should step in. False advertising is not allowed in many countries.


xand said:


> Nah, I have no idea why cables sound different. Sure it could be cognitive bias.. *shrug*.


Cognitive bias is the only explanation since measurements and DBT's already have shown there is no difference otherwise.


xand said:


> Oh is that really huge? I expect it's maybe 1b/year max, given that the entire audio market is only about 25b/year. - homeopathy is anywhere from 5-20 b/year.


You forget about the impact it has on the hobby. It kills the reputation with the general public.


----------



## BubisUK

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OGC....=xXMZ8Bx/+itI5bhsro7KwABOyjNBPum9J5RKsKH5uzQ= 
I love this thread 😄


----------



## castleofargh

redrol said:


> Yes they are flawed.  This is the one forum where you are required to post proof.  Your emotional response is not going to work here.


I don't agree with the ”just listen” approach when discussing what should or shouldn't be called a fact,  but @HiFiHawaii808  and @Redcarmoose talked about IEMs and IEM cables. Which is where anything weird can happen. Specifically some IEMs will have very wild impedance swings and values going as low as the lowest passive speakers. As a result, even relatively small impedance changes from the DAP, the cable, or both, can result in clearly audible and very much measurable changes in frequency response.
Other stuff might end up audible in a case by case situation, but potentially audible FR change is not uncommon.
Now is spending serious money on a cable that will mainly do a little EQ you're statistically unlikely to enjoy, worth it? I’m not sure.


----------



## Northern

castleofargh said:


> Specifically some IEMs will have very wild impedance swings and values going as low as the lowest passive speakers. As a result, even relatively small impedance changes from the DAP, the cable, or both, can result in clearly audible and very much measurable changes in frequency response.


I haven't seen any tests about what you are describing. Where did you come across this?


----------



## BubisUK

This sums up my view on cables pretty much  
I do buy cables for my iem's all the time, but never managed to hear anything different be it pure silver cable or cristal clear oxygen free copper litz cable trenched in unicorn tears 😄 
But if someone does perceive a difference, kudos to them, I have no problem with that, it is their money in the end of the day.


----------



## xand

BubisUK said:


> This sums up my view on cables pretty much



Actually the right side cable raw material cost is about 1 buck.. Not fair to put retail on the right side and raw material cost on the left side. 

😬


----------



## BubisUK

xand said:


> Actually the right side cable raw material cost is about 1 buck.. Not fair to put retail on the right side and raw material cost on the left side.
> 
> 😬


Well the cables inside the iem probably costs 0.02 and not 0.50 as well and dont forget to add unicorn tears cost to the price of the cable 😄 But seriously it illustrates my point, nothing more.
I study psychology and I know how people can convince themselves about what ever they want to believe in if they want to, or how they try to defend their oppinions. There is really no point in arguing about something that involves one's beliefs.


----------



## xand

BubisUK said:


> I study psychology and I know how people can convince themselves about what ever they want to believe in if they want to, or how they try to defend their oppinions. There is really no point in arguing about something that involves one's beliefs.


Like.. A belief that cables cannot make a difference?


----------



## BubisUK

xand said:


> Like.. A belief that cables cannot make a difference?


If I can not hear it, I can not hear it, I wouldn't call that a belief, more a personal experience. I have tried a bunch of different cables, so unless you will send me some magical cable, there is nothing to discuss about 😄


----------



## xand

BubisUK said:


> If I can not hear it, I can not hear it, I wouldn't call that a belief, more a personal experience. I have tried a bunch of different cables, so unless you will send me some magical cable, there is nothing to discuss about 😄


 I know how people can convince themselves about what ever they want to believe in if they want to, or how they try to defend their oppinions. There is really no point in arguing about something that involves one's beliefs.


----------



## castleofargh

Northern said:


> I haven't seen any tests about what you are describing. Where did you come across this?


For the rational behind impedance and FR, you could take the case of the JH16 in my rant about DAP and amp feedback here: 
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/feedback-about-gears-stop-doing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/
Just imagine that instead of impedance changing because we swap the amp part, it's  changing because we swap cables. The FR variations of my JH13 are in the second graph. The flat red is the 0,4 ohm amp set as reference(why it's flat), green graph is the O2 at only 0.2 ohm more than the reference amp, but already we have over 1dB of total tilt.
if you start swapping cables, you will often enough get more than 0,2ohm between them. I know it feels weird because a short electrical cable shouldn't  show such amount, in total. But in practice, having cable from say 0.5 to 1.5ohm isn't rare(really thin stuff, heavy breading, the connectors. Things do add up rapidly somehow.)
And that's only talking about reasonable cables made with typical electrical specs in mind. If you start considering some at say 10ohm that were made for a specific IEM as final tuning, and you try that on other IEMs, who knows how big the impact could be on the FR, and at this point, perhaps even overal loudness?
And if we count what someone can make special and sell as audiophile stuff for 2 extra zero in the price, the possibilities are endless. Werd impedance, monstruous capacitance...

Also the JH13 was the worst example I had, the impedance fluctuates and reaches as low as 10ohm. Nowadays, some popular IEMs do the same roller-coaster over frequency, but reach 4ohm.
So anytime we happen to bring together 2 cables with a good impedance difference, low impedance DAPs and extreme multi driver IEMs, we get the maximum amount of FR change.

Another thread on the subject with the same noob ready to measure anything but IEM cables apparently ^_^.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/in-...bles-could-make-an-audible-difference.816311/
This time I shamelessly added resistors in series to show FR variation. The questions remain the same, can 2 cables show a big enough impedance difference? And will the IEM tested react strongly and make it audible? Because of course there are many IEMs that will pretty much sound the same into the very same situations.




I do believe there can be other stuff turning audible *sometimes*, mostly because of the amp section being ”meh”, and some amount of bad luck.


----------



## BubisUK (Apr 14, 2021)

I can give you a example that does not involve cables, where I thought something sounds better than the other thing.
   When I bought my M11 I thought it sounds way better then my BTR5 that I still had at a time, like it seemed to me the same music sounds somewhat richer and has more depth to it etc. Untill I did a blind listen test and couldn't really tell the difference between them two 😄
   But that is simply how our brains work. I like m11 so much and the whole experience using it just added up to me thinking it sounded so much better.
  There is much more to music reproduction than dac chips or wire materials. And I am not talking about something that is not measurable, but simple things like aesthetical appeal or tactile feel etc. that adds up to it all.
  We live in a wonderful time, where unless something is complete garbage it sounds perfectly fine and does not cost much and all we need to do is find the sound signature we like.


----------



## xand

castleofargh said:


> Nowadays, some popular IEMs do the same roller-coaster over frequency, but reach 4ohm.
> So anytime we happen to bring together 2 cables with a good impedance difference, low impedance DAPs and extreme multi driver IEMs, we get the maximum amount of FR change.


Yep.

To illustrate this: https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/shure-se846.php#rw3


----------



## xand

BubisUK said:


> When I bought my M11 I thought it sounds way better then my BTR5 that I still had at a time, like it seemed to me the same music sounds somewhat richer and has more depth to it etc. Untill I did a blind listen test and couldn't really tell the difference between them two 😄


I find it very difficult to do a true blind test. Do you have specific equipment to enable it? How do you level match?

Note that I'm not trying to convince you that cables make a difference - it might be better to respond to those questions in a new thread I created: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/physical-equipment-for-ab-testing.957257/


----------



## szore (Apr 14, 2021)

redrol said:


> Yes they are flawed.  This is the one forum where you are required to post proof.  Your emotional response is not going to work here.


You sound foolish. You're attitude is because you are insecure. Stop looking at "frequency charts" and *listen*......


----------



## BubisUK (Apr 14, 2021)

xand said:


> I find it very difficult to do a true blind test. Do you have specific equipment to enable it? How do you level match?
> 
> Note that I'm not trying to convince you that cables make a difference - it might be better to respond to those questions in a new thread I created: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/physical-equipment-for-ab-testing.957257/


I used one of those switch boxes where you can select the output/input and after some fidling it is not hard to set it all up so both sources at the same level. Did it a Techmoan style ( Jump to around 13 min.) 😄:


Honestly if I ever hear the difference from a cable I will post it here, I am open minded about everything, but for now it did not happened.


----------



## sander99

szore said:


> You sound like an asshole.


Unfortunately it can feel that way to newcomers in this forum who don't know or don't understand the reasons, the background and the history.
Very short the main points:
-We know for a fact that uncontrolled subjective listening is unreliable because human hearing perception is actually done by the brain not just using pure sound stimuli but also influenced by just about anything going on in the brain, input from other senses like what you see, what you think, what you know, what you expect, how you feel, etc. etc. It can even make you hear night and day differences where there is no audible difference.
-We know that because of the previous point - and often in combination with misleading or factual incorrect marketing - numerous factual incorrect convictions are widely accepted as "facts" in the audiophile community.

Just take a look at the thread https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ for examples.

So it should be clear that believing someone on his word that he heared this or that is not the way to gain reliable knowledge. And the problem is not so much to believe what he heared, but we don't know what of what he heared is due to audible sound and what is due to something else.


----------



## KeithPhantom

szore said:


> You sound foolish. You're attitude is because you are insecure. Stop looking at "frequency charts" and *listen*......


Because your ears are better than the fundamental instruments used to measure audio whether it be in electrical signals or as disturbances of the fluid we call air. I trust an analyzer more than my ears when evaluating audio and use my ears to listen to the result, but not to make any kind of decision.
As they said previously, you need evidence to support your argument over here.


----------



## szore

KeithPhantom said:


> Because your ears are better than the fundamental instruments used to measure audio whether it be in electrical signals or as disturbances of the fluid we call air. I trust an analyzer more than my ears when evaluating audio and use my ears to listen to the result, but not to make any kind of decision.
> As they said previously, you need evidence to support your argument over here.


uh, huh


----------



## inexactscience

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> Even Crinacle, the king of IEM measurements asserts that cables make a difference to sound.   I'll take his experience listening to over 833 IEMs in different configurations over an anonymous person post on a message board.



Ah, yes. @crinacle, who wrote this article on cables, in 2019, also happened to write "I’m sorry for making fun of cable believers last year" in a follow-up article exactly one year later. Both articles were written on April 1st as jokes and neither should be taken seriously. Yes, I would not take that "apology" seriously.

So yeah, everything in that 2019 "April Fool's" cable post is more or less false or accurately reflects the opposite of @crinacle's feelings on the matter.

Since you'll take @crinacle's experience on the matter, the conclusion is simple: cables don't make a difference*. I tagged the fellow here, so if I'm dead wrong, the king of in-ear fidelity can chime in and eviscerate me in a semi-public setting.

*unless the cable is f'd up


----------



## KeithPhantom

HiFiHawaii808 said:


> I'll take his experience listening to over 833 IEMs in different configurations over an anonymous person post on a message board.


And I’ll take empirical data rather than experiences and appeals to authority. *Cables just don’t make any difference within the threshold of hearing. Is that really that hard to understand when there’s graphs showing the “differences” and how minimal they are, if they even exist. *


----------



## Voxata

redrol said:


> Cables are the worst thing in this hobby imo.  The amount of wasted time effort and money is stunning.


Well, that's your opinion. I love having a soft, non microphonic cable with quality connectors and a nice weave and split. It's a great statement to a beautiful headphone I own and I enjoy very much.


----------



## earmonger

Yes, swap cables for build, looks, feel or eliminating microphonics.  Not to alter sound quality.


----------



## BIG POPPA

redrol said:


> Cables are the worst thing in this hobby imo.  The amount of wasted time effort and money is stunning.


It would suck to have your gear, if you can't hear the difference. Just saying


----------



## BIG POPPA

redrol said:


> AHEM!
> You people have the burden of proof. Post proof or this is considered placebo.


Dude your wallet is the the proof. You spend the money and like and keep the purchase, good purchase. You don't like the purchase and return the gear, bad purchase. Do it again till you get it right. If you need scientific proof if something works, this may not be the hobby for you. You are over your head.


----------



## KeithPhantom

BIG POPPA said:


> If you need scientific proof if something works, this may not be the hobby for you.


If you want fidelity to the source, you need to have proof (measurement data or other type of empirical data) that the equipment you are using is faithful to the source. Ears are not enough to determine this.


----------



## BIG POPPA

KeithPhantom said:


> If you want fidelity to the source, you need to have proof (measurement data or other type of empirical data) that the equipment you are using is faithful to the source. Ears are not enough to determine this.


For you............. You don't speak for everyone. If you truly believe that create a mini meet and show people with their gear that cables don't make a difference. Don't just talk about it, Do it, show the world you are right! Show me that I'm wrong please. I will bring my cables..... What do I know? only done it several times at the meets in Seattle


----------



## KeithPhantom

BIG POPPA said:


> Don't just talk about it, Do it, show the world you are right! Show me that I'm wrong please.


Logically, the burden of proof is on you to show us that we are wrong since you are the one making the positive claim that cables are audibly different. I’m in the null hypothesis position, it is the alternative that must be proven.


----------



## Tachyon88 (Apr 14, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> Dude your wallet is the the proof. You spend the money and like and keep the purchase, good purchase. You don't like the purchase and return the gear, bad purchase. Do it again till you get it right. If you need scientific proof if something works, this may not be the hobby for you. You are over your head.



Do you see the irony in your comment ?


----------



## Redcarmoose (Apr 15, 2021)

Science doesn’t have all the answers. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-grand-quest-for-a-unified-theory

Einstein’s Unified Theory was never proven. Only Jr. Scientists have to prove everything therefore it doesn’t exist. Real Scientists realize that there are millions of things which can’t prove but witness their existence.


----------



## xand

KeithPhantom said:


> Logically, the burden of proof is on you to show us that we are wrong since you are the one making the positive claim that cables are audibly different. I’m in the null hypothesis position, it is the alternative that must be proven.







Pretty sure the primary claim in this thread is that audio cables "DO NOT" make a difference


----------



## KeithPhantom

Redcarmoose said:


> Einstein’s Unified Theory was never proven. Only Jr. Scientists have to prove everything therefor it doesn’t exist. Real Scientists realize that there are millions of things which can’t prove but witness their existence.


1. Science does not know everything, but even if the experiments are out of reach, mathematically it can be proven. 
2. Science does know it’s limitations, but it does not resort to inventions of creative imaginations to explain currently not-well-understood phenomena. 
3. Your argument is a slippery slope
4. You have to provide the evidence to support your claims, not us.


----------



## KeithPhantom

xand said:


> Pretty sure the primary claim in this thread is that audio cables "DO NOT" make a difference


As I said, you cannot prove a negative. And this makes the question irrelevant in terms of logic. You have to prove that cables make a difference, if not, the null prevails.


----------



## Tachyon88

Redcarmoose said:


> Science doesn’t have all the answers. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-grand-quest-for-a-unified-theory
> 
> Einstein’s Unified Theory was never proven. Only Jr. Scientists have to prove everything therefor it doesn’t exist. Real Scientists realize that there are millions of things which can’t prove but witness their existence.



Like "dark matter" ?


----------



## Redcarmoose

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity


Tachyon88 said:


> Like "dark matter" ?


The problem in is gravity, it shows one way in the micro level and another in the large level. Even today this has not been fully explained. Even some scientists use different terminology but it’s the basic problem of The Theory Of Relatively.


----------



## Redcarmoose

KeithPhantom said:


> 1. Science does not know everything, but even if the experiments are out of reach, mathematically it can be proven.
> 2. Science does know it’s limitations, but it does not resort to inventions of creative imaginations to explain currently not-well-understood phenomena.
> 3. Your argument is a slippery slope
> 4. You have to provide the evidence to support your claims, not us.



It can not be proven in mathematical terms, that’s my point.


----------



## BubisUK (Apr 15, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> It would suck to have your gear, if you can't hear the difference. Just saying


Could you please let us know, what gear exactly you use and what cables on what songs makes audible differences and what they are? No need for long lists, just couple of examples would be enough. BGGAR style, you give us few songs and timestamps where there are differences and how you perceive them.

This at least would be helpful for everyone, as there are people who are not even signed up on the forum that read these threads (as I did for few years) and maybe want to get in to the hobby and being completely rude to everyone is no way to act on a public boards or represent the hobby you like.

Thank you


----------



## bigshot

The cost of the equipment isn't a good way to determine fidelity.


----------



## BIG POPPA

BubisUK said:


> Could you please let us know, what gear exactly you use and what cables on what songs makes audible differences and what they are? No need for long lists, just couple of examples would be enough. BGGAR style, you give us few songs and timestamps where there are differences and how you perceive them.
> 
> This at least would be helpful for everyone, as there are people who are not even signed up on the forum that read these threads (as I did for few years) and maybe want to get in to the hobby and being completely rude to everyone is no way to act on a public boards or represent the hobby you like.
> 
> Thank you


Oh my, Furutech Dps-4 with the FI-50 NCF IEC, FI-50 NCR plug, Synergistic Research  RED and Black Power cables just for starters, haven't got into headphone cables or IC's but the collection is long and distinguished, and power control. Nordost Hiemdall Audeze cable is the unicorn, Then the 18AWG croyed copper headphone cable from ALO is just legendary for the HD800's . My cable game is on point


----------



## Koei (Apr 15, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> Oh my, Furutech Dps-4 with the FI-50 NCF IEC, FI-50 NCR plug, Synergistic Research  RED and Black Power cables just for starters, haven't got into headphone cables or IC's but the collection is long and distinguished, and power control. Nordost Hiemdall Audeze cable is the unicorn, Then the 18AWG croyed copper headphone cable from ALO is just legendary for the HD800's . My cable game is on point


Lets put your money where your mouth is. Next Can Jam you take your HD800 and some cables of choice. They can be copper, silver, twisted, whatever you want as long as its just a wire, not something with an inductive, resistive or capacitive network. We will then hold a controlled ABX test and if you can differentiate between the cables I will pay you $2000, and if you cannot you will pay me $2000. Deal?

I'll even fly to the US to do it, but you pay for my ticket if you cannot pass the test.


----------



## bigshot

Oh my. Too bad. I’m sorry for you.


----------



## bfreedma

BIG POPPA said:


> Oh my, Furutech Dps-4 with the FI-50 NCF IEC, FI-50 NCR plug, Synergistic Research  RED and Black Power cables just for starters, haven't got into headphone cables or IC's but the collection is long and distinguished, and power control. Nordost Hiemdall Audeze cable is the unicorn, Then the 18AWG croyed copper headphone cable from ALO is just legendary for the HD800's . My cable game is on point



A few days ago, you ranted about and insulted a vendor who wouldn’t honor the warranty if you used non standard fuses.  You are not concerned with facts or audio quality, just on flexing your wallet.

Try again when you have any actual evidence to support your claims.  Sighted subjective opinions are not appropriate as a sole evaluation criteria here, not should they be.  Would you accept them when assessing a medical product?  I would assume so - who needs controlled testing or instrament based measurements.  Just take whatever dose you like and report “how you feel”, right?

People who refuse to think critically are a marketers dream.


----------



## sydneyaudio

BIG POPPA said:


> Oh my, Furutech Dps-4 with the FI-50 NCF IEC, FI-50 NCR plug, Synergistic Research  RED and Black Power cables just for starters, haven't got into headphone cables or IC's but the collection is long and distinguished, and power control. Nordost Hiemdall Audeze cable is the unicorn, Then the 18AWG croyed copper headphone cable from ALO is just legendary for the HD800's . My cable game is on point


Wow! Someone made a lot of money off you.....


----------



## KeithPhantom

Redcarmoose said:


> It can not be proven in mathematical terms, that’s my point.


So this is speculation, not science. If you do not have a a theoretical framework, you clearly do not understand enough and more research is needed. And also, claiming something exists without evidence of any kind is akin to making up a concept.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Redcarmoose said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
> 
> The problem in is gravity, it shows one way in the micro level and another in the large level. Even today this has not been fully explained. Even some scientists use different terminology but it’s the basic problem of The Theory Of Relatively.


Not understanding =! Science is wrong. We just do not have enough understanding, but doesn’t mean science is wrong even if the whole model is wrong, because science will use other models to get it right in that case. Even the field of quantum is not completely understood, doesn’t mean e are automatically wrong, especially when proponents of your position ignore the evidence these models provide that is accurate.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Apr 15, 2021)

Science has Theories.

Theory at times is not 100% proven because we don’t know 100% of what is happening. Cables are for me fairly straight forward as far  as working out. Silver cables on IEM can offer more treble energy. Also pure copper is warmer but not always. Cables are pretty much accepted as changing the sound in most of all the Sony Threads. The IER-Z1R has an included cables which is fantastic. The Kimber cables for the MDR-Z1R is used by a lot of people in the MDR-Z1R thread and it makes a big difference. These are issues that most come to Head-Fi and learn to find improvement in sound. I simply understand it as it being in the fringe area of testing; that the subtle changes are not able to always be fully measured. The impedance changes brought on by different IEM cables are openly measured and provided proof of cable sound difference. Have you not seen the impedance adaptors? They will change the sound of IEMs or allow a reduction in hiss with various amps. IEM cables totally change the sound.


Truly this is important as people can fine tune their headphones or IEMs into a sound that they are more attracted to. I would really be missing out if I used the stock cable for my MDR-Z7 and MDR-Z1R.  There is a multitude of corrections which take place in using the Kimber cable.

I use different cables on 18 different IEMs. At times it’s to join them with different amps but it is also to try and find the best sound possible. Though I don’t spend more than $300 on an aftermarket cable. So I’m not really a cable fanatic. Right at the moment there’s the case of the BLON BL-01, the IEM is under $30.00 and will slowly change sound as your mind get used to it. For some it is three days and for others it is two weeks, but the detail and treble change. We do not know exactly why this takes place, but it is most likely mental burn in. The “fix” is to buy a silver cable. Most of the time these $20 cables are not even silver, they are tin coated copper, but this changes the sound back to an interesting level of detail once more. This has been experienced by countless people with the BL-01. Basically if you don’t change cable the IEM is unlistenable, boring.

Most of Head-Fi believe cables change the sound.


----------



## redrol

And yet it is fully placebo and does nothing as measured.


> Basically if you don’t change cable the IEM is unlistenable, boring.


Are you trying to convince yourself the 01 is good?  It isnt that great, I tried it for 10 mins and gave it away.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Apr 15, 2021)

The BLON BL-01 is a product that takes some adjusting.

This is where I place it.

Sony IER-Z1R
Noble Audio Encore K-10
DUNU ZEN
DUNU SA6
Sony XBA-Z5
qdc Anole v3
Thieaudio L4
See Audio Yume
Sony XBA-N3
KB EAR Lark
Tripowin TC-01
BLON BL-01
BGVP DM6
Fearless S6Rui
BQEYZ Spring 2
BQEYZ BQ3
Sony XBA-100
Magaosi K5


So you see I place it pretty high up. Also don’t know if you ever did the inverse tip mod, probably not as you only spent 10 minutes with it. But the cable and tip mod do a lot!


----------



## redrol (Apr 15, 2021)

[edit] thats cool, it's an ok set, underwhelming for me and not an upgrade from the 03.  

On a side note I do enjoy using my POS blon cables on the most expensive IEMs and of course hear no differences.    Maybe I should try a KZ cable instead hahaha


----------



## Redcarmoose

The real one to try would be the Tripowin TC-01. 



redrol said:


> And yet it is fully placebo and does nothing as measured.
> 
> Are you trying to convince yourself the 01 is good?  It isnt that great, I tried it for 10 mins and gave it away.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Sorry my bad?


redrol said:


> Is the Fearless SA6 the Dunu SA6?  Or.. am i missing something


----------



## redrol

Fearless S6 maybe?


----------



## Redcarmoose

I’ve seen all your latest reviews great work! 


redrol said:


> [edit] thats cool, it's an ok set, underwhelming for me and not an upgrade from the 03.
> 
> On a side note I do enjoy using my POS blon cables on the most expensive IEMs and of course hear no differences.    Maybe I should try a KZ cable instead hahaha


----------



## redrol

Thank you man!!  I do find it interesting you rate the 01 so highly.  Maybe I should give it another try


----------



## Redcarmoose

redrol said:


> Fearless S6 maybe?


I’ve already fixed it.


----------



## redrol

Oh ok, lol. For a minute I was like, I must have missed another Fearless!  haha


----------



## Redcarmoose (Apr 15, 2021)

Again though the Tripowin TC-01 is a lot of the same. Also your of course not alone in how you feel about the BL01.

TC-01 is better on all levels if your wanting to try a single DD. Especially since you used to like the Z5.


----------



## redrol

I still have the Z5!  It's a really damn fine IEM.  Dunno if I'll ever sell it


----------



## Koei

Redcarmoose said:


> Science has Theories.
> 
> Theory at times is not 100% proven because we don’t know 100% of what is happening. Cables are for me fairly straight forward as far  as working out. Silver cables on IEM can offer more treble energy. Also pure copper is warmer but not always. Cables are pretty much accepted as changing the sound in most of all the Sony Threads. The IER-Z1R has an included cables which is fantastic. The Kimber cables for the MDR-Z1R is used by a lot of people in the MDR-Z1R thread and it makes a big difference. These are issues that most come to Head-Fi and learn to find improvement in sound. I simply understand it as it being in the fringe area of testing; that the subtle changes are not able to always be fully measured. The impedance changes brought on by different IEM cables are openly measured and provided proof of cable sound difference. Have you not seen the impedance adaptors? They will change the sound of IEMs or allow a reduction in hiss with various amps. IEM cables totally change the sound.
> 
> ...


You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how science and the scientific method works.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Koei said:


> You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how science and the scientific method works.


Enlighten me.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Redcarmoose said:


> Enlighten me.


Grasshopper: When you can snatch the pebble from my hand 

I unsubscribed from this thread and now I have to do it all over again!


----------



## Koei

Redcarmoose said:


> Enlighten me.


Your argument boils down to that everything in science is a theory and thus is unproven and can be easily ignored in favor of pseudo-science.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Not at all many things are proven. Just not everything.


Koei said:


> Your argument boils down to that everything in science is a theory and thus is unproven and can be easily ignored in favor of pseudo-science.


----------



## castleofargh

Theoretical scientists get the extra word for a reason. Let's not mistake their work with that of someone measuring an audio signal. Same with the enigma  that is gravity, or ”missing” matter in the universe,  against people who decide that things always happen as long as they felt like it did


szore said:


> You sound foolish. You're attitude is because you are insecure. Stop looking at "frequency charts" and *listen*......


Some functions require overconfidence, but figuring out the truth is rarely among them.
We also probably have a divergence of opinion about what it means to _*listen*_.









Einstein was maybe not The G.O.A.T, but not far from it.





Synergistic research  . How to lose all credibility in 2 magestic words.


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 15, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> Theoretical scientists get the extra word for a reason. Let's not mistake their work with that of someone measuring an audio signal. Same with the enigma  that is gravity, or ”missing” matter in the universe,  against people who decide that things always happen as long as they felt like it did
> Some functions require overconfidence, but figuring out the truth is rarely among them.
> We also probably have a divergence of opinion about what it means to _*listen*_.
> Einstein was maybe not The G.O.A.T, but not far from it.
> *Synergistic research  . How to lose all credibility in 2 magestic words.*




That's a "*HOT*" take...


----------



## bigshot (Apr 15, 2021)

Redcarmoose said:


> Most of Head-Fi believe cables change the sound.



Yeah. There's a sucker born every minute.



Redcarmoose said:


> So you see I place it pretty high up.



OK... so?


----------



## 71 dB

Redcarmoose said:


> Most of Head-Fi believe cables change the sound.


This sad fact gives us an answer to the question asked in this thread: _*"How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?"*_

The answer clearly is: _*You don't!*_


----------



## Redcarmoose

bigshot said:


> OK... so?


I was off topic, except for that particular IEM is noted as one that after a while the community find it to sound lackluster. At that point the solution is to change to a slightly different cable to “fix” the issue.


----------



## KeithPhantom

71 dB said:


> This sad fact gives us an answer to the question asked in this thread: _*"How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference?"*_
> 
> The answer clearly is: _*You don't!*_


He question also implies another: *do cables even make an audible difference?*


----------



## chef8489

KeithPhantom said:


> He question also implies another: *do cables even make an audible difference?*


Only to the people that are convinced they so. Placebo is powerful.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Koei said:


> Lets put your money where your mouth is. Next Can Jam you take your HD800 and some cables of choice. They can be copper, silver, twisted, whatever you want as long as its just a wire, not something with an inductive, resistive or capacitive network. We will then hold a controlled ABX test and if you can differentiate between the cables I will pay you $2000, and if you cannot you will pay me $2000. Deal?
> 
> I'll even fly to the US to do it, but you pay for my ticket if you cannot pass the test.


Why does it have to be Can Jam? One thing you are not thinking of is Metallurgy. Silver cables and copper cables sound different. Gold connectors and Rhodium Connectors sound different. Processes like cryo'ing and quantum tunneling sound different. AWG sounds different. My 32 gauge headphone cable sounds different than the 24AWG cable. Will happy to organize a meet so we can do this in a public setting with a crowd. Only organize around 50 meets in the last 15 years. I have nothing to hide like Amir from ASR or Gene from audioholics. Bring it to Seattle. My gear is dialed in ready to go. BRING IT TO SEATTLE, I AM WAITING!!!! Beat your chest all you want on the internet. Do it in Person!!!


----------



## Signal2Noise

KeithPhantom said:


> He question also implies another: *do cables even make an audible difference?*


Yes they do. If they’re not connected, there will be no audio.


----------



## ultraman31

So just a thought, if recording was done with different type of cable connecting to the microphone, would the sound be different?


----------



## Redcarmoose (Apr 16, 2021)

The time that the recording took place is lost. Lost in time. There is no way to retrieve it even if it could be somehow played along side the recording for reference. Much of the time the end result may even be better than the original. Muti-track and effects can conjure up an amazing artistic statement, but it is not the original music.

So the only way to judge reproduction is emotion. Emotional response is all we have. The studio monitors are all different and not  one studio sounds the same as the next. So these circles of confusion are what we have of a reproduction. Some may be closer in some ways and other much farther (from the original) away. All we can hope to achieve is something entertaining. There is no professional standard of recording......maybe someday?


ultraman31 said:


> So just a thought, if recording was done with different type of cable connecting to the microphone, would the sound be different?


Think about the variables in replay. Especially full size. Every transducer fits the listeners head different. The outside of the ear amplifies the sound different for each listener. The angle of the drivers/ the seal of the cups. Everything is different for each individual. That is in addition to different volume levels, as each driver has a variable frequency response to volume. What is the listening level? The ear drum is a different distance per listener. And on and on.....

So every frequency response graph has to be taken with a grain of salt as 80% of a couplers sound is FR. The rest (the less tangible) such as imaging, dynamics, soundstage....everything changes at different volume levels.


----------



## bfreedma

BIG POPPA said:


> Why does it have to be Can Jam? One thing you are not thinking of is Metallurgy. Silver cables and copper cables sound different. Gold connectors and Rhodium Connectors sound different. Processes like cryo'ing and quantum tunneling sound different. AWG sounds different. My 32 gauge headphone cable sounds different than the 24AWG cable. Will happy to organize a meet so we can do this in a public setting with a crowd. Only organize around 50 meets in the last 15 years. I have nothing to hide like Amir from ASR or Gene from audioholics. Bring it to Seattle. My gear is dialed in ready to go. BRING IT TO SEATTLE, I AM WAITING!!!! Beat your chest all you want on the internet. Do it in Person!!!



Anyone who ever needed evidence that marketing works and placebo is powerful can stop looking now.  

Everything makes a difference and none of it can/has be measured showing audible impact other than extreme edge cases and IEM cables due to poor IEM design.  And these things only matter in audio, not any other application of cables and those materials.  According to those who have spent thousands anyway...

The internet tough guy routine is a nice added touch.


----------



## BIG POPPA

bfreedma said:


> Anyone who ever needed evidence that marketing works and placebo is powerful can stop looking now.
> 
> Everything makes a difference and none of it can/has be measured showing audible impact other than extreme edge cases and IEM cables due to poor IEM design.  And these things only matter in audio, not any other application of cables and those materials.  According to those who have spent thousands anyway...
> 
> The internet tough guy routine is a nice added touch.


All I'm saying what ever you believe is do it in a crowd, don't keep it a secret. Been doing it going on 15 years putting on meets in the NorthWest. I can organize more meets, not a big deal. Have a ton of meet threads here. Have a long track record putting on meets. Showing in person is what I do. So people if you have a beef, do it at a local meet with locals in attendance. Take pictures, ask for thoughts from the attendee's. Do it, just don't cry about it.


----------



## bfreedma

BIG POPPA said:


> All I'm saying what ever you believe is do it in a crowd, don't keep it a secret. Been doing it going on 15 years putting on meets in the NorthWest. I can organize more meets, not a big deal. Have a ton of meet threads here. Have a long track record putting on meets. Showing in person is what I do. So people if you have a beef, do it at a local meet with locals in attendance. Take pictures, ask for thoughts from the attendee's. Do it, just don't cry about it.



This isn’t about “beef”, this is simply about facts and physics.  No amount of sighted subjective opinion will change that.  Nor will general consensus of others who have not done proper controlled testing.  The reality is, audio follows the same electrical baseline properties as essentially any other application of a cable.  Audio isn’t special, and it doesn’t have an alternate set of the laws of physics.

Rather oddly, it’s the cable manufacturers who either don’t have evidence to support their claims or are keeping it secret. Even more oddly, far more people who understand the science in play here have done controlled testing than the people who claim cables make a “night and day difference”.  Perhaps most oddly, cable believers consistently refuse to participate in a properly controlled test.  Nor will they accept the results of a simple null test showing no audible difference in the measured output of multiple cables.

All a boutique cable manufacturer has to do to convince me (and I suspect others here) is to conduct reasonable blind testing or show valid data indicating their product is audibly superior.  I would be first in line to purchase.  Yet no boutique cable vendor does this - don’t they want to sell more of their cables?


----------



## lasker98 (Apr 16, 2021)

Simple experiment assuming your system is resolving enough to show differences (not meant in any negative way, just an obvious requirement to notice any audible changes): take your basic interconnects, power cable (AC or DC), ethernet cable or usb cable and wrap it with 2 or 3 layers of good quality electrical tape. Make sure to also wrap as much of the connector body itself as possible.
If no audible difference is noticed then no point wasting your money on expensive cables. If difference is heard then you have some decisions to make.
If someone is not prepared to make this simple experiment, while at the same time advocating double blind and other testing, even though they may be unwilling to pay for an upgraded cable, then please stop with the cables make no difference arguments.


----------



## BIG POPPA

bfreedma said:


> This isn’t about “beef”, this is simply about facts and physics.  No amount of sighted subjective opinion will change that.  Nor will general consensus of others who have not done proper controlled testing.  The reality is, audio follows the same electrical baseline properties as essentially any other application of a cable.  Audio isn’t special, and it doesn’t have an alternate set of the laws of physics.
> 
> Rather oddly, it’s the cable manufacturers who either don’t have evidence to support their claims or are keeping it secret. Even more oddly, far more people who understand the science in play here have done controlled testing than the people who claim cables make a “night and day difference”.  Perhaps most oddly, cable believers consistently refuse to participate in a properly controlled test.  Nor will they accept the results of a simple null test showing no audible difference in the measured output of multiple cables.
> 
> All a boutique cable manufacturer has to do to convince me (and I suspect others here) is to conduct reasonable blind testing or show valid data indicating their product is audibly superior.  I would be first in line to purchase.  Yet no boutique cable vendor does this - don’t they want to sell more of their cables?


Have you heard any systems that where put together by blind testing that sounded any good?
I know Synergistic Research invites engineers to measure their gear And is willing to pay 100 bucks an hour for 8 hours and all expenses for gene of audioholics to come measure anything of his choice at the factory, in the state of the art demo room.
In some cases I feel some people do not know how to critical listen to gear. Some things I look for listening to cables. do the cables create a bigger or smaller soundstage. Are the vocals pushed back or up real close. Is the bass bloated or tight and fast. Do these cables sound warm and pleasant or cold and analytical. How would you describe the instrument placement. These are some of the points I listen for when critically listening to cables.


----------



## KeithPhantom (Apr 16, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> In some cases I feel some people do not know how to critical listen to gear.


The point is that you are arguing that human ears and brains are better than an analizer with way better ability to detect nonlinearities and any other irregular characteristics of sound. You are assuming that human brains cannot be fooled by themselves (expectation bias)   Your ears are not special in any way, measurements can hear all of what you can hear *plus what you cannot. *


----------



## Tachyon88

Man, a few years into this hobby and I think I need to start some heavy reading into psychology. I think some are already deep into the sunk cost fallacy without realizing it and it has become a "worldview" of audio.


----------



## BIG POPPA

KeithPhantom said:


> The point is that you are arguing that human ears and brains are better than an analizer with way better ability to detect nonlinearities and any other irregular characteristics of sound. You are assuming that human brains cannot be fooled by themselves (expectation bias)   Your ears are not special in any way, measurements can hear all of what you can hear *plus what you cannot. *


With over 20+ spending my own money in this hobby. Building cables and circuits. Kinda learned a few things along the way. Build a few different cables and measure them. Borrow cables or use the cable co's lending library and learn what different cables do Like the difference between a RJ 45 Lan Cable and a RJ45 I2s cable. Digital cables can be tricky because of the specs they require. IC's can be straight forward until you start using different  Different Metallurgy, Geometry's, Dielectrics and conductors. Balanced can sound different than single end because in most cases balanced gear will give twice the voltage to balanced cables than single ended. I believe the Sonnet Morpheus will pump out 4v balanced and 2 volts Single ended Will find out tomorrow when I get it.. That will make the cables sound different just from the gain.


----------



## 71 dB

BIG POPPA said:


> Have you heard any systems that where put together by blind testing that sounded any good?
> I know Synergistic Research invites engineers to measure their gear And is willing to pay 100 bucks an hour for 8 hours and all expenses for gene of audioholics to come measure anything of his choice at the factory, in the state of the art demo room.
> In some cases I feel some people do not know how to critical listen to gear. Some things I look for listening to cables. do the cables create a bigger or smaller soundstage. Are the vocals pushed back or up real close. Is the bass bloated or tight and fast. Do these cables sound warm and pleasant or cold and analytical. How would you describe the instrument placement. These are some of the points I listen for when critically listening to cables.



My own gear sounds good when I listen to a recording that sounds good (is well produced) . It sounds bad when the recording sounds bad (is badly produced). Good music sounds good. Bad music sounds bad. All of it makes sense.

How do you take into account the effect of placebo? If something sounds cold and analytical do you think it is supposed to sound that way or that placebo makes it to you that way? What about spending money into acoustic panels instead of cables? Don't you think acoustics has an effect to instrument placement or bass being bloated?

I studied electric engineering in university and there where zero courses about how snake oil affects electric signals. So, excuse me if my mindset is this way, thinking this cable thing is about some people making their living by selling snake oil to gullible people.


----------



## castleofargh (Apr 17, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> Have you heard any systems that where put together by blind testing that sounded any good?


Have you ever seen a system put together by blind testing? I have not.

Blind tests to check for audible differences, the ones typically used when cables are involved, are not for judging sound quality. They are setup to try and disprove the null hypothesis(the idea that the cables will audibly be the same).
Each test is made to answer a question. If you want to test for subjective preference, you can, but how many of the blind tests you're thinking of, were about answering subjective taste?

Now if the tests were set to pick the preferred sound, and you still think they never did well, how do you explain that? The basis of testing for audio differences is not to do anything strange to sound itself. It's to try and control or remove the non audio variables so we can try to actually test the sound.
Suggesting that testing for sound preference never leads to preferred sound is a strange idea, right? Or maybe it isn't if we consider that for most people, the feeling of good sound involves a lot more than sound. If part of the reason why you think some system is good, is determined by what you see and what you've been told, then off course you would never get that feeling from a controlled test limited to sound.




BIG POPPA said:


> Balanced can sound different than single end because in most cases balanced gear will give twice the voltage to balanced cables than single ended. I believe the Sonnet Morpheus will pump out 4v balanced and 2 volts Single ended Will find out tomorrow when I get it.. That will make the cables sound different just from the gain.


Yes, you're correct. Different cables often result in different voltage outputs, balanced or not, audible or not. I’m of the opinion that the volume knob on my amp favorably replaces a bunch of cables for that role.
Also, if you were even remotely involved in controlled tests, you'd know that matching volume levels is always in the checklist(unless we're actually testing the impact of changing loudness).
So when we discuss audible differences, we assume that people aren't talking about gain or cutting one cable with a pair of scissors. Maybe we need to mention that more often?

Notice that while I can't seem to stand by almost any of your arguments, I was defending the possibility of audible impact from swapping IEM cables(other than just loudness), just a few pages ago.
I specify this so you understand that unlike you, my reason to think most of your posts in this thread are nonsense, isn't simply driven by running away from cognitive dissonance and the wish to protect a belief that cables can't impact sound.
Seeing you regurgitate all the famous lines from cable snake oil marketing is hard to take seriously. ”quantum tunneling sounds different”, really? How lost are you to go write that amazing line?
If you're actually curious about quantum mechanic, but like me and almost everybody else, you don't understand much, I strongly recommend anything involving Brian Greene(as a host or alone, he has a talent for explaining in layman's terms) on youtube. Spoiler, not many answers. But it's interesting to see how leading experts on the topic, can't seem to muster a tenth of the confidence a silly cable propaganda can have. Could it be that those marketing cable guys are full of crap and know exactly what they're doing? Yes, definitely yes!


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 17, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> With over 20+ spending my own money in this hobby. Building cables and circuits. Kinda learned a few things along the way. Build a few different cables and measure them. Borrow cables or use the cable co's lending library and learn what different cables do Like the difference between a RJ 45 Lan Cable and a RJ45 I2s cable. Digital cables can be tricky because of the specs they require. IC's can be straight forward until you start using different  Different Metallurgy, Geometry's, Dielectrics and conductors. Balanced can sound different than single end because in most cases balanced gear will give twice the voltage to balanced cables than single ended. I believe the Sonnet Morpheus will pump out 4v balanced and 2 volts Single ended Will find out tomorrow when I get it.. That will make the cables sound different just from the gain.



Sounds like you have 20+ years of reading and believing audiophile marketing spew.  The posts above explain how absurd and contradictory your views are, so I’ll only add one question:

All humans (even Big Poppa) are subject to placebo and other bias.  How do you manage to avoid such an obvious root cause while accepting every manufacturers “unicorn dust” rational?

Lastly - Gain?  Seriously?  Do boutique manufacturers forget to include volume potentiation on their amps?


----------



## PhonoPhi

BIG POPPA said:


> With over 20+ spending my own money in this hobby. Building cables and circuits. Kinda learned a few things along the way. Build a few different cables and measure them. Borrow cables or use the cable co's lending library and learn what different cables do Like the difference between a RJ 45 Lan Cable and a RJ45 I2s cable. Digital cables can be tricky because of the specs they require. IC's can be straight forward until you start using different  Different Metallurgy, Geometry's, Dielectrics and conductors. Balanced can sound different than single end because in most cases balanced gear will give twice the voltage to balanced cables than single ended. I believe the Sonnet Morpheus will pump out 4v balanced and 2 volts Single ended Will find out tomorrow when I get it.. That will make the cables sound different just from the gain.


Let me at least debunk your "metallurgy" claims. While the differences between high purity copper, e.g. 5 N, 6 N, etc, low-defect of different kinds are real and can be measured by analytical techniques and visualized by several microscopies - we have not seen ANY evidence so far that this difference translates to any significant effects that can be distinguished reliably, proven by proper blind tests. Yet the pretense is huge, take graphene for instance.


----------



## BIG POPPA

PhonoPhi said:


> Let me at least debunk your "metallurgy" claims. While the differences between high purity copper, e.g. 5 N, 6 N, etc, low-defect of different kinds are real and can be measured by analytical techniques and visualized by several microscopies - we have not seen ANY evidence so far that this difference translates to any significant effects that can be distinguished reliably, proven by proper blind tests. Yet the pretense is huge, take graphene for instance.


You haven't debunked anything? You gave an opinion. You haven't done the work in the hobby to find out at all. Which I have. Have an amp with 2 inputs and can switch them effortlessly. Put on a meet show people what you found out first hand. That's what I do. Put up or shut up. Do it.


----------



## KeithPhantom

PhonoPhi said:


> we have not seen ANY evidence so far that this difference translates to any significant effects that can be distinguished reliably


You call that an opinion? He’s just citing there’s no evidence that the purity of metals affects the sound of the cables.


----------



## BIG POPPA

All you people need to show your beliefs in a crowd with your gear. In Seattle I will bring mine and we can do it in person. Will set up the meet. Show me with your gear, demonstrate it. Then I will show you mine. My demo is too easy, it will destroy everyone's arguments, that easy to do with my gone through Singlepower MPX3 and Sonnet Morpheus DAC. What gear would you bring? Tell me the gear you would bring to prove me wrong?


----------



## BIG POPPA

One thing on my SinglePower MPX3, one set of inputs is Furutech FT903 Gold, the other Is Furutech FP 901 Rhodium. Just giving a heads up....


----------



## KeithPhantom

BIG POPPA said:


> All you people need to show your beliefs in a crowd with your gear. In Seattle I will bring mine and we can do it in person. Will set up the meet. Show me with your gear, demonstrate it. Then I will show you mine. My demo is too easy, it will destroy everyone's arguments, that easy to do with my gone through Singlepower MPX3 and Sonnet Morpheus DAC. What gear would you bring? Tell me the gear you would bring to prove me wrong?


We don’t “show out beliefs”, we just follow science. All audio gear can be measured and there are standard agreed upon most of the scientific community that are the benchmark of the equipment we use. Not only that, these standards are based on the fundamental nature of sound and electronics, down to the inner workings of a single resistor all the way up to the complexity an amplifier or a digital-to-analog converter shows. This is not about believing, this is about the fundamentals that define audio in electric, aerodynamic, and psychoacoustic terms.


----------



## Tachyon88

BIG POPPA said:


> All you people need to show your beliefs in a crowd with your gear. In Seattle I will bring mine and we can do it in person. Will set up the meet. Show me with your gear, demonstrate it. Then I will show you mine. My demo is too easy, it will destroy everyone's arguments, that easy to do with my gone through Singlepower MPX3 and Sonnet Morpheus DAC. What gear would you bring? Tell me the gear you would bring to prove me wrong?



You actually have already been proven wrong, lol. Your wallet as some of your "proof" was a pretty strong argument though./s

Since you're a big spender and the honey's love you and the homies wanna be you, why not buy a measuring rig and show us the FR changse of all of your cables on your favorite headphones. That would save everyone the wasted trip just for you to flex your gear, ears and purchase validation.


----------



## Tachyon88

@Redcarmoose I agree with your sentiment, but Its a cable, not theoretical abstract mathematics, changing mainstream paradigms or philosophy of science.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Tachyon88 said:


> @Redcarmoose I agree with your sentiment, but Its a cable, not theoretical abstract mathematics, changing mainstream paradigms or philosophy of science.


Even the physics of a cable can change. We can be wrong in our theoretical models that we use to describe the real world. But until then, there has to be evidence showing that there’s a change, repeatability, and peer review before changing the null hypothesis. Science is always changing, and we don’t know where it could take us. But it also seems that we have a decent understanding with our current models.


----------



## BIG POPPA

KeithPhantom said:


> You call that an opinion? He’s just citing there’s no evidence that the purity of metals affects the sound of the cables.


@PhonoPhi , he did not find out by his own work, just quoted somebody else. Which has not been proven. There is no proof. Me on the other hand. I have the gear that will prove beyond a doubt that it does work. Done it Seattle meet for years. Where are the meet impressions that cables don't work? Would like to read those threads. Would like to read about rigs that were put together by scientific method. Where are those threads and impressions to read about cables at meets not working? There is no work to read about cables not working or real posts from head-fiers auditioning gear that benefited for audio grade cables I.E. Power cables with IEC's and plugs, Interconnects with different metallurgy with different kinds of connectors, digital cables, or phono cables?. There are no such threads


----------



## BIG POPPA

KeithPhantom said:


> We don’t “show out beliefs”, we just follow science. All audio gear can be measured and there are standard agreed upon most of the scientific community that are the benchmark of the equipment we use. Not only that, these standards are based on the fundamental nature of sound and electronics, down to the inner workings of a single resistor all the way up to the complexity an amplifier or a digital-to-analog converter shows. This is not about believing, this is about the fundamentals that define audio in electric, aerodynamic, and psychoacoustic terms.


Now its beliefs....lol..... like religion....... Where are the people to show us that listening to gear because it sounds good is bad lol. I paid money and did the work to find out what works and what doesn't and my gear sounds good because of it. You can get anyone, Amir from ASR, I really don't care to represent your side of things and I will bring my gear to show how things really work. I will organize the meet. All you guys do is pull stuff from the internet, not do anything in person. What have you guys done in person to show how cables don't work to a guy who has so many cables to choose from to prove my point.  Do you guys know how the piezo electric effect works with cables. I can demonstrate with that one cable. That cables make a difference. What do you guys have to prove that wrong........ lol? Pick someone in Seattle, Please. Ask them to prove your point. I an very ready ........ lol.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Apr 18, 2021)

With a bias moderator do you really think you’ll find truth? You could have simply taken out the line if you didn’t like it. 

? 

So you erased the whole post? 
 Goodbye!


----------



## castleofargh

Redcarmoose said:


> With a bias moderator do you really think you’ll find truth?
> So, your going to delete my posts.....huh? Goodbye!


Seriously Red? I got a report on your post, you were asking how stupid another member is, so I removed it based on forum rules. And I also removed a reply that was quoting the insult. That guy has more reasons to be mad than you do.
I couldn't care less about the rest of the post. Post it again without insults and be amazed to witness that my moderation ’bias’ is suddenly gone.


----------



## PhonoPhi

BIG POPPA said:


> You haven't debunked anything? You gave an opinion. You haven't done the work in the hobby to find out at all. Which I have. Have an amp with 2 inputs and can switch them effortlessly. Put on a meet show people what you found out first hand. That's what I do. Put up or shut up. Do it.


If you have no evidence for some fact - it is your imagination, and no matter how loud and quasiconfident you are about it  - it is still your imagination.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 18, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> Now its beliefs....lol..... like religion....... Where are the people to show us that listening to gear because it sounds good is bad lol. I paid money and did the work to find out what works and what doesn't and my gear sounds good because of it. You can get anyone, Amir from ASR, I really don't care to represent your side of things and I will bring my gear to show how things really work. I will organize the meet. All you guys do is pull stuff from the internet, not do anything in person. What have you guys done in person to show how cables don't work to a guy who has so many cables to choose from to prove my point.  Do you guys know how the piezo electric effect works with cables. I can demonstrate with that one cable. That cables make a difference. What do you guys have to prove that wrong........ lol? Pick someone in Seattle, Please. Ask them to prove your point. I an very ready ........ lol.


For the interconnects, I have a simple scientific question for you - what happens when two different metals (e.g. gold and rhodium) are in contact, and why it may not be good for any audio signal transmission?


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 18, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> @PhonoPhi , he did not find out by his own work, just quoted somebody else. Which has not been proven. There is no proof. Me on the other hand. I have the gear that will prove beyond a doubt that it does work. Done it Seattle meet for years. Where are the meet impressions that cables don't work? Would like to read those threads. Would like to read about rigs that were put together by scientific method. Where are those threads and impressions to read about cables at meets not working? There is no work to read about cables not working or real posts from head-fiers auditioning gear that benefited for audio grade cables I.E. Power cables with IEC's and plugs, Interconnects with different metallurgy with different kinds of connectors, digital cables, or phono cables?. There are no such threads



There has been decades of work on these topics and until and if something new is presented, this is settled science.  No amount of hand waving and placebo ridden uncontrolled testing by you can or will change that.

Your suggestion that scientific knowledge isn’t valid until self tested is absurd.  I don’t need to jump off a tall building personally to prove gravity exists.

Time for you to submit actual proof of your claims or take your clownish attempts at intimidation and puffery elsewhere.  And no, your sighted subjective opinions are not in any way proof
.
Ted Denney, the owner of Synergistic Research (who you’ve stated you support) says thanks.  Do you enjoy the videos he posts driving his Ferrari and thanking the suckers who buy from him?  He posts them all the time.  Are you following Ted’s current attacks on Gene of Audioholics where he makes jokes about Gene’s nearly fatal bout with Covid, mocks his family, and continually threatens Gene?  That’s the person you support.

https://www.audioholics.com/editorials/synergistic-research


----------



## inexactscience

PhonoPhi said:


> For the interconnects I have a simple scientific question for you - what happens when two metals (e.g. gold and rhodium ) are in conract, and why it may not be good for any audio signal transmission?


It has something to do with the Pope drinking Gatorade messes with Texas, right? A Catholic in the presence of an electrolyte erases Galvelston? Or are we just talking about galvanic corrosion of two dissimilar metals when in electrical contact with each other? Which is one reason why gold is the connector of choice because it doesn't corrode, and rhodium an acceptable, though expensive, runner-up.


----------



## redrol (Apr 18, 2021)

I had to read that reply about 4 times and I still love it. 
Synergistic Research is a scammer and knows fully well he is selling fake products.


----------



## BIG POPPA

What is has to do with is this, show me, show the world that cables don't make a  difference with gear that works well with rolling cables, My LCD-3's are great to roll headphone  cables, So are tbe HD-800's. My totally gone through SinglePower MPX3 with lundahl transformer is awesome to roll RCA IC's since ir has 2 inputs and you can switch back and forth to your hearts content to hear different Cables. Then the Sonnet Morpheus DAC I2S wirh Denafrips Iris DDC. We can roll I2S cables. Have a Cardas and a Phasure I2S cables. I have the gear to demonstrate my point. Not 4th quarter armchair quarterbacking like some of you guys here. Just because you quote or reference somebody elses work doesn't make it yours to prove a point. Until you do the actual work listening to gear with audiophile grade cables you will never know by experience. Blue Jeans cables, canare star quad wire with nuetrik connectors, monoprice, or any other engineer grade cables don't count. They are for enineers in their studios, not for audio. I most of you are too cheap and lazy to go audition cables and learn how to impliment them successfully in your rigs. Where are the threads of demostrations proving Nordost or Synergistic Research cables dont work. I have them in my system and live with them day in and day out. Show me your actual proof rhat you guys actually did rhe work to find out??


----------



## bfreedma

BIG POPPA said:


> What is has to do with is this, show me, show the world that cables don't make a  difference with gear that works well with rolling cables, My LCD-3's are great to roll headphone  cables, So are tbe HD-800's. My totally gone through SinglePower MPX3 with lundahl transformer is awesome to roll RCA IC's since ir has 2 inputs and you can switch back and forth to your hearts content to hear different Cables. Then the Sonnet Morpheus DAC I2S wirh Denafrips Iris DDC. We can roll I2S cables. Have a Cardas and a Phasure I2S cables. I have the gear to demonstrate my point. Not 4th quarter armchair quarterbacking like some of you guys here. Just because you quote or reference somebody elses work doesn't make it yours to prove a point. Until you do the actual work listening to gear with audiophile grade cables you will never know by experience. *Blue Jeans cables, canare star quad wire with nuetrik connectors, monoprice, or any other engineer grade cables don't count. They are for enineers in their studios, not for audio*. I most of you are too cheap and lazy to go audition cables and learn how to impliment them successfully in your rigs. Where are the threads of demostrations proving Nordost or Synergistic Research cables dont work. I have them in my system and live with them day in and day out. Show me your actual proof rhat you guys actually did rhe work to find out??



LOL. Audio doesn’t matter for engineers, recording studios, and artists when the music is recorded, but does matter when that same music is played back at home?  Every time I think your position can’t get any less logical...


----------



## PhonoPhi

BIG POPPA said:


> What is has to do with is this, show me, show the world that cables don't make a  difference with gear that works well with rolling cables, My LCD-3's are great to roll headphone  cables, So are tbe HD-800's. My totally gone through SinglePower MPX3 with lundahl transformer is awesome to roll RCA IC's since ir has 2 inputs and you can switch back and forth to your hearts content to hear different Cables. Then the Sonnet Morpheus DAC I2S wirh Denafrips Iris DDC. We can roll I2S cables. Have a Cardas and a Phasure I2S cables. I have the gear to demonstrate my point. Not 4th quarter armchair quarterbacking like some of you guys here. Just because you quote or reference somebody elses work doesn't make it yours to prove a point. Until you do the actual work listening to gear with audiophile grade cables you will never know by experience. Blue Jeans cables, canare star quad wire with nuetrik connectors, monoprice, or any other engineer grade cables don't count. They are for enineers in their studios, not for audio. I most of you are too cheap and lazy to go audition cables and learn how to impliment them successfully in your rigs. Where are the threads of demostrations proving Nordost or Synergistic Research cables dont work. I have them in my system and live with them day in and day out. Show me your actual proof rhat you guys actually did rhe work to find out??


It feels similar as if we should prove that the Earth is not flat to you. Whatever you subjective impressions are, the scientific fact remain the truth despite your subjective opinion 

You did not bother to answer a simple scientific question addressed to you.
It speaks louder than your bully-like pretense..


----------



## KeithPhantom

BIG POPPA said:


> What is has to do with is this, show me, show the world that cables don't make a  difference with gear that works well with rolling cables, My LCD-3's are great to roll headphone  cables, So are tbe HD-800's. My totally gone through SinglePower MPX3 with lundahl transformer is awesome to roll RCA IC's since ir has 2 inputs and you can switch back and forth to your hearts content to hear different Cables. Then the Sonnet Morpheus DAC I2S wirh Denafrips Iris DDC. We can roll I2S cables. Have a Cardas and a Phasure I2S cables. I have the gear to demonstrate my point. Not 4th quarter armchair quarterbacking like some of you guys here. Just because you quote or reference somebody elses work doesn't make it yours to prove a point. Until you do the actual work listening to gear with audiophile grade cables you will never know by experience. Blue Jeans cables, canare star quad wire with nuetrik connectors, monoprice, or any other engineer grade cables don't count. They are for enineers in their studios, not for audio. I most of you are too cheap and lazy to go audition cables and learn how to impliment them successfully in your rigs. Where are the threads of demostrations proving Nordost or Synergistic Research cables dont work. I have them in my system and live with them day in and day out. Show me your actual proof rhat you guys actually did rhe work to find out??


Actually, it is *you *who has to provide evidence, not us. Cables do not make any difference, that’s the null hypothesis, your work is to provide that this is not the case.


----------



## chef8489

KeithPhantom said:


> Actually, it is *you *who has to provide evidence, not us. Cables do not make any difference, that’s the null hypothesis, your work is to provide that this is not the case.


Wasting breath on him. He will always hear a difference because he has to justify all he has spent and truly believes the marketing hype and its. Will never do a proper double blind test or proper measurements, and doesn't understand the science being audio, electricity, and metallurgy.


----------



## redrol

BIG POPPA said:


> What is has to do with is this, show me, show the world that cables don't make a  difference with gear that works well with rolling cables, My LCD-3's are great to roll headphone  cables, So are tbe HD-800's. My totally gone through SinglePower MPX3 with lundahl transformer is awesome to roll RCA IC's since ir has 2 inputs and you can switch back and forth to your hearts content to hear different Cables. Then the Sonnet Morpheus DAC I2S wirh Denafrips Iris DDC. We can roll I2S cables. Have a Cardas and a Phasure I2S cables. I have the gear to demonstrate my point. Not 4th quarter armchair quarterbacking like some of you guys here. Just because you quote or reference somebody elses work doesn't make it yours to prove a point. Until you do the actual work listening to gear with audiophile grade cables you will never know by experience. Blue Jeans cables, canare star quad wire with nuetrik connectors, monoprice, or any other engineer grade cables don't count. They are for enineers in their studios, not for audio. I most of you are too cheap and lazy to go audition cables and learn how to impliment them successfully in your rigs. Where are the threads of demostrations proving Nordost or Synergistic Research cables dont work. I have them in my system and live with them day in and day out. Show me your actual proof rhat you guys actually did rhe work to find out??



You have the burden of proving your cables make any difference not the other way around.    Good luck and godspeed.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 18, 2021)

As long as a cable is free from manufacturing defects and is designed to do the job it is doing, one cable sounds as good as any other. You can't improve beyond perfect transmission of the signal. Transparent is transparent. You can chalk up any subjective impressions to placebo and expectation bias.

The concept that cables used by engineers are not for audio is laughable. If this isn't trolling, it's Dunning-Kruger.


----------



## lasker98

This being the Sound Science part of Head-Fi I naively assumed the "Science" part implied at least some minimal effort at experimentation since experiments are such a huge part of science. Apparently that's not the case at all.
So far the only one doing any experimenting seems to be BIG POPPA while the remainder seem to be content to regurgitate their mis-guided beliefs with nothing of value to offer.
I can't believe I was stupid enough to get sucked into posting here.


----------



## chef8489

lasker98 said:


> This being the Sound Science part of Head-Fi I naively assumed the "Science" part implied at least some minimal effort at experimentation since experiments are such a huge part of science. Apparently that's not the case at all.
> So far the only one doing any experimenting seems to be BIG POPPA while the remainder seem to be content to regurgitate their mis-guided beliefs with nothing of value to offer.
> I can't believe I was stupid enough to get sucked into posting here.


As most of us have done a crap load of experimenting and measurements in the past and even been replies by engineers in here who are far more experienced than you or even myself. It's not how you think it is. I'd venture most of the people posting have experminted. @bigpoppa isnt experimenting. He is not doing any tests scientifically. He is just trying to throw around how much he spends and how everything sounds different without ant scientific proof. Your brain and ears will tell you whatever you want to believe. Its not until you do proper double blind tests your eyes and brain biases are removed. When your theories and ideas do not follow science, it's up to you to prove science is wrong, and not just by saying it does nor listening with full biases.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 18, 2021)

lasker98 said:


> This being the Sound Science part of Head-Fi I naively assumed the "Science" part implied at least some minimal effort at experimentation since experiments are such a huge part of science. Apparently that's not the case at all.
> So far the only one doing any experimenting seems to be BIG POPPA while the remainder seem to be content to regurgitate their mis-guided beliefs with nothing of value to offer.
> I can't believe I was stupid enough to get sucked into posting here.


Sorry to disappoint you, I have 25+ cables (love their convenience and visuals for IEMs), did the measurements and know when it matters and why. I just do not like to be sucked in by pretentious not substantiated claims.

Just the stupid claims seem to fit to stupid people, I am sorry to conclude based on my clear experimental evidence demonstrated in this thread.


----------



## KeithPhantom

lasker98 said:


> This being the Sound Science part of Head-Fi I naively assumed the "Science" part implied at least some minimal effort at experimentation since experiments are such a huge part of science. Apparently that's not the case at all.
> So far the only one doing any experimenting seems to be BIG POPPA while the remainder seem to be content to regurgitate their mis-guided beliefs with nothing of value to offer.
> I can't believe I was stupid enough to get sucked into posting here.


He has to come up with the experiments to prove his arguments. We do not. Not only that, he disregards proper scientific experiment design by just “arranging a meeting”, no control groups, no definition of variables, no peer review, not even a theoretical reason of why should we be doing this in the first place. Not only that, we do not have to prove anything since we are in the null hypothesis position, and this position has evidence backing it up (even if we personally didn’t collect it still valid).


----------



## lasker98

PhonoPhi said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, I have 25+ cables (love their convenience and visuals for IEMs), did the measurements and know when it matters and why. I just do not like to be sucked in by pretentious not substantiated claims.
> 
> Just the stupid claims seem to fit to stupid people, I am sorry to conclude based on my clear experimental evidence demonstrated in this thread.


Sounds like a classic case of expectation bias to me. 😵


----------



## Tachyon88

lasker98 said:


> This being the Sound Science part of Head-Fi I naively assumed the "Science" part implied at least some minimal effort at experimentation since experiments are such a huge part of science. Apparently that's not the case at all.
> So far the only one doing any experimenting seems to be BIG POPPA while the remainder seem to be content to regurgitate their mis-guided beliefs with nothing of value to offer.
> I can't believe I was stupid enough to get sucked into posting here.


----------



## lasker98

Tachyon88 said:


>


And?
That's your idea of irrefutable proof? Did you listen to all 4 cables and hear no difference? If yes what was the point of going any further? If you did hear a difference and obtained those measurements then you have only proved your measurements showed no difference. That's about as relevant as weighing each cable and basing your conclusions on the differences in weights.
I find it impossible to believe that after all this rigorous experimenting with so many different cables by so many different people that there wasn't at least 1 case where a difference was heard.


----------



## chef8489

lasker98 said:


> And?
> That's your idea of irrefutable proof? Did you listen to all 4 cables and hear no difference? If yes what was the point of going any further? If you did hear a difference and obtained those measurements then you have only proved your measurements showed no difference. That's about as relevant as weighing each cable and basing your conclusions on the differences in weights.
> I find it impossible to believe that after all this rigorous experimenting with so many different cables by so many different people that there wasn't at least 1 case where a difference was heard.


Ok show us your cables and measurements. Show us what tests you have conducted scientifically.


----------



## KeithPhantom

lasker98 said:


> And?
> That's your idea of irrefutable proof? Did you listen to all 4 cables and hear no difference? If yes what was the point of going any further? If you did hear a difference and obtained those measurements then you have only proved your measurements showed no difference. That's about as relevant as weighing each cable and basing your conclusions on the differences in weights.
> I find it impossible to believe that after all this rigorous experimenting with so many different cables by so many different people that there wasn't at least 1 case where a difference was heard.


Look at the vertical axis. You know what scale he is measuring in? Do you think a human ear can even detect the small inconsistencies in the measurements (bass region of first graph). Do you think you need ears to evaluate this kind of differences? You don’t need flaws human ears when an analyzer that can hear thousands of times better than us doesn’t find any noticeable difference.


----------



## Tachyon88 (Apr 18, 2021)

lasker98 said:


> And?
> That's your idea of irrefutable proof? Did you listen to all 4 cables and hear no difference? If yes what was the point of going any further? If you did hear a difference and obtained those measurements then you have only proved your measurements showed no difference. That's about as relevant as weighing each cable and basing your conclusions on the differences in weights.
> I find it impossible to believe that after all this rigorous experimenting with so many different cables by so many different people that there wasn't at least 1 case where a difference was heard.



Think about it.....if you EQ the bass up by 3db or more you *can *hear it and it would show up in the FR graph. Yet all 4 cables have the same FR and people will say this cable is  "warmer" than that when there is literally no change to the measurements or what you hear.....this is irrefutable proof and you are just arguing placebo that *YOU* perceive.


----------



## lasker98

chef8489 said:


> Ok show us your cables and measurements. Show us what tests you have conducted scientifically.


Why? I'm not trying to prove anything. If you can't hear any difference in cables good for you. If I or anyone else does hear a difference good for us.


----------



## inexactscience

lasker98 said:


> And?
> That's your idea of irrefutable proof? Did you listen to all 4 cables and hear no difference? If yes what was the point of going any further? If you did hear a difference and obtained those measurements then you have only proved your measurements showed no difference. That's about as relevant as weighing each cable and basing your conclusions on the differences in weights.
> I find it impossible to believe that after all this rigorous experimenting with so many different cables by so many different people that there wasn't at least 1 case where a difference was heard.


I have too much on my plate to do proper research at the moment, but here's my recollections (ie, take the following with a grain of salt).

There are studies that show that people can hear a difference in DACs and cables, demonstrations, too. Problem is that none of these studies followed a replicable method and all had significant issues with their methodology.

Personally, I've used several different cables for IEMs, ranging from "gold" to silver or copper from Litz to the cheapest Chinese import. The only time I heard a difference was when I _wanted_ to hear a difference. When I actually tested myself, even though I knew I'd changed a cable, there was no difference. It was all in my head.

Funny, I stopped impulsively buying cables after that.

It's not scientific, no. Audio appreciation is - to me - an inexact science. Audio reproduction and the physics (for lack of a better word) behind it are not.

I got suckered, sure. But unlike others, I don't need to go all Biff Tanner to justify my purchases or feel better about myself.


----------



## chef8489

lasker98 said:


> Why? I'm not trying to prove anything. If you can't hear any difference in cables good for you. If I or anyone else does hear a difference good for us.


Saying you hear a difference and not willing to do a proper dbx test and measurements disqualifies you in the sound science forum. You can take the placebo and talk all about it in the reg forums.


----------



## lasker98

chef8489 said:


> Saying you hear a difference and not willing to do a proper dbx test and measurements disqualifies you in the sound science forum. You can take the placebo and talk all about it in the reg forums.


Wow. This is like an alternate reality in this corner of Head-Fi.
Bye bye.


----------



## Tachyon88

lasker98 said:


> Wow. This is like an alternate reality in this corner of Head-Fi.
> Bye bye.



Lucky for you, you can choose any placebo reality you want ! ;p


----------



## chef8489

lasker98 said:


> Wow. This is like an alternate reality in this corner of Head-Fi.
> Bye bye.


Well the other portion is all about money while this portion is about science. Don't let the door hit you as you leave.


----------



## inexactscience

lasker98 said:


> Wow. This is like an alternate reality in this corner of Head-Fi.
> Bye bye.


Why do you think this is like an "alternate reality", though?


----------



## redrol (Apr 18, 2021)

[edit] about 10 posts too late

Cables are scams.   If you want to argue the cable is non microphonic to the point it has zero mass and floats in the ambient air currents.. nice!  If you want to argue it is unbreakable and will last 50 years... cool.  If you want to argue you like wearing a blingy necklace consisting of an IEM cable... nice!  Anything else is snake oil scam territory.


----------



## redrol

[edit] my posting is not in order, my apologies


----------



## bigshot (Apr 18, 2021)

lasker98 said:


> This being the Sound Science part of Head-Fi I naively assumed the "Science" part implied at least some minimal effort at experimentation since experiments are such a huge part of science.



Most of us here in Sound Science perform controlled listening tests, some of us are even experienced in precise measurements. You might have some things to learn about science yourself, but you won't learn anything when you come out swinging like that. You'll just get ground into the dirt and run off butt hurt.

I suggest you look at this post and read it. It's a good place to start.

TESTING AUDIOPHILE CLAIMS AND MYTHS https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

You also might find the links in my sig file eye opening as well.

EDIT:


lasker98 said:


> Sounds like a classic case of expectation bias to me. 😵



In this case, we are judging you, not sound quality. We have that right because you entered this thread with a chip on your shoulder judging us. I've just handed you a place to start that will help you integrate into this group. If you don't want to make the effort, then I reserve the right to think the same way of you as the other posters do.

If there is anything in those articles you don't understand, we would be happy to explain it. If you question any of the conclusions, we will give you evidence to back it up. I have no intention of just throwing stupid insults back and forth. If you choose that route, you're on your own and the grinding into the dirt and butt hurt can commence.

EDIT AGAIN:


lasker98 said:


> Wow. This is like an alternate reality in this corner of Head-Fi. Bye bye.



Aww... I had already written this whole post before I noticed you'd left. Goodbye! Sorry about your butt hurt. Feel free to tell everyone in other parts of Head-Fi how _utterly horrible_ we are in Sound Science. That's what everyone does when they drop in here and say dumb things and get their hat handed to them.


----------



## inexactscience

redrol said:


> [edit] about 10 posts too late
> 
> Cables are scams.   If you want to argue the cable is non microphonic to the point it has zero mass and floats in the ambient air currents.. nice!  If you want to argue it is unbreakable and will last 50 years... cool.  If you want to argue you like wearing a blingy necklace consisting of an IEM cable... nice!  Anything else is snake oil scam territory.


I think part of the problem is that the approach to the issue is somewhat backward, at least in terms of the title of this thread.

Beyond that, I think there's a lot of talking over one another, and the actual point is lost.

So, what is the actual point? What do we really want to know?

It seems to start as "Do cables make an audible difference?"

And then there's a second aspect which comes in that I think starts arguments: "Do cables make an audible difference to me?"

When we ask if cables make an audible difference, we must also answer the question, "How do we know if cables make an audible difference?"

That question is easily addressed: measure it. The technology is there, and it's more precise than human hearing.

This also allows us to know the answer to a related question: "How could cables make an audible difference?"

Again, this is an answerable question. The short version is that if the cable represents a change in resistance, inductance, or length (and your cable isn't long or short enough to do that), it may raise or lower the voltage it delivers to the transducer by comparison, changing the output volume only. Impedance also plays a role if the transducer has varying impedance across different frequencies AND the cable resistance (characteristic impedance?) is high.

However, high cable resistance (characteristic impedance?) is _categorically undesirable_. Why? Because the output would vary depending the transducer. Imagine that you make sunscreen, but it doesn't provide the same UV protection to any two people. Some people would be fine, others burned and no way to tell who would burn or who would be fine ahead of time. 

Worse still, unpredictable changes in certain frequencies by a transducer would significantly impair the ability for an end user to accurately reproduce the source sound. He or she would have to impedance match or EQ to get the desired end product. A cable manufacturer would have to be a colossal schmuk to make a cable that would have unpredictable results based what gear the end user had; there would not be happy customers. You wouldn't have a product that could reproduce the same result in almost any scenario.

All of the above consequences, by the way, _are measurable_. We would know if they occurred, because we would see changes in the transducer frequency response. That we have someone measuring cables which shows no changes to the frequency response gives strong evidence that those cables do not make any changes to the sound characteristics.

Frankly, I'm not aware of any cable - that isn't f'd up (ie, defective) in some way - that produces a measurable difference.

But none of the above answers the question: "Do cables make an audible difference to me?"

As I wrote previously I had thought I had heard differences in cables, _when I wanted there to be a difference_. I'm human, however, and that means I'm subject to cognitive biases, such as expectation bias as I just wrote, confirmation bias, the placebo effect, and more.

When someone isn't cognizant of these biases or how they skew our perceptions, I believe that's when we get someone who has verified to themselves that the answer is "yes" cables make a difference. This is where I think we get the Biff Tanners coming in and arguing because they are answering one question (rightly, I would say, because that's what they experienced), and aren't aware that others are discussing a completely different series of questions. Questions which have specific, measurable answers.

One question I have for those who do believe cables make an audible difference: how could a cable make an audible difference that isn't measurable in some way?

I've never seen a satisfactory answer to that one.

Night everyone and thanks for coming to my screed.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 18, 2021)

If there is an audible difference, the best way to prove that is in a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test. If it's audible at all, it will be audible in a controlled listening test. No manufacturer I know of willingly submits their product to public blind listening tests. They know what the outcome will be. So they pepper their website with "unsolicited testimonials from satisfied customers" full of outright bologna- the kind of unsupported claims the manufacturers themselves would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they said it themselves. The whole high end audio world is driven by the marketing departments- retail stores, websites, magazines, reviewers. The truth is Amazon Basics cables work as good as any expensive interconnect you can buy, a $10 Apple dongle DAC sounds as good as the most expensive DAC you can buy, and a cheap cMoy Altoids tin headphone amp does the job perfectly as well as long as your headphones are designed to work with standard headphone amps. Midrange and even budget equipment sounds better now than it ever has. It's gotten to the point where you should shop for features, personal preference and usability, not sound quality.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> not sound quality


Except in the world of transducers, where we can’t make these follow simple compensation curves or even agree which one is the best approach.


----------



## bigshot

There was a recent study that showed that headphone price didn't correlate with quality. And it's possible to EQ midrange headphones to sound as good as high end ones. Speakers cost more in general.

It's possible to not spend a lot if you know what you are looking for and shop wisely.


----------



## Steve999 (Apr 19, 2021)

bigshot said:


> There was a recent study that showed that headphone price didn't correlate with quality. And it's possible to EQ midrange headphones to sound as good as high end ones. Speakers cost more in general.
> 
> It's possible to not spend a lot if you know what you are looking for and shop wisely.


Is this the study?

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.4984044

I predict that some day, there will be headphones that you can use with NO headphone cables, have excellent sound quality, and a built in DAC, EQ and headphone amp. You will be able to further fine tune them with a mobile app. You will be able to stream to them using nearly any streaming service. You will be able to cancel out ambient noise so that you can more fully enjoy high dynamic range content and hear finer details at reasonable volumes. You will be able to use them with a voice-activated smart assistant if you choose. The on-board EQ will adapt to volume level and how good the seal is. They will be ultra-comfortable and have excellent sound quality. Yes! I predict it! How cool is that? My friends, that will be the day!


----------



## bigshot

Welcome to the future, Steve999! You're soaking in it!


----------



## KeithPhantom

Steve999 said:


> Is this the study?
> 
> https://asa.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1121/1.4984044
> 
> I predict that some day, there will be headphones that you can use with NO headphone cables, have excellent sound quality, and a built in DAC, EQ and headphone amp. You will be able to further fine tune them with a mobile app. You will be able to stream to them using nearly any streaming service. You will be able to cancel out ambient noise so that you can more fully enjoy high dynamic range content and hear finer details at reasonable volumes. You will be able to use them with a voice-activated smart assistant if you choose. The on-board EQ will adapt to volume level and how good the seal is. They will be ultra-comfortable and have excellent sound quality. Yes! I predict it! How cool is that? My friends, that will be the day!


Wait, I have one of those...it’s incredible.


----------



## Tachyon88

I'm waiting for 6G to stream into my brain and have the auto anti-cancer feature that plays inaudible healing frequencies at the same time. 

/j


----------



## betula

You can't convince people that cables don't make a difference. And why would you want to convince them at all? Your truth might not be other's truth.

I agree that there is a lot of snake oil and rip off going on in the audiophile cable market, but according to my experience we also can't say there is nothing in cables.

I heard quite a few headphone cables that provided better clarity and dynamism versus stock cables. Usually silver or silver plated high purity copper cables have better technical performance. To me this is just a fact. Perhaps not everyone can hear the difference, but to me it is obvious.

At the same time I wish to highlight that there is absolutely no need to spend a fortune on upgrade cables. I too find £500+ cables simply ridiculous and a shameless rip off. But a good quality £100-150 cable usually sounds better than the stock one. And to my experience there is no need to spend more than that. 

I have a £80 silver plated cable from Taiwan that sounds equally good or better than a £320 cable from a European manufacturer. 
It is a gamble, where price is not an indicator of quality but there is improvement with a lucky choice.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Midrange and even budget equipment sounds better now than it ever has.


That's why I am happy with my $200 Sennheiser HD 598 headphones powered with $50 DIY headphone adapter* with crossfeed connected to the speaker terminals of my AV amp I need anyway for my speakers. That way I avoid the need of a headphone amp altogether and still have crossfeed functionality (which revolutionized headphone listening for me because of how my "large ILD-allergic" spatial hearing works). 

* Signal level is dropped by about 30 dB to suit for headphones, because headphones need milliwatts when speakers need watts.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> I agree that there is a lot of snake oil and rip off going on in the audiophile cable market, but according to my experience we also can't say there is nothing in cables.



You realize that the next thing is for people to ask you what controlled testing or research you base that opinion on, right? Not all opinions are created equal and one person's truth may be completely false. It's only true if you can come up with evidence to prove it.


----------



## betula

bigshot said:


> You realize that the next thing is for people to ask you what controlled testing or research you base that opinion on, right? Not all opinions are created equal and one person's truth may be completely false. It's only true if you can come up with evidence to prove it.


The thing is we still can't measure every single quality of existence by machines. Machines are also created by humans. Why should we only believe measurements when it is clear, that they can't capture the whole reality?

An FR graph only shows a limited level of information. Sure, it is a great data point, but doesn't capture everything from how a headphone might sound.

People who hear a difference between silver and copper headphone cables won't care about measurements. They just follow their ears.


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> The thing is we still can't measure every single quality of existence by machines. Machines are also created by humans. Why should we only believe measurements when it is clear, that they can't capture the whole reality?
> 
> An FR graph only shows a limited level of information. Sure, it is a great data point, but doesn't capture everything from how a headphone might sound.
> 
> People who hear a difference between silver and copper headphone cables won't care about measurements. They just follow their ears.


Of course they don't care about measurements or doing proper double blind tests. It would invalidate that they hear a difference.


----------



## betula

chef8489 said:


> Of course they don't care about measurements or doing proper double blind tests. It would invalidate that they hear a difference.


Blind testing is different than measurements. 
I am ready to take the bullets, but I am convinced I can hear a difference between my stock Audeze cable and cheap silver plated upgrade cable from Taiwan. The level of clarity improvement is simply undeniable. Throw your stones.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> An FR graph only shows a limited level of information. Sure, it is a great data point, but doesn't capture everything from how a headphone might sound.



Sound consists of three aspects... frequency, amplitude and time. Response shows the first two. Time is displayed by the waveform. Recorded music is captured the exact same way that we measure it. Nothing can be recorded that can't be measured. The idea that commercially recorded music contains some sort of mojo that science doesn't understand is just false. If we didn't understand how digital audio works, we wouldn't have digital audio.



betula said:


> I am ready to take the bullets, but I am convinced I can hear a difference between my stock Audeze cable and cheap silver plated upgrade cable from Taiwan. The level of clarity improvement is simply undeniable. Throw your stones.



No stones. There is no reason to expect through measurements that any cable that is properly designed and manufactured should sound different. If you think they do, the first thing to do is to prove it through a blind test. Would you be willing to take the time to set up a controlled test to find out?


----------



## betula

bigshot said:


> Sound consists of three aspects... frequency, amplitude and time. Response shows the first two. Time is displayed by the waveform. Recorded music is captured the exact same way that we measure it. Nothing can be recorded that can't be measured. The idea that commercially recorded music contains some sort of mojo that science doesn't understand is just false. If we didn't understand how digital audio works, we wouldn't have digital audio.


To me the sound of different amps carry a lot more information that can't be measured right now. Tonality, impact, authority, rounded or sharp notes. Level of musical engagement. To me there is a lot of factors that can't quite be measured just yet.


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> Blind testing is different than measurements.
> I am ready to take the bullets, but I am convinced I can hear a difference between my stock Audeze cable and cheap silver plated upgrade cable from Taiwan. The level of clarity improvement is simply undeniable. Throw your stones.


Don't you think if cables changed sound companies like audezee, focal, and other high end companies would use it. Have you thought about contacting the manufacturers of headphones and asked?


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> To me the sound of different amps carry a lot more information that can't be measured right now. Tonality, impact, authority, rounded or sharp notes. Level of musical engagement. To me there is a lot of factors that can't quite be measured just yet.


If it impacts sound the change can be measured. It's not magic, it's science.


----------



## betula

chef8489 said:


> Don't you think if cables changed sound companies like audezee, focal, and other high end companies would use it. Have you thought about contacting the manufacturers of headphones and asked?


To be honest I follow my ears on this. If something sounds better, I pay for it. But I won't pay unreasonable sums.
That said, Audeze and Meze and others too offer upgrade cables for an extortionate price that supposed to sound better than the stock ones. 

What I am saying is the level of improvement of those upgrade cables can be reached for half the price.


----------



## betula

chef8489 said:


> If it impacts sound the change can be measured. It's not magic, it's science.


Not everything can be measured.


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> The thing is we still can't measure every single quality of existence by machines. Machines are also created by humans. Why should we only believe measurements when it is clear, that they can't capture the whole reality?
> 
> An FR graph only shows a limited level of information. Sure, it is a great data point, but doesn't capture everything from how a headphone might sound.
> 
> People who hear a difference between silver and copper headphone cables won't care about measurements. They just follow their ears.



Version 3457 of “science doesn’t know everything, so it knows nothing”

We are pinpointing the location and taking images of celestial objects 100s of light years away using several forms of audio measurement (among others).  Yet there is a belief that we are fundamentally unable to properly measure and assess home audio components and output.


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> Version 3457 of “science doesn’t know everything, so it knows nothing”
> 
> We are pinpointing the location and taking images of celestial objects 100s of light years away using several forms of audio measurement (among others).  Yet there is a belief that we are fundamentally unable to properly measure home audio components and output.


It is very limiting to think we know everything and there is no more left to know. Whether it is home audio sound measurements or space science.


----------



## bfreedma

betula said:


> It is very limiting to think we know everything and there is no more left to know. Whether it is home audio sound measurements or space science.


I did not claim we know everything.  What I’m suggesting is that we know more than enough to properly measure home audio and have the tools to do so.  While there may be new discoveries in audio science, they are much more likely to be iterative refinement of what we already know and highly unlikely to fundamentally invalidate current knowledge.

”We don’t know everything“ is typically an avoidance strategy for those that won’t perform their own controlled testing or who may not be familiar enough with current audio science to discuss details.  And used by marketers


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> I did not claim we know everything.  What I’m suggesting is that we know more than enough to properly measure home audio and have the tools to do so.  While there may be new discoveries in audio science, they are much more likely to be iterative refinement of what we already know and highly unlikely to fundamentally invalidate current knowledge.
> 
> ”We don’t know everything“ is typically an avoidance strategy for those that won’t perform their own controlled testing or who may not be familiar enough with current audio science to discuss details.  And used by marketers


How do you measure bass impact for instance? On an FR graph 2 headphones can show equal bass quantity, but that doesn't translate to equal bass impact.


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> How do you measure bass impact for instance? On an FR graph 2 headphones can show equal bass quantity, but that doesn't translate to equal bass impact.



SPL + FR + driver excursion metrics will give you bass impact for dynamic drivers.  Planers and Electrostats can also be measured, though it’s a little more complex.  I don’t know why you think FR is all we can measure.


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> SPL + FR + driver excursion will give you bass impact.  I don’t know why you think FR is all we can measure.


Back to on-topic, are you saying there is no sound difference between headphone cables?


----------



## bfreedma

betula said:


> Back to on-topic, are you saying there is no sound difference between headphone cables?



I am saying that outside of IEMs due to some design driven impedance issues, there is no audible difference in properly built and utilized cables. 

That doesn’t exclude the audiophile cables that intentionally degrade sound In an attempt to differentiate themselves.  But who would actually want to pay for that?


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> I am saying that outside of IEMs due to some design driven impedance issues, there is no audible difference in properly built and utilized cables.
> 
> That doesn’t exclude the audiophile cables that intentionally degrade sound In an attempt to differentiate themselves.  But who would actually want to pay for that?


Just to make sure I understand it well.

Are you saying you can hear a difference between IEM cables but not with headphone cables?


----------



## bfreedma (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> Just to make sure I understand it well.
> 
> Are you saying you can hear a difference between IEM cables but not with headphone cables?



You may hear a difference with IEM cables due to some questionable decisions in IEM design leading to crazy impedance numbers.  Not going to hear a difference with headphone cables assuming non absurd use cases (10000 ft long cables...)

Run some examples in the calculator linked below to get an idea of just how small the differences in resistance are in different common cable materials.  Far too small to be audible.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wire-resistance


----------



## PhonoPhi

betula said:


> Just to make sure I understand it well.
> 
> Are you saying you can hear a difference between IEM cables but not with headphone cables?


It has been discussed multiple times - the impedance rule of 1/8 works very well (1/16 can be reasonably understood).

So the cables do matter, if the headphones or IEMs are designed with a fairly low impedance.


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> You may hear a difference with IEM cables due to some questionable decisions in IEM design leading to crazy impedance numbers.  Not going to hear a difference with headphone cables assuming non absurd use cases (10000 ft long cables...)
> 
> Run some examples in the calculator linked below to get an idea of just how small the differences in resistance are in different common cable materials.  Far to small to be audible.
> 
> https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wire-resistance


I don't know. To me it is becoming ridiculous in all honesty. There is a difference with IEM cables but not with headphone cables?

I can hear a difference with headphone cables as well, so it is probably the best for all of us to end this debate now.


----------



## bfreedma

PhonoPhi said:


> It has been discussed multiple times - the impedance rule of 1/8 works very well (1/16 can be reasonably understood).
> 
> So the cables do matter, if the headphones or IEMs are designed with a fairly low impedance.



I agree that it theoretically could happen with headphones, but haven’t actually encountered one where it’s an actual issue.  Do you know of any?


----------



## bfreedma

betula said:


> I don't know. To me it is becoming ridiculous in all honesty. There is a difference with IEM cables but not with headphone cables?
> 
> I can hear a difference with headphone cables as well, so it is probably the best for all of us to end this debate now.



The discussion would make much more sense if you read up a little on impedance and looked at the impedance and impedance swings of some IEMs vs. headphones.


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> The discussion would make much more sense if you read up a little on impedance and looked at the impedance and impedance swings of some IEMs vs. headphones.


Sure, it would. But measurements will never convince me the opposite what I hear. Call me biased or ignorant. I still simply go for the best sound I hear.


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> I don't know. To me it is becoming ridiculous in all honesty. There is a difference with IEM cables but not with headphone cables?
> 
> I can hear a difference with headphone cables as well, so it is probably the best for all of us to end this debate now.


Well show us the dbx testing you have done and 95% results where you can actually tell a difference and we will believe. You saying I hear a difference doesn't mean squat without proper testing. Until someone actually shows proof it will not be closed. I was a huge cable makes a difference guy as were a lot of my friends, until we participated in proper dbx testing set up not by us.


----------



## betula

chef8489 said:


> Well show us the dbx testing you have done and 95% results where you can actually tell a difference and we will believe. You saying I hear a difference doesn't mean squat without proper testing. Until someone actually shows proof it will not be closed. I was a huge cable makes a difference guy as were a lot of my friends, until we participated in proper dbx testing set up not by us.


I am sure I could tell the difference any day between the Audeze stock cable and my cheap upgrade cable. If it counts as a proof, I am ready to record a blind testing video.


----------



## bfreedma

betula said:


> Sure, it would. But measurements will never convince me the opposite what I hear. Call me biased or ignorant. I still simply go for the best sound I hear.



No problem, but you’re not going to get much traction with that approach in Sound Science.  The balance of the forums are better suited for it - we can’t even discuss objective testing there.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Apr 19, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> I agree that it theoretically could happen with headphones, but haven’t actually encountered one where it’s an actual issue.  Do you know of any?


I am largely into IEMs, where thin stock cables with 2-3 Ohm impedance are more than common, so the cable revelations are unavoidably real.
With headphones, cables can be expected to matter much less, but then multidrivers and planars can be the case where it can be the case, since the impedance is commonly cited at 1 kHz, while at resonances of the drivers the values can be much lower.


----------



## Marutks

betula said:


> I am sure I could tell the difference any day between the Audeze stock cable and my cheap upgrade cable. If it counts as a proof, I am ready to record a blind testing video.



Please do.    It would be very interesting to watch.


----------



## betula

bfreedma said:


> No problem, but you’re not going to get much traction with that approach in Sound Science.  The balance of the forums are better suited for it - we can’t even discuss objective testing there.


I never had the intention to get a traction in Sound Science. My usual Head-Fi forums were just too quiet, so I thought I'll try to have some fun in a hot bath of Head-Fi. I know I am not suitable for the company and probably will never agree with the thread members. Still it was fun.
And still the love of quality music reproduction bounds us together. Regardless of cables. Which bring the last 5% difference in my experience.


----------



## betula

Marutks said:


> Please do.    It would be very interesting to watch.


I am ready to do it, but missing a camera man at the moment.


----------



## bfreedma

betula said:


> I am ready to do it, but missing a camera man at the moment.



If you do go forward, happy to give some guidance on how to setup the test with a reasonable level of controls.


----------



## KeithPhantom

betula said:


> Not everything can be measured.


Better, everything in the physical realm of audio that can be calculated can be measured. A theoretical model gives you units of measurement, right? Now, in the psychoacoustical side is another story...


----------



## KeithPhantom

betula said:


> Call me biased or ignorant. I still simply go for the best sound I hear.


I call you uninformed. A machine is better than all of us at hearing. That’s it, plain and simple. The pleasing character of sound is another topic outside hearing differences in the scale of *0.0x dB. Yeah, your ears can detect that...*


----------



## betula

KeithPhantom said:


> Better, everything in the physical realm of audio that can be calculated can be measured. A theoretical model gives you units of measurement, right? Now, in the psychoacoustical side is another story...


The 'physical side of audio' is only one side of approach. It is a scientific and measurement driven approach. But most common folks would agree that there is more to music that can be measured right now.


----------



## KeithPhantom

betula said:


> The 'physical side of audio' is only one side of approach. It is a scientific and measurement driven approach. But most common folks would agree that there is more to music that can be measured right now.


What exactly? Provide evidence please. You are the one to provide evidence here. Also, a bandwagon argument won’t get you far...


----------



## betula (Apr 19, 2021)

KeithPhantom said:


> I call you uninformed. A machine is better than all of us at hearing. That’s it, plain and simple. The pleasing character of sound is another topic outside hearing differences in the scale of *0.0x dB. Yeah, your ears can detect that...*


Machines can't detect all attributes of sound and music. Our techniques of measurements are limited. Art and human perception is much more complex than machine measurements.

Edit:
It is like understanding the taste of a delicious master cake by looking at the list of ingredients or chemical compositions. Those will only take you so far. How do you quantify the pleasure the taste combination gives you?


----------



## KeithPhantom

betula said:


> Machines can't detect all attributes of sound and music. Our techniques of measurements are limited. Art and human perception is much more complex than machine measurements.


Like what exactly? Art is subjective and this has been settled for around the time science was created. Please provide evidence that art is a part of the properties of audio. Also, human perception is not settled and can even change with mood, but there was audio before humans existed and it is most likely that it had the same properties. Show us evidence that human perception is a property of audio and sound as well.


----------



## bfreedma

betula said:


> Machines can't detect all attributes of sound and music. Our techniques of measurements are limited. Art and human perception is much more complex than machine measurements.



IMO, stating that “machines can’t detect all attributes of sound and music” is challenging to support given that almost 100% of the music we listen to is digitally recorded, transmitted, and played back.


----------



## KeithPhantom (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> pleasure the taste


This is the problem of your argument. Audio can be described *without human interaction. *You don’t need to quantify “pleasure”, “what sounds good” or stuff like that since it isn’t even a property of audio at all.

TL;DR: the physical properties of audio and psycho acoustics are not at the same explanatory level. The later needs the former and the former can exist without the later.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2021)

betula said:


> I am sure I could tell the difference any day between the Audeze stock cable and my cheap upgrade cable. If it counts as a proof, I am ready to record a blind testing video.



You wouldn't do a blind test yourself to prove it to us. That is just for you to verify your subjective impression and learn about how things work. If you discern a difference, the next step is to make your test repeatable by someone else.

The next step is tapping into our brain trust here for suggestions for the most efficient and air tight testing methodology. Let folks know what you have to work with and they will help you get the ball rolling.

Doing blind testing is very interesting and informative. I think you'll be surprised by some of the things you find.


----------



## betula

KeithPhantom said:


> Like what exactly? Art is subjective and this has been settled for around the time science was created. Please provide evidence that art is a part of the properties of audio. Also, human perception is not settled and can even change with mood, but there was audio before humans existed and it is most likely that it had the same properties. Show us evidence that human perception is a property of audio and sound as well.


I think the way audio is represented can be art. The Meze Empyrean is a good example. Controversial headphone and not the most technical, but musically they do something special that connects many people to music.
Art can't be measured by science. That is why it is called art. Some people resonate, some don't.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 19, 2021)

Are you going to dissemble or do you actually want to learn about how the physics of sound reproduction works?

It's a complete waste of time to come into the Sound Science forum and say "Science is wrong because woo". If you want to talk about the science of sound reproduction, you're in the right place. If you want to argue about "what is art?" then you're not worth anyone's time. You might as well go back to the audiophool forums you came from.


----------



## KeithPhantom

betula said:


> I think


Opinion. Please provide evidence that art is a property of audio.



betula said:


> they do something special that connects many people to music.


Psychoacoustical at best, please provide evidence that this is a basic property of audio.



betula said:


> Art can't be measured by science.


Also, do not avoid my questions please.


----------



## bfreedma

If I has $1 for every time preference was conflated with reference in this thread, I could buy a really snazzy cable.


----------



## betula

bigshot said:


> Are you going to dissemble or do you actually want to learn about how the physics of sound reproduction works?


If you listened to my previous posts you can see that in my opinion physics and measurements are only able to cover a certain part of sound perception. Stick to your science, but you will never convince me that music is no more than sound. It is more than sound. And some equipment can bring you closer to music than just perfectly measuring sound reproduction.


----------



## betula

KeithPhantom said:


> Opinion. Please provide evidence that art is a property of audio.
> 
> 
> Psychoacoustical at best, please provide evidence that this is a basic property of audio.
> ...


Music is art. And it is more than lab measurements. IMO your approach is simply narrow minded.
I end my debate here as I think I have already expressed my point of view very clearly.


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> If you listened to my previous posts you can see that in my opinion physics and measurements are only able to cover a certain part of sound perception. Stick to your science, but you will never convince me that music is no more than sound. It is more than sound. And some equipment can bring you closer to music than just perfectly measuring sound reproduction.


Well that's the emotional aspect of music, but yiu are trying to say that cables change sound. for that it is measurable. Now how a cable makes yiu feel is completely


----------



## betula

chef8489 said:


> Well that's the emotional aspect of music, but yiu are trying to say that cables change sound. for that it is measurable. Now how a cable makes yiu feel is completely


Well, with all respect, if you can't hear the difference between a copper and a silver headphone cable, that is your bad.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Four cables, and also look at the scale of the measurements. Tell me that you are able to detect anything different between them.


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> Well, with all respect, if you can't hear the difference between a copper and a silver headphone cable, that is your bad.


Right. Your placebo is huge. As I stated prior I was huge into cables and believed they changed sound till I participated in and say proper dbx testing at university. You still not doing proper dbx testing to back up your claims that are against science.


----------



## bfreedma

I’m actually surprised we haven’t seen a cable vendor “tune“ cables for emotional response 

_See our new line of EmoAlter cables.  

Want to be happier, we have a cable tuned for that
Date night?  Our Romance line has you covered
Getting ready for the big game?  Our Aggro line is what you’re looking for_

The possibilities are endless.


----------



## betula

Probably the most narrow-minded thread I have ever come across on Head-Fi.


----------



## chef8489

betula said:


> Probably the most narrow-minded thread I have ever come across on Head-Fi.


Why because we believe in science and you keep saying you hear contrary to what science says? You still won't do proper testing like we are asking you to do. We are open to possibilities, yet no one has ever been able to show that they can hear a difference. So go ahead and show us or quit talking rubbish.


----------



## bigshot

betula said:


> If you listened to my previous posts you can see that in my opinion physics and measurements are only able to cover a certain part of sound perception. Stick to your science, but you will never convince me that music is no more than sound. It is more than sound. And some equipment can bring you closer to music than just perfectly measuring sound reproduction.



Stick to the point. We aren't talking about music or art. You are the one who brought that up to dissemble and distract from the point.

We are talking about audio fidelity. We have a commercial recording. We want to play it back with a high degree of fidelity to the original signal. Does one kind of cable sound  closer to the way the recording was intended to sound than another? That is the question. I say no. Both cables do the job equally well. Do you agree?

Whether or not it is "art" to you and you are moved to tears probably depends more on what you had for lunch or how many drinks you've had, not whether a wire is silver or copper.


----------



## bigshot

Honestly, I don't know why anyone comes to a forum labelled Sound Science to talk about how art is a magical gift from the Gods that no one can fathom. That seems like a stupid waste of time to me.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Well here is a cable 4 pin female XLR to 6.3 TRS With an Akiko stick wired to the TRS ground by a spade connector. This cable changes sound when connected and changes when its not. It was created to adress the shortcomings of the HD700's but works great with other headphones.


----------



## KeithPhantom

BIG POPPA said:


> This cable changes sound when connected and changes when its not.


Yeah right...


----------



## chef8489 (Apr 19, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> Well here is a cable 4 pin female XLR to 6.3 TRS With an Akiko stick wired to the TRS ground by a spade connector. This cable changes sound when connected and changes when its not. It was created to adress the shortcomings of the HD700's but works great with other headphones.


Ok how does it change sound when no sound is passing through it?
Show sound measurements and graphs before and after using a spectrum analyzer.


----------



## Davesrose

betula said:


> To be honest I follow my ears on this. If something sounds better, I pay for it. But I won't pay unreasonable sums.
> That said, Audeze and Meze and others too offer upgrade cables for an extortionate price that supposed to sound better than the stock ones.
> 
> What I am saying is the level of improvement of those upgrade cables can be reached for half the price.


I've upgraded some of my stock 1/4" stereo headphone cables to balanced just to get more amps and *absolutely* no noise with my townhouse (which has high RF interference).  So one example of a brand cable I have is with Dan Clark audio.  I originally bought the Flow closed back headphones with unbalanced output.  Time progressed, and I was wanting to connect my headphones to a balanced higher current amp.  I first ordered their cheapest balanced cable.....but after a bit, they said it was out of production and they were sending their more expensive cable.  I think the only main performance I could hear would be less "microphonics" in which I wasn't hearing shaking if I did want to shake my head (that really was it compared to extra gain compared to it being balanced).  With my Audeze LCD-2f headphones, I have a 3rd party braided cable that looks pretty cool and it carries the exact same audio characteristics as I've found with Audeze brand cables (in which I have 2 unbalanced and 1 balanced).


----------



## Tachyon88

So when someone like oratory is _measuring _headphones to make an EQ profile for them, *WE *can* literally *_*hear* _audible *changes*........why ? Because the FR changes.

So when someone is changing cables and there is zero change in the FR........what is warm, what is cold, what is "fixed" ? Notta, because there is NO change.

I do not know the percentage of people who claim to hear the difference and those that do not, but I guarantee you that _*EVERYONE*_ would hear an EQ change and that again, is measurable. 

This alone does not encompass all of psycho-acoustics/neuroscience, but it _*does *_show that if the FR is not changing neither is what you are hearing, all things equal.


----------



## BIG POPPA

chef8489 said:


> Ok how does it change sound when no sound is passing through it?
> Show sound measurements and graphs before and after using a spectrum analyzer.


The Akiko Stick design is based on the Piezo Electronic Effect Principle. It is hooked up to the ground. So the effect is on when connected but diminishes when disconnected. Sounds more full and musical when connected, sounds smaller when disconnected. So if two cables are build out of the same wire but one has a 100 ohm resister, could you tell the difference? Point being, easy to make make cables sound better or different, measure different. And it is not hard.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 20, 2021)

https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/akiko...essories/192-akiko-audio-tuning-stick-xlr-eng

Smells like A1 grade serpentine lubrication to me! I'd offer to do a teardown, but I've learned my lesson about proving magical dongles are hogwash. Do grains of sand qualify as  "piezo electric crystals"?

A "glowing" review from 6moons: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/akiko/1.html



> "The tuning stick's contents are stabilized with black resin, a material which sufficiently suppresses microphony effects. This is an important condition for a calm and pleasant rendering of the music. On top of that the fine metal foil sticker is energetically treated which causes it to contribute on a sub molecular level. This is comparable to the WA Quantum products also available in our web shop*. Because of all this Akiko Audio Tuning Sticks are excellent value for the money. Furthermore each tuning stick is designed and made by hand in our studio in Maastricht, so no import from China. Handmade in Holland!”
> 
> We translated this somewhat woolly text to mean that a tuning stick is something like a Shakti Stone with its embedded crystals*, magnets and carbon.



More fun: https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/akiko-audio/tuning-chips



> The Tuning Chip is a self-adhesive metal foil, which carries the information, with a black finish and very fine holographic print. Applying it is a quick and easy job.
> 
> The Tuning Chips each have their own size, shape and specific area of application.
> 
> Only a few Akiko Audio Tuning Chips are sufficient to raise your audio/video system’s performance to a higher level. You can expect a more relaxed rendering and increased perception of the various instruments and voices, as well as a more natural sound, reduced sharpness and richer tone colours. Multiple chips increase the effect.



You put a holographic sticker with their logo in sparkly type on your stuff and BINGO! instant karma!

Here is a 20 euro fuse jumper. One lightning strike or power surge and your equipment is toast!

https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/akiko...72-12-akiko-audio-neutral-link-silver-english

$1200 euro power strip, complete with a delicate finish and spikes and cups for isolating against nasty earth tremors.

https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/other...fisch-audiotechnik-afl-reference-line-english

So sad! Too many returns on the woo LAN cable! "The technical problems (Return loss / RL) could not be solved."

https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/other-brands/meicord

I can't believe this guy actually believes this stuff. I smell troll. But I do appreciate the hilarious website he shared with us.

             * Sadly the W A Quantum Products are no longer listed on their website. Probably technical problems (Return loss / RL) that could not be solved!


----------



## Roland P

bigshot said:


> Here is a 20 euro fuse jumper. One lightning strike or power surge and your equipment is toast!


Their only product that has a measureable difference  

I was a bit surprised by this, since it could set your house on fire.
Apparently, these are made for the fuse cartridge: https://www.akikoaudio.com/en/products/570-05-akiko-audio-cylindric-fuse-cartridge-english and should be placed in the 0. The fuse still goes in the phase unit.

I think it's still scary, it's a slippery slope, people might (will?) be tempted to replace both fuses to achieve an even better sound (and a chance of setting your house on fire in case of a short circuit somewhere in your electrical installation).


----------



## bigshot

Is there a reason for the neutral jumper? So you can turn off the power without turning off a switch or simply unplugging the unit?


----------



## bfreedma

BIG POPPA said:


> The Akiko Stick design is based on the Piezo Electronic Effect Principle. It is hooked up to the ground. So the effect is on when connected but diminishes when disconnected. Sounds more full and musical when connected, sounds smaller when disconnected. So if two cables are build out of the same wire but one has a 100 ohm resister, could you tell the difference? Point being, easy to make make cables sound better or different, measure different. And it is not hard.



The Akiko stick is won’t do anything for your audio.  But it might void your home insurance.  A non standard fuse almost certainly will.

Amazingly, you’re paying for snake oil that may well leave you on the hook if it starts a fire in your home.  Enjoy.

Some people will literally buy anything that marketing copy suggest will help without any evidence.  Just use big words in a meaningless way and the money flows in.


----------



## bigshot

Do the big words used in a meaningless way sound familiar to you? I could swear the same copy writer wrote that stuff as the company I got in trouble with. Some of the business associations are the same too. I wonder if they pop up with a new website and a new name when word gets out.


----------



## bfreedma

Could be the same people.  More likely new people who simply steal other’s marketing materials.  It’s not like these companies have ethics that would get in the way of plagiarism.


----------



## Roland P

bigshot said:


> Is there a reason for the neutral jumper? So you can turn off the power without turning off a switch or simply unplugging the unit?


The neutral jumper is just there to replace the fuse (in the fusebox of your home). For better conductivity I suppose. But fuses are made for a reason and should not be replaced.

I've shown the tuning chips to my GF and she laughed at it. But at the same time she thinks I'm the same because speaker-phone fidelity is enough for her.


----------



## castleofargh

betula said:


> To me the sound of different amps carry a lot more information that can't be measured right now.


This is completelly ludicrous.
Sound or anything else, think about the ranges we know to exist, and then place beside them, the ranges a human can hope to detect with his senses alone. Call me when the human stuff isn't getting humiliated by machines.


betula said:


> If you listened to my previous posts you can see that in my opinion physics and measurements are only able to cover a certain part of sound perception. Stick to your science, but you will never convince me that music is no more than sound. It is more than sound. And some equipment can bring you closer to music than just perfectly measuring sound reproduction.


This I understand.

There is obviously more to our experience of music than sound. This section of the forum is all about that extra stuff and stopping to mistake it for sound. something the average audiophile is very bad at.


----------



## bigshot

Roland P said:


> The neutral jumper is just there to replace the fuse (in the fusebox of your home). For better conductivity I suppose. But fuses are made for a reason and should not be replaced.



Yeah I remember when I was a kid people running out of fuses and putting pennies in the fusebox and then their house burned down!

In this case though, their woo woo fusebox has two spaces for fuses. One is the fuse and the other is for a jumper. I'm wondering why you would need to have a jumper in addition to the fuse. Couldn't they just hard wire that in? Is there a reason you'd want to run the fuse without the jumper? It almost seems like they're inferring you should order another fancy jumper from them and bypass the fuse too. (Which would be massively irresponsible because their clientele doesn't seem to be the best and brightest in the first place. They'll go ahead and do that and end up with a smoking mess of wires.


----------



## Roland P

bigshot said:


> In this case though, their woo woo fusebox has two spaces for fuses. One is the fuse and the other is for a jumper. I'm wondering why you would need to have a jumper in addition to the fuse. Couldn't they just hard wire that in? Is there a reason you'd want to run the fuse without the jumper?



What I read here (another black magic audio company...) http://www.kempelektroniks.nl/Files...ic_fuse_cartridge_en_hifituning_fuse__eng.pdf is:

_In the Netherlands, it is not obliged to have another fuse in the Neutral-wire, so we put a durable silver coated massive copper rod in the right cartridge slot._

Also, I think it's required that both 0 and phase can be disconnected, I mean, current will flow when you connect 0 to something with a higher or lower voltage... (I've learned about this stuff, but it never had my interest lol).


----------



## bigshot

I'm not going to even ask if this stuff is UL listed. If your house catches fire and the fire inspector traces it back to your woo power conditioner plugadaptered from Dutch standards, good luck getting insurance to pay.


----------



## BIG POPPA

bfreedma said:


> The Akiko stick is won’t do anything for your audio.  But it might void your home insurance.  A non standard fuse almost certainly will.
> 
> Amazingly, you’re paying for snake oil that may well leave you on the hook if it starts a fire in your home.  Enjoy.
> 
> Some people will literally buy anything that marketing copy suggest will help without any evidence.  Just use big words in a meaningless way and the money flows in.


If you have never tried it you don't know if it does't work on a cable. And assuming it would void home insurance is laughable because you honestly do not know how the Akiko stick works. You make a good example on how people make assumptions and give opinions on subjects they have no knowledge on. You are just giving false hyperbole with your response.


----------



## sonitus mirus

The established scientific assumption is that a cable cannot improve the audible sound quality, only worsen it.  If an inexpensive cable does not impact the sound quality in any verifiably audible manner, either objectively through measurement or subjectively via a controlled blind test, there is nothing more to discuss.


----------



## BIG POPPA

And being UL listed....... UL listed really doesn't have any weight. It is a government agency as much as Planned Parenthood. UL is a private company that provides a service. How much gear in Everyone's rigs in this hobby is actually UL Listed? Besides Bussman fuses??


----------



## bigshot (Apr 22, 2021)

BIG POPPA said:


> you honestly do not know how the Akiko stick works.



That is the perfect invitation for me to invite you to explain exactly how it works. Please be as scientific and accurate as you would like us to be. Can you post a schematic to start?

CRICKETS


----------



## Claypole

You can get ’Hi Fi’ fuses, which improve sound because ‘bottleneck’ and you can get an Akiko stick which works by soaking up unwanted frequencies using special crystals.

However, for the super discerning listener, apparently you can get the ‘*Akiko Audio Fuse Box Tuning Chip’. *It’s a piece of foil that you stick on your fuse box. It works by ‘permanently applying harmonising energy’ in the area where you place the ‘chip’. It improves the signal transmission, allegedly.

In case you’re wondering, I haven’t just made this up, this is a real product and it costs €50. I was going to post a link, but it wouldn’t seem appropriate in the ‘Sound Science’ forum.

Anybody care to offer a scientific explanation as to how this product might work?


----------



## Roland P

Claypole said:


> You can get ’Hi Fi’ fuses, which improve sound because ‘bottleneck’ and you can get an Akiko stick which works by soaking up unwanted frequencies using special crystals.
> 
> However, for the super discerning listener, apparently you can get the ‘*Akiko Audio Fuse Box Tuning Chip’. *It’s a piece of foil that you stick on your fuse box. It works by ‘permanently applying harmonising energy’ in the area where you place the ‘chip’. It improves the signal transmission, allegedly.
> 
> ...


The chips were mentioned in the previous page of this thread.

I don't think there is any science behind these products. It's a showcase of how far you can go with this.


----------



## Claypole

Roland P said:


> The chips were mentioned in the previous page of this thread.


Ah, so they were.  I would have thought such a ground breaking product would have been discussed a lot more than it has been. After all, a sticker than can create ‘harmonious energy’ and improve  ‘signal flow’ sounds like something we’d all want in our homes.


----------



## bigshot

Claypole said:


> Anybody care to offer a scientific explanation as to how this product might work?



Big Pooppa can probably explain this better than me, but I'll take a crack at it...

"The Akiko Audio Fuse Box Tuning Chip (tm) works to transfer monetary funds from Customer A to Salesman B in the most efficient manner by means of lie."

How did I do?


----------



## BobG55

bigshot said:


> Big Pooppa can probably explain this better than me, but I'll take a crack at it...
> 
> "The Akiko Audio Fuse Box Tuning Chip (tm) works to transfer monetary funds from Customer A to Salesman B in the most efficient manner by means of lie."
> 
> How did I do?


🤣


----------



## BIG POPPA

bigshot said:


> That is the perfect invitation for me to invite you to explain exactly how it works. Please be as scientific and accurate as you would like us to be. Can you post a schematic to start?
> 
> CRICKETS


Come to Seattle, Always ready for the next meet to be made. Open invitation to come to Seattle to hear some great gear with cables and see what happens.. Will be a great time.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Big Pooppa can probably explain this better than me, but I'll take a crack at it...
> 
> "The Akiko Audio Fuse Box Tuning Chip (tm) works to transfer monetary funds from Customer A to Salesman B in the most efficient manner by means of lie."
> 
> How did I do?


🤣


----------



## bigshot

BIG POPPA said:


> Come to Seattle, Always ready for the next meet to be made. Open invitation to come to Seattle to hear some great gear with cables and see what happens.. Will be a great time.



I have to come to Seattle for you to explain how it works? C'mon. Admit it. You have no idea what is inside that dongle. And you've never done a blind, level matched, direct A/B switched listening test to prove it actually does make a difference. You're just talking out of your nether regions.

In the past, I pulled one of these "well regarded" magic dongles apart and posted photos on Head Fi of what was inside. You want to know what was in it? Two ordinary copper wires, wrapped in tin foil with some beach sand tossed in. No electronics at all. Just a straight wire passthrough. I bet the same people are behind your magic dongle as that one. It had the same pseudo-science sales copy and BS unsolicited customer reviews. It even had the same affiliated review site logos. I'm not going to travel to Seattle to prove this is snake oil to you. It's up to you to think critically, do your homework, and apply logical tests to products yourself. I'm not getting paid to prevent you from wasting money. That's your responsibility.

Magic Pebbles.


----------



## wind016

Wow. i Just found this thread... I started my audio journey and buying equipment 15 years ago. Almost 10 years ago, Tyll from Inner fidelity showed that decently made cables didn't make a difference. You buy them as replacement to fix broken cables or if you like their build, but generally they performed WORSE than the stock cables no matter how much they costed.

I go on hiatus from head-fi for about 7 years and the cable discussion is still going strong? In fact, it seems there are MORE believers in cable snake oil now and prices are just nuts! It's not just cables, but audio prices are shooting up. There's even IEMs costing $6k where the companies refuse to send out units for measurement or reviews. What is going on with this hobby?


----------



## bigshot

Some people are not self-directed. They allow other people to direct them. And those people have ulterior motives.


----------



## 71 dB

wind016 said:


> I go on hiatus from head-fi for about 7 years and the cable discussion is still going strong?


Yes. Unless in the future people are genetically modified to be critical and immune to snake oil claims, this discussion will stay strong forever.



wind016 said:


> In fact, it seems there are MORE believers in cable snake oil now and prices are just nuts!


During your hiatus from head-fi the World entered the post factual era. Facts don't matter anyone. Feelings matter and you know what? people FEEL facts matter! 
All facts they don't FEEL are facts are simply conspiratorial lies! It is total lunacy!! The World entered post factual era, because politicians learned to take advantage of the dangerous combination of frustration, ignorance and the bubble-effect of social media. Now everyone can find the bubble where things called "facts" match with their feelings.



wind016 said:


> What is going on with this hobby?


Confusion. What is the hobby about when transparent audio is so easy to achieve? How do you improve an already totally flat frequency response? Extent it beyond ultrasonics? How do you decrease the noise floor if it is already well below the listening threshold? Why decrease harmonic distortion if you can't even hear it? If you don't know yourself what the hobby is about, how would manufacturers and audio gear sellers know what to make and sell? Snake oil audio cables are a desperate attempt to make this more of an hobby than it really is. It is about "pretending" things aren't as transparent as they are, wanting to doubt things in order to feel your hobby is more than it really is. Audio has become the hobby of millionaires. Poor people buy their affordable audio gear and that's it. It is fine. Millionaires can custom-build amazing ATMOS-home theatres with fine-tuned acoustics. Such projects are no doubt a great hobby, but unfortunately only possible to a few people here and there.


----------



## someguyontheinternet

A nice feel and look make a difference. Stable connectors that won't fall apart at a slight yank make a difference. But other aspects?
I can understand that these factors may positively affect the perception of quality with other aspects of the product. Such a big difference that people would be willing to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars however baffles me.


----------



## wind016

71 dB said:


> Yes. Unless in the future people are genetically modified to be critical and immune to snake oil claims, this discussion will stay strong forever.
> 
> 
> During your hiatus from head-fi the World entered the post factual era. Facts don't matter anyone. Feelings matter and you know what? people FEEL facts matter!
> ...



That is so crazy because I saw in other threads there seems to be more information available now. Someone showed me there are other people now in other forums doing what Tyll did back then and measuring all kinds of equipment. It should be pretty clear with this wealth of knowledge (over 15 years at this point for me), that aftermarket cables don't make any difference beyond a certain point and considering equal resistances. In fact it almost ALWAYS WORSENS performance. These cable companies are always small. They rarely can create a cable, for example, up to Sennheiser standards without the Sennheiser multimillion dollar budgets and assets. At most, they can create an equally-well performing cable.


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

Wow this has been a hilarious ride last 12 pages or so were super lit. I laughed at people's inability to discard science to justify their snazzy "super-scientific" cables research. It just shows that folks with crap loads of money are super gullible. I wonder how did they manage to make that much money in the first place.

But over tons of posts on this thread, I noticed one thing, the believers always interpret music via cables and not the 'sound'. Music is an art which can have n number of interpretations due to it's subjectivity. But, 'sound' is the medium and it is dead objective and can be 100% justified by science. Folks are unable to discern such a simple fact.

You enjoy music via sound and not the sound via music. Both machines and human ears can pick up sound, the precision varies but both are capable enough to capture it. Music is subjective and it has crap loads of psychoacoustics attached to it.

I mean a basic test to verify this is just listen to a news bulletin, does it sound ever so smooth on $500 cable as opposed to a $5 cable? Or if someone really wants to test all frequencies along with impact and everything, just try listening to a sine sweep. I mean if it improves treble I'm sure it will make that 5-7k Hz sound ever so smooth and delicious. Or the sub 50 Hz rumble will be ever so powerful. 

I mean the forum is sound science and not music science forum.


----------



## bigshot

Exactly. Music is about emotions and ideas. Sound is about fidelity. They're quite different, completely separate things.


----------



## Roland P

Imagine the horror on the recording side 😁


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

To answer the thread, easiest way to convince them would be to explain them the difference between sound and music. 😅 Most folks and believers don't seem to understand the difference between the two. Then to tell them why FR is an important evidence amongst other tests. If they still don't understand and are hellbent on this then they should probably check this small wiki on Physics of music -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics

The FR is nothing but placement of 'music' in terms of acoustic waves basis which many folks buy their audio gear. The graph only tells how it will sound, it doesn't factor in _*how will you perceive*_ the sound. Maybe an AI in future would easily manage this part as well but till then that's that.


----------



## Maxx134

Many circumstances can be made:
Unbalanced cable runs, 
equipment interactions,  
Interference

Wire difference is very important.
Microphone cable to power cable to antenna cable to digital (Cat7) cable.
They all have a real purpose so we need to not side track that cable is just cable...

Most minute measurable differences should not be audible.

Yet we do have some very elaborate & thick, expensive "Headphone" cables that can alter the sound because of poor sheilding from all that fancy twisting.
They will tell you one their websites, how great their cable is against all number of issues, happening on a nano scale...

Electricity and magnetism are inseparable, and any resultant stray inductance is not resistance. 
What about the skinn-effect?
An obfuscation of the signal can be an outcome, but to what level?

Question is all these things happening in nano levels, so the real question is not that nothing is happening, but wether  your gonna detect that?
Good luck with that heheee


----------



## 1S0U0N0S

This thread is ****ing hilarious. The fact that the dude who originally posted this requested that he got banned makes it 10x funnier. Honestly I think cables matter in a small sense, but not anywhere near where people claim.,


----------



## bigshot

Cables either work for their intended purpose, or they don't to varying degrees of degradation of the signal. No cable sounds better than a properly functioning cable. Amazon Basics makes properly functioning cables. You can spend more, but it won't make any audible difference.


----------



## 1S0U0N0S

bigshot said:


> Cables either work for their intended purpose, or they don't to varying degrees of degradation of the signal. No cable sounds better than a properly functioning cable. Amazon Basics makes properly functioning cables. You can spend more, but it won't make any audible difference.


part of me is curtious what does 10,000 dollar cables sound like. If I cant hear a difference i dont care.


----------



## Maxx134

Claypole said:


> you can get an Akiko stick which works by soaking up unwanted frequencies using special crystals


WOW OMG... Talk about voodoo electronics haha.
Last I heard Crystals do not have actual electric properties.
That is the key here..

I have heard of talk of crystals and frequency, or psychic influence but not in an electrical sense.
 Heheee!


----------



## Maxx134 (May 7, 2021)

Most esoterica audio end up being variants of a box with a either a straight wire, or a resistor, or a simple filter (capacitve or inductive) inside. Lol.

I'm not nocking crystals or stones, as I had used them as decorations on gear, but to effect audio electronically, lol nope!


----------



## bigshot

1S0U0N0S said:


> part of me is curtious what does 10,000 dollar cables sound like. If I cant hear a difference i dont care.



Actually, the ultra high end cables are more likely to sound different than cheap ones. The manufacturers deliberately hobble them to eliminate high frequencies to give them that "analog sound". You can do the same thing by turning down your treble control.



Maxx134 said:


> Most esoterica audio end up being variants of a box with a either a straight wire, or a resistor, or a simple filter (capacitve or inductive) inside.



I did a tear down of one and it was a male and female plug at either end with a straight copper wire between them, wrapped in tin foil and there was a pinch of sand inside the case. I guess the sand was the crystals.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I did a tear down of one and it was a male and female plug at either end with a straight copper wire between them, wrapped in tin foil and there was a pinch of sand inside the case. I guess the sand was the crystals.



Guess that makes it more legit than homeopathy: which can hock distilled water as "medicine".


----------



## omegaorgun (May 8, 2021)

It is more important to just get a good cable with decent copper. Take Mogami, Canare, or Belden they are very cheap, and use high quality copper made in very advanced facilities.  After that along with good quality connectors, it's good to have quality solder and workmanship.

Is there snake oil? Absolutely!  Cables are also like audio jewelry, but no harm in giving your systems some bling and having peace of mind they are not the bottleneck or weak point.

It's down to how deep each person pocket is and how far they want to take it. There are many audiophiles with money to burn and if they feel good about the purchase and enjoy the system then good for them. I personally will pay up to $100 for a decent cable, but I also make my own.

You shouldn't be worried about the next guy, especially if you don't know him. One of the many joys of the audio hobby everyone has an opinion and must be heard, and I just think we like to argue lol!

It's up to the companies to prove with measurements that they have a superior product and we as consumers can and have the ability to make an informed choice, or not.


----------



## bigshot

I find that Amazon Basics works just as well as any other interconnect. Cables are what salesmen call "upsell items". "You've just bought a very nice set of speakers- you need cables of a similar high calibre!" It's baloney. Any cable that is properly manufactured and used for the intended purpose will sound the same as any other cable. The only reason to spend more on cables is for bling factor, or because you're constantly plugging and unplugging your cables and you need something particularly sturdy.


----------



## BobG55

bigshot said:


> I find that Amazon Basics works just as well as any other interconnect. Cables are what salesmen call "upsell items". "You've just bought a very nice set of speakers- you need cables of a similar high calibre!" It's baloney. Any cable that is properly manufactured and used for the intended purpose will sound the same as any other cable. The only reason to spend more on cables is for bling factor, or because you're constantly plugging and unplugging your cables and you need something particularly sturdy.


Fully agree.  I also use AmazonBasics Cables.  They‘re well made, sturdy & bottom line is, that’s all anyone needs.  I also like their “look”.  Some 15 years ago when I wasn’t as personally informed about the audio hobby, I took the bait.  While purchasing a Cambridge stereo system [CD Player & Integrated Amp] at an audio store, the salesman began telling me about cables [inter connects].  He talked me into buying something called “Kimber Kable Ultraplate Contact Surface” copper cables for the modest sum of $300 CDN.  These magical cables would improve the sound quality of my system and guard against any other electrical interferences within my household.  “Wow” said I, at the time & couldn’t hand over my extra $300 fast enough.

Turns out that over the following months, I began wondering about what the guy had verbally sold me.  Then some eight years ago I joined Head-fi & began reading the Sound Science forum out of curiosity.  Over time what I began to learn and understand is that so many of what is sold in the audio hobby at high prices is not needed at all & won’t improve the sound quality.  I’m not technically savvy and still don’t understand sound measurements and graphs & a lot of the inner technical audio science.  That’s ok, I was like that with math in school also & I accept these personal shortcomings.  But I _did _learn and have stopped spending money needlessly.

BTW, I’m including a photo of those “magical” Kimber Kables.  One of the plug-in connector fell off some four years ago.  I didn’t bother to get it fixed but I kept them to remind myself that I actually paid $300 for that.  Also including my superb looking and basic everyday, good enough AmazonBasics cables on my Headphone Amp, Loki EQ and CD player.


----------



## sander99

They didn't bother to equip a $300 cable with strain reliefs? (No wonder the plug fell off.)


----------



## Maxx134

BobG55 said:


> Turns out that over the following months, I began wondering about what the guy had verbally sold me. Then some eight years ago I joined Head-fi & began reading the Sound Science forum out of curiosity. Over time what I began to learn and understand is that so many of what is sold in the audio hobby at high prices is not needed at all & won’t improve the sound quality. I’m not technically savvy and still don’t understand sound measurements and graphs & a lot of the inner technical audio science. That’s ok, I was like that with math in school also & I accept these personal shortcomings. But I _did _learn and have stopped spending money needlessly


Yeah it sux that so much money is spent on all cables.  I know friends that have spent literally thousands on headphone cable alone(!).
Many learn the hard way, but at least also learn what they prefer.

There are many more (visual) attributes of a wire or cable that will give you a preference over any possible sound attribute.
TBH if you don't have a capable reference headphones of elite status to be used as a monitor,  I don't see how you could detect differences. 
I do have my own method and do have my own preferences, and I believe the bottom line is, no matter what said here, you must make your own decisions and go thru your experiences to decide what you want.

I am thinking that most consumers will NOT want a cable that has the word "basic" in it.
Many would rather buy a used brand they are familiar with.
I realize this has very little to do with sound, but instead the physical appearance of quality.
 That's why copper doesn't have the attraction that silver does.

You can find some sweet silver cables/ interconnects for lower prices on eBay.
Even Chinese knock-off silver cable
 look great these days.


If you decide that wire doesn't matter, then you might want to show that by buying a "basic" cable, but I'm shure most consumers would want to  appease thier "placibo" urges instead, and get a visually perceived "better" cable over a "basic" cable.
Looks sells. 

Placibo may be a dirty bad word, but since it's an actual influencing factor, might as well attend to that nagging influence ( in the mind), and make it to go away with a preference choice.
I would venture to say that if that Amazon cable said "Amazon Choice", or "Amazon Audiophile", it would "sound" even better! Lol.
It certainly looks solid regardless. Too bad the sales team struck out on the name, because in reality it is a minority the target base that prefer that "name".

Apologies if it seems like I side tracked, just pointing out the consumer & market bias.


----------



## bigshot

Maxx134 said:


> I'm shure most consumers would want to  appease thier "placibo" urges instead, and get a visually perceived "better" cable over a "basic" cable.



That is entirely their problem. Those people would be well advised to steer clear of the Sound Science forum, because their placebo is going to take a hit if they post here.


----------



## Ryokan (May 9, 2021)

I've recently bought a silver plated 8 core cable (second hand before a spend $$$) and prefer it over my Orb Clear Force copper cable when paired with my Andromeda's. I tried it on my W80's thinking I'd get the same result and make them slightly brighter as they're warmer than the others, but surprisingly didn't find this the case and quickly went back to the Orb which sounds better with them imo, (which I was glad about as I won't have too many cables being unused).
I concluded silver plated cables pair better with some earphones but not others, case closed! cables make a difference. Then I started reading this thread, and others on the science section. So now I'm holding off getting a very expensive (for me) silver cable that I've been eyeing, hoping for an even greater upgrade in sound for the Andro's, as it looks like I'm mistaken and there can't be any difference, even though I think I can hear a clear benefit to having different materials paired with different iem's. I know eyebrows will be raised but wanted to share my findings.

Edit: Another point was after changing to the silver plated cable I had to straight away turn the volume down for the same track.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Ryokan said:


> I've recently bought a silver plated 8 core cable (second hand before a spend $$$) and prefer it over my Orb Clear Force copper cable when paired with my Andromeda's. I tried it on my W80's thinking I'd get the same result and make them slightly brighter as they're warmer than the others, but surprisingly didn't find this the case and quickly went back to the Orb which sounds better with them imo, (which I was glad about as I won't have too many cables being unused).
> I concluded silver plated cables pair better with some earphones but not others, case closed! cables make a difference. Then I started reading this thread, and others on the science section. So now I'm holding off getting a very expensive (for me) silver cable that I've been eyeing, hoping for an even greater upgrade in sound for the Andro's, as it looks like I'm mistaken and there can't be any difference, even though I think I can hear a clear benefit to having different materials paired with different iem's. I know eyebrows will be raised but wanted to share my findings.
> 
> Edit: Another point was after changing to the silver plated cable I had to straight away turn the volume down for the same track.


There are two parts to your story.

First, Andro"s" are notorious all-BA IEM with the peak impedance of just few Ohms, for which about everything may matter, especially with portable amps - cables, the charging level of your source... A poor engineering design - one would think, but then for a hobby - it may be fun - testing different things (cable, amps) and finding the difference, and selling these things.

Second, on cable materials (copper, silver, plated, gold, graphene, palladium, rhodium, plutonium, unobtanium...) "matter" - it does not - no any good evidence was ever shown (sensitive detectors are available to prove subtle differences well below hearing limits - amplitude and frequency).
Then both from my background as a materials chemist and experience with 30+ cables and different impedance loads - only resistance matters, as it should be for conductors

Specifically for the plating - understanding how few-micron layer may possibly matter is one thing, yet another - copper wires needs to be protected to prevent from oxidation, and plating is the easiest and most common way, typically using some silver alloys. Then some of these wires are placed in brown copper-coloured insulation to satisfy audiophile demand for copper-looking cables - which makes it so fun to read how copper-plated cables are different


----------



## bigshot

How did you conduct your blind test, Ryokan?


----------



## Ryokan (May 9, 2021)

bigshot said:


> How did you conduct your blind test, Ryokan?




My 'test' was simply that I preferred the 'new' silver plated cable with the Andromeda's over the cable I've listened with for a few years which I'm used to and has the 'highest purity Japanese copper conductors!', but when I tried it on my Westone's it was meh and they sounded better (more coherent) when I re-attached the older cable. I will try them again but don't like to keep disconnecting the MMCX connectors and once I'm happy with the sound try to leave them alone.
The reason I risked ridicule in posting my findings is that: I had to lower the volume with the silver plated cable and found it didn't have the same affect on the other iem's, I expected to hear the same result with both earphones (especially as 'all cables sound the same') but didn't, which I thought was interesting and may prove a difference? I should add prior to trying the silver plated cable both my iem's are paired with the same model of cable, from switching to the 'new' cable I noticed a change straight away. Before trying the silver cable I have tried an ALO 'Smoky Litz' which I couldn't hear a difference with - it sounded as good as the Orb cables. Possibly a proper blind test would show different results, I was simply stating that I detected a difference and thought lowering the volume must prove something(?), especially when I've tried other copper cables and could tell no difference, certainly not enough to post about it on here.


----------



## bigshot (May 9, 2021)

I'm afraid in Sound Science, subjective impressions might be useful as a starting point, they don't qualify as proof. I think you'd find that if you eliminated the possibility for expectation bias and perceptual error to affect your comparison, all the difference would disappear. If a cable passes a signal cleanly enough to not cross any audible thresholds, it isn't going to sound any different than a different cable that also is audibly transparent. There's no reason why a properly designed copper cable would sound any different than a silver one. All of the differences are far beyond the range of human ears. You should try a controlled listening test. It's very easy to do and we would be happy to help you test it to find out for yourself for sure.

Most people think that fancy cables have the ability to sound better than normal cables. But that is backwards. A poorly made and designed cable can certainly sound worse than a decent cable, but fancy cables can't sound any better than that. If two cables sound different, one isn't better than the other. The truth is that one must be defective.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Ryokan said:


> My 'test' was simply that I preferred the 'new' silver plated cable with the Andromeda's over the cable I've listened with for a few years which I'm used to and has the 'highest purity Japanese copper conductors!', but when I tried it on my Westone's it was meh and they sounded better (more coherent) when I re-attached the older cable. I will try them again but don't like to keep disconnecting the MMCX connectors and once I'm happy with the sound try to leave them alone.
> The reason I risked ridicule in posting my findings is that: I had to lower the volume with the silver plated cable and found it didn't have the same affect on the other iem's, I expected to hear the same result with both earphones (especially as 'all cables sound the same') but didn't, which I thought was interesting and may prove a difference? I should add prior to trying the silver plated cable both my iem's are paired with the same model of cable, from switching to the 'new' cable I noticed a change straight away. Before trying the silver cable I have tried an ALO 'Smoky Litz' which I couldn't hear a difference with - it sounded as good as the Orb cables. Possibly a proper blind test would show different results, I was simply stating that I detected a difference and thought lowering the volume must prove something(?), especially when I've tried other copper cables and could tell no difference, certainly not enough to post about it on here.


My humble suggestion would be to try to measure resistance of these cables using a simple multimeter, I read that many feel that there is a sweet spot in cable resistance for the bass/treble balance in "Andro" (I do not have Andromeda, but it is definitely my experience with other low-impedance multi-BA IEMs).


----------



## Ryokan

PhonoPhi said:


> My humble suggestion would be to try to measure resistance of these cables using a simple multimeter, I read that many feel that there is a sweet spot in cable resistance for the bass/treble balance in "Andro" (I do not have Andromeda, but it is definitely my experience with other low-impedance multi-BA IEMs).




 I will have to compare cables again, if the change isn't as noticeable I'll have to put it down to imagination, though I was confident in hearing a difference straight away but appreciate there was nothing scientific about my initial conclusion.


----------



## Ryokan

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid in Sound Science, subjective impressions might be useful as a starting point, they don't qualify as proof. I think you'd find that if you eliminated the possibility for expectation bias and perceptual error to affect your comparison, all the difference would disappear. If a cable passes a signal cleanly enough to not cross any audible thresholds, it isn't going to sound any different than a different cable that also is audibly transparent. There's no reason why a properly designed copper cable would sound any different than a silver one. All of the differences are far beyond the range of human ears. You should try a controlled listening test. It's very easy to do and we would be happy to help you test it to find out for yourself for sure.
> 
> Most people think that fancy cables have the ability to sound better than normal cables. But that is backwards. A poorly made and designed cable can certainly sound worse than a decent cable, but fancy cables can't sound any better than that. If two cables sound different, one isn't better than the other. The truth is that one must be defective.



That makes a lot of sense. Others have also said they can hear a difference switching to a decent 'silver' cable, not that that proves anything.


----------



## castleofargh

Ryokan said:


> That makes a lot of sense. Others have also said they can hear a difference switching to a decent 'silver' cable, not that that proves anything.


The secret is in how low and chaotic the impedance of the IEM is. I say secret but it's really Ohm’s law with extra log steps for decibels. The Andro being at the top of the worst case scenario in term of impedance, along with a handful of famous others. It's not surprising that people notice and get convinced of anything and everything with them, as their impedance curve will maximize voltage variations compared to most other IEMs.
I posted a bunch of FR graphs in this topic and others over the years, with added resistors to simulate cables or DAPs with different impedances and how that could affect some IEM.
This is probably the cleanest post I made, it's focused on source impedance, but it's exactly the same as for the IEM, the source is cable+amp.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/feedback-about-gears-stop-doing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/


My advice is to forget that silver is even a variable. Changing almost anything else will have more impact. Get a slightly shorter cable and voila!


----------



## Ryokan (May 10, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> The secret is in how low and chaotic the impedance of the IEM is. I say secret but it's really Ohm’s law with extra log steps for decibels. The Andro being at the top of the worst case scenario in term of impedance, along with a handful of famous others. It's not surprising that people notice and get convinced of anything and everything with them, as their impedance curve will maximize voltage variations compared to most other IEMs.
> I posted a bunch of FR graphs in this topic and others over the years, with added resistors to simulate cables or DAPs with different impedances and how that could affect some IEM.
> This is probably the cleanest post I made, it's focused on source impedance, but it's exactly the same as for the IEM, the source is cable+amp.
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/feedback-about-gears-stop-doing-it-wrong-impedance.866714/
> ...



Lots to read up on, thanks. I guess the noticeable difference in volume would be switching to a lower impedance cable?


Edit: Swopped the cables back and didn't need to adjust the volume this time. What hampers testing is the MMCX connectors are not always easy to remove. It would be much better to have two sets of Andromeda's connected to the different cables and simply swop the jacks.


----------



## castleofargh

Ryokan said:


> Lots to read up on, thanks. I guess the noticeable difference in volume would be switching to a lower impedance cable?
> 
> 
> Edit: Swopped the cables back and didn't need to adjust the volume this time. What hampers testing is the MMCX connectors are not always easy to remove. It would be much better to have two sets of Andromeda's connected to the different cables and simply swop the jacks.


Yes, the cable with higher impedance will lower the volume level at the IEM. If said IEM behaved like a resistor(flat impedance), then you’d pretty much have a global gain change. But when instead the IEM shows serious impedance variations per frequency, you end up with an EQ the general shape of your IEM’s impedance curve.
If and when that can be audible is a matter of the IEM’s impedance curve, how low it goes, how wild the fluctuations over frequency, how much difference there is between the cables, and their initial impedance. and of course, how much impedance the amp section has(that's often a main variable). 
Within all that, the metal of choice is a small percentage of what will really determine the cable’s impedance, itself only one part of the equation. I would prioritize good plugs, good contacts, as IMO, they are likely to cause most of the existing impedance coming from the cable. The wire itself having silly small impedance in most cases. Which is in part why trying to slightly affect that silly small value with some silver, does not look explain much about the ”sound of silver”. Most likely such cables have another more dominant cause for being different(or the listener just made the change up. That happens too. Probably a lot.

If you had 2 Andros, they would most likely sound different enough to notice. That wouldn't help blind testing. But it's true that properly testing our hearing of changes from IEM cables is usually not available to us. MMCX or not.
Also keep in mind that the Andro is one special IEM. In an army of multidriver IEMs with wild impedances, it's probably in a top 5 of TOTL IEM with lowest wildest impedance. Anything that could happen is more likely to happen with it. Do not try to define cable behaviors at large, using that monster(Yes monsters can sound very nice too! ^_^).


----------



## bigshot (May 10, 2021)

And this is something specific to particular brands and models of IEMs. It doesn't necessarily apply to interconnects, speaker cables or even headphone cables. But I think it's safe to say that whether a cable sounds correct or not has a lot more to do with its design for a particular function than it's price or what kind of metal it's made of.


----------



## Ryokan (May 10, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> Also keep in mind that the Andro is one special IEM. In an army of multidriver IEMs with wild impedances, it's probably in a top 5 of TOTL IEM with lowest wildest impedance. Anything that could happen is more likely to happen with it. Do not try to define cable behaviors at large, using that monster(Yes monsters can sound very nice too! ^_^).



So it was no coincidence that my perceptions of cables changing the sound was mostly with the Andromeda's. What are the benefits of making an iem with such characteristics, over more conventional (ba) iem's? I guess being easy to drive from most sources?

Also the Westone W80's are rated at just 5 Ohm @ 1 kHz so shouldn't they be even more wild? Yet I play them louder than the Andro's.


----------



## omegaorgun (May 12, 2021)

Ryokan said:


> I've recently bought a silver plated 8 core cable (second hand before a spend $$$) and prefer it over my Orb Clear Force copper cable when paired with my Andromeda's. I tried it on my W80's thinking I'd get the same result and make them slightly brighter as they're warmer than the others, but surprisingly didn't find this the case and quickly went back to the Orb which sounds better with them imo, (which I was glad about as I won't have too many cables being unused).
> I concluded silver plated cables pair better with some earphones but not others, case closed! cables make a difference. Then I started reading this thread, and others on the science section. So now I'm holding off getting a very expensive (for me) silver cable that I've been eyeing, hoping for an even greater upgrade in sound for the Andro's, as it looks like I'm mistaken and there can't be any difference, even though I think I can hear a clear benefit to having different materials paired with different iem's. I know eyebrows will be raised but wanted to share my findings.
> 
> Edit: Another point was after changing to the silver plated cable I had to straight away turn the volume down for the same track.


I think it's the resistance of the metals that has an effect just like if you use a resistor it changes the sound. It's going to be very slight. Supposedly copper is a bit warmer sounding than silver so one isn't better or worse than the other.

Then there is the purity but I think most cables are of decent quality so it's really down to do you like the look of the audio jewelry. If you can afford it, buy it.


----------



## bigshot

The reason people say copper sounds warmer than silver is because of the color of the metal. People think warm colored things are warmer. It has nothing to do with how it sounds.


----------



## Ryokan

FireLion said:


> I think it's the resistance of the metals that has an effect just like if you use a resistor it changes the sound. It's going to be very slight. Supposedly copper is a bit warmer sounding than silver so one isn't better or worse than the other.
> 
> Then there is the purity but I think most cables are of decent quality so it's really down to do you like the look of the audio jewelry. If you can afford it, buy it.



I was sure of hearing a difference with the Andro's especially, though after swopping back briefly not so sure. Blind testing is the only way to really know which I can't do at present.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> And this is something specific to particular brands and models of IEMs. It doesn't necessarily apply to interconnects, speaker cables or even headphone cables. But I think it's safe to say that whether a cable sounds correct or not has a lot more to do with its design for a particular function than it's *price or* *what kind of metal it's made of*.



Well, silver has the lowest resistivity (15.9 nΩm), but is very expensive. Copper is almost as good (16.8 nΩm) and about 100 times cheaper.


----------



## PhonoPhi

71 dB said:


> Well, silver has the lowest resistivity (15.9 nΩm), but is very expensive. Copper is almost as good (16.8 nΩm) and about 100 times cheaper.


Silver is definitely more expensive than copper but the cost of silver is still under $1 per gram, so it adds ~$10-$15 per IEM cable, just the metal. 

Then thanks to those who can "definitely hear the difference", supporting the market - silver IEM cables became affordable with the silver wire mass production.

Though, sadly, I really tried my best to "hear the difference", but I can't, since in this case: hearing is believing...

I can definitely hear that blue (and violet also) cables are better (expand the stage, improve the crispness, shimmering and a lot more depending on my mood) that is my psycho-acoustic mighty power


----------



## Barusu Lamperouge

PhonoPhi said:


> Silver is definitely more expensive than copper but the cost of silver is still under $1 per gram, so it adds ~$10-$15 per IEM cable, just the metal.
> 
> Then thanks to those who can "definitely hear the difference", supporting the market - silver IEM cables became affordable with the silver wire mass production.
> 
> ...


I guess only people with Golden ears can hear true sound from silver and copper cables. After all, they have metal ears.😂


----------



## peskypesky

bigshot said:


> The reason people say copper sounds warmer than silver is because of the color of the metal. People think warm colored things are warmer. It has nothing to do with how it sounds.


this


----------



## peskypesky

Barusu Lamperouge said:


> I guess only people with Golden ears can hear true sound from silver and copper cables. After all, they have metal ears.😂


----------



## castleofargh

Ryokan said:


> So it was no coincidence that my perceptions of cables changing the sound was mostly with the Andromeda's. What are the benefits of making an iem with such characteristics, over more conventional (ba) iem's? I guess being easy to drive from most sources?
> 
> Also the Westone W80's are rated at just 5 Ohm @ 1 kHz so shouldn't they be even more wild? Yet I play them louder than the Andro's.


Warning, lot of words to say little!

You'll have to ask the makers of those IEMs. In general it seems possible to get slightly lower distos/go louder, by doing a bunch of things that end up lowering impedance. It’s good for the IEM, but not so good for the amplifier, or to keep a consistant signature over various amp sections. It's arguable if that's good or not overal, depending on your priorities. IMO if someone wants low distos, he should avoid BA drivers altogether. But that's an obviously limiting choice.

About the W80 vs Andro
https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/campfire-andromeda.php#gsc.tab=0
and
https://reference-audio-analyzer.pro/en/report/hp/westone-w80-wire-connection.php#gsc.tab=0

Just stick to the first graph of each link if you don't really know what's going on. On that graph, black line is default FR(into low impedance amp). Orange is the impedance curve of the IEM. And green seems to be FR with a 20 ohm amp(amp+possible resistor+cable usually count as amp). See green as a somewhat extreme version of the EQ you could feel when moving to a cable or DAP of higher impedance.
One important detail! They decide to show the various FR aligned at 20Hz for some reason. So adding 20ohm to the source looks like it's increasing the overall volume level, which of course is not the case. So there is a little mental gymnastic to do with those graphs. In reality, increasing the impedance of the source will lower the voltage(loudness) at the IEM. And it will lower it more where the IEM has less impedance. 
Meaning that in those 2 cases, what really happens is that the treble doesn't change much after adding 20ohm. While in the lower freqs where the IEM’s impedance is very low, the voltage goes down a lot and so does the amplitude of the signal as a result.
We can still assume that we will compensate for the volume change when using those IEM if we feel the ned, and feel that the treble got louder, and talk that way. It's usually how we feel. But just know that it looks more like this





Yellow is impedance, and the 3 above it are FR with orange being the lowest impedance source.(random IEM measurement I found from goggle that happens to be mine, Fitear something)

With that out of the way, you can see that even though the w80 reaches even lower impedance, it remains relatively stable. We get 3 times the lowest impedance only above 10kHz. 
On the other hand, the Andro reaches 3 times the lowest value in the midrange and is at about 24ohm(6times the lowest value) at 7 or 8kHz, a still important range for music and our hearing. 
If those measurements reflect the reality of your own pairs, even if we lack electrical information about your cables and DAP, we can make some educated guess about your impressions and why you feel a bigger change with the andro. Real or not, exaggerated or not, it seems logical that the Andro would end up making more difference.


----------



## bigshot

PhonoPhi said:


> I can definitely hear that blue (and violet also) cables are better (expand the stage, improve the crispness, shimmering and a lot more depending on my mood) that is my psycho-acoustic mighty power



I find a glass or two of really good Merlot is an effective way to elevate mood and enhance psycho-acoustic mighty power!


----------



## Ryokan (May 12, 2021)

> And green seems to be FR with a 20 ohm amp(amp+possible resistor+cable usually count as amp). See green as a somewhat extreme version of the EQ you could feel when moving to a cable or DAP of higher impedance.



If the cable counts as part of the amp section, and different cables have different resistance - which affects how easy an iem is to drive, wouldn't it follow that cables affect the end product; sound? Though it's been stated by many they don't.

Edit: I guess it just affects volume levels.


----------



## Ryokan

bigshot said:


> I find a glass or two of really good Merlot is an effective way to elevate mood and enhance psycho-acoustic mighty power!



I was amazed to read how alcohol affects the inner ear, staying there for several days longer than the rest of the body, it gave me incentive to drastically reduce my intake as over lockdown I was drinking way too much and it was impacting on my listening experience.


----------



## castleofargh (May 12, 2021)

Ryokan said:


> If the cable counts as part of the amp section, and different cables have different resistance - which affects how easy an iem is to drive, wouldn't it follow that cables affect the end product; sound? Though it's been stated by many they don't.


If one IEM cable is 20 ohm more than the other and it's not on purpose, kill it with fire!
For the rest, anything impacts anything else, what should probably be relevant is the magnitude of impact. On those extreme cases like the andro, you’ll get like a dB of variation from maybe half an ohm increase at the ”amp”, assuming a very low impedance amp+cable from the start.  Obviouly this isn't nothing and audibility can rapidly become real even between some cables, as IEM cables can easily have half an ohm or even 1ohm between one another.
But I can take most of my IEMs and get nothing audible even with several ohm increase beside overal gain change at some point. Some IEMs show basically the same FR with 50 extra ohm as ”amp”.

The usual rule of thumb is to follow impedance bridging. Have amps near zero ohm and drivers not near zero. The at least 1/8 ratio is often  brought up. If your IEM goes as low as 4 ohm, then the total source impedance should be 0.5ohm or less. With that logic you shouldn’t find yourself in a situation where one cable has 0.5 ohm or more than the previous cable as the total source impedance should never reach 0.5ohm when using those IEMs.
Here we're discussing IEM that basically won't allow the user to have at least the 1/8 ratio for impedance. It’s not too far fetched to blame those IEMs for being out of spec instead of using them to prove that cables matter.


----------



## 71 dB (May 12, 2021)

Ryokan said:


> If the cable counts as part of the amp section, and different cables have different resistance - which affects how easy an iem is to drive, wouldn't it follow that cables affect the end product; sound? Though it's been stated by many they don't.
> 
> Edit: I guess it just affects volume levels.


Line level signal cables do not matter, because the impedance levels are so high the impedance of the cable itself is insignificant (e.g RCA output impedance = 120 Ω, RCA cable impedance = 0.8 Ω and input impedance 47 kΩ and everything is very resistive).

Speaker and headphone cables CAN matter, if/because the impedance levels are low AND the load is not usually very resistive or constant at all frequencies. That's why you have electrical requirements for the cable, but it doesn't take expensive snake oil cables to fulfil those requirements.


----------



## bigshot

You just need the proper cable for the purpose. That doesn't mean expensive.


----------



## peskypesky (May 14, 2021)

bigshot said:


> You just need the proper cable for the purpose. That doesn't mean expensive.


wrong. the cable needs to be made of silver that has never been exposed to oxygen and assembled in outer space. and it must cost at the very least $20,000.

don't listen to these guys:
https://www.soundguys.com/debunking-myths-about-audio-cables-13093/


----------



## bigshot

All my cables are made of 99.99% pure unobtanium. I'm saving up for cables that are 99.9999%. I hear that is night and day and even my wife can hear the difference!


----------



## peskypesky (May 14, 2021)

bigshot said:


> All my cables are made of 99.99% pure unobtanium. I'm saving up for cables that are 99.9999%. I hear that is night and day and even my wife can hear the difference!


but they HAVE to be assembled in outer space or on the moon for best sound quality.

I hear a night and day difference with moon-assembled cables compared to earth-assembled. The music is more vibrant, nuanced, lifelike, nuanced...with increased resolution, dynamics and sound-stage.

I have also found that the sound from my speakers is better if they are sitting on stands made from unobtanium. Night and day difference.


----------



## Ryokan

bigshot said:


> even my wife can hear the difference!



I believed you up to the last sentence, most women have more sense than to worry about such minor differences 

Well unless it's lingerie


----------



## chef8489

Ryokan said:


> I believed you up to the last sentence, most women have more sense than to worry about such minor differences
> 
> Well unless it's lingerie


And shoes and purses.


----------



## peskypesky

Ryokan said:


> I believed you up to the last sentence, most women have more sense than to worry about such minor differences
> 
> Well unless it's lingerie


purses


----------



## Ryokan

What do you guys think about cable (Kimber Kable) upgrades and using silver solder in Daps, can they affect the sound?


----------



## BobG55

Ryokan said:


> What do you guys think about cable (Kimber Kable) upgrades and using silver solder in Daps, can they affect the sound?


In my case all they affected was my wallet.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Instead of upgrading cables, I found this more useful:


----------



## bigshot

That's a pretty extreme correction! Do you really use that?


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> That's a pretty extreme correction! Do you really use that?


That’s for my QC 35 II when used fully wired and ANC off. They are pretty bad in this mode, but I have the benefit of not using battery and not blocking everything when I’m at home. If I use ANC the correction isn’t as insane, but that uses battery and I only use it when I’m in a flight pretty much.


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2021)

Wow! I didn't know Bose made stuff that wonky. They must sound like listening to music at the bottom of a tub of molasses. A 17dB difference between 6 and 7kHz... whiplash!


----------



## KeithPhantom (May 18, 2021)

This is the EQ I use with the measurements overlaid:




And this is if I turn on ANC:



And EQd:


----------



## bigshot

Interesting. Never seen anything like that. It makes me wonder what they were trying to accomplish there. Maybe they wanted to make sure you noticed that the ANC was an improvement, so they did something to make it sound awful without it.


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> Most people think that fancy cables have the ability to sound better than normal cables. But that is backwards


I agree. Most these fancy cables have some extreme winding and/or braiding going on, which always makes things worse, just for looks.




PhonoPhi said:


> My humble suggestion would be to try to measure resistance of these cables using a simple multimeter


Just a clarification that as music is more like AC, so a multimeter will not measure AC impedance at certain frequencies.
Especially this heavy braided cable types.




bigshot said:


> Bose made stuff that wonky.


Bose has always made mud sounding headphones, and only excelled at comfort and noise cancelling.
Forget using for music, as they make mud dull sound.
😵


----------



## Maxx134 (Jul 31, 2021)

Here is a link to new information regarding how the ear & brain can hear:

https://intelligentsoundengineering.wordpress.com/2020/06/30/aes-148-a-digital-vienna/

Apparently they discovering new insights into our hearing abilities.
🧐😯👍🙂

Edit** 
Just realized some of this is old news:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/slow-listening
😐


----------



## bigshot

This looks like it’s about our ability to detect lack of fidelity, not perceiving differences between two samples. Human hearing will adjust over time to cover up and reveal errors, but if you have a reference track and a sample to compare it to, you don’t want hearing to adjust. You want to detect differences. Auditory memory is the most important factor with this kind of test. Time is better spent determining if your reference track is your true target.


----------



## keesue (Aug 3, 2021)

I inadvertently posted my perceptual impressions in this forum which were intended for the headphone forum, subsequently realized they were not scientifically objective and I respectfully acknowledged my inadvertence.  That said, I would like to add my opinion to the topic at hand.

After high school, a classmate obtained an apprenticeship at Fantasy Studios, in Berekely, CA.  We were ardent music fans of jazz in the 60’s and he was gracious enough to invite a few of us over to the studio after hours.  He explained everything and demonstrated his new-found knowledge in music recording.  I sopped it up to say the least.  What is germane to this topic is that the entire studio was wired with Mogami Cable. There was a spool of it and one of his primary jobs was to make the ends and run the connections.  As an aside, before I get back on topic, he made a dub from the master two-track he personally made directly from the multitrack master down to a premium cassette.  He said, with a grin, that it would blow me out of the water.  Needless to say it did.

Back on topic.  At that time, before Monster cable, there were no boutique brands of cable.  In fact, I came to learn through him, that most major recording studios used Mogami, or its equivalent, due to the excellent RF rejection, flat transmission of the audible frequency band and durability.  In later years, as boutique cables hit the market, he advised they would never be adopted in a studio environment primarily due to cost. To buttress his point, he, his colleagues and I auditioned several of the higher end cables in the studio, cabled from the 2 track mix down to the studio amp to the full-range mastering speakers.  None of the engineers who had many years of recording experience among them, nor I, could hear any difference whatsoever.

The supply house in Oakland, who serviced the studio, as well as the local musician community had a massive auditioning room where one could listen to components.  It was fully custom wired in Mogami throughout.  When building my system, I baited one of the reps, my good friend, in tongue-n-cheek-jest if he would recommend a more revealing boutique cable.  He immediately called in his colleagues and they explained, yes they carried Monster for the non-studio crowd, but they strongly advised me to stay on course with Mogami and making my own cables to suit. To prove the point, they brought in Monster Cable, a few other higher end cables of the era and some generic wires for an audition.  No one in the room could hear the slightest difference listening through that multi thousand dollar system which was used in most of their clients’ recording studios.  So why buy the boutique cables was the inescapable question?  I didn’t have the nerve to say it was a put-on and took the lesson.  Incredible sound to say the least.

My conclusion from these experiences, expressed in a single summary point: Music is recorded on Mogami so how can a cable add anything it didn’t capture in the first place.  Cables can smear, obscure or even tilt frequencies as an equalizer somewhat, if poorly made, but a spectrum sweep of a cable should be true to the audible frequency-band input, and therefore transparent.  In fact, that is how the supply house evaluated and tested everything that came through their shop as a prerequisite to selling the component to the studios. That, they stated, was what they based their reputation on and was the end of the discussion about cable differences. The rest, they said, was just auditory and fiscal ignorance - their words.  I prefer to say, if you hear it, like it, can afford it - buy it.  Not my place.

To that, I would lastly add, that one of the engineers in the studio supply house also helped a friend in his consumer stereo shop.  They used to laugh when someone bought extravagantly expensive boutique cables, but would recite the mantra: A fool and his money...

My home system has been cabled in mogami since I built it many years ago.  For full disclosure, I should add that my main listening system is entirely tube based with Magnaplanars because that is what I bought over thirty years ago and have been fully satisfied with the sound reproduction.  I also use a SS studio amp in my recording rack that is extremely competent.  One would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the two, although measurements will reveal them, but auditory-wise I am accustomed to their sound.  Ears do that.  The gear has Peter Dahl Transformers and sounds glorious late at night, but I digress...

A couple of years back, my colleague went on to win a Grammy for recording excellence.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 4, 2021)

I've worked in some of the biggest studios in Hollywood. They don't use fancy cables. I asked a head engineer once and he said he got cables in bulk on big spools at Monoprice. Durability and shielding are important. It doesn't cost any more to get a cable that can do that. Frequency response balance is simply a matter of using the right wire for the right purpose. That doesn't cost extra either.

Sound engineers use the right tool for the job and don't worry about brand names or prestige. That is stuff duffers worry about.


----------



## PointyFox

bigshot said:


> I've worked in some of the biggest studios in Hollywood. They don't use fancy cables. I asked a head engineer once and he said he got cables in bulk on big spools at Monoprice. Durability and shielding are important. It doesn't cost any more to get a cable that can do that. Frequency response balance is simply a matter of using the right wire for the right purpose. That doesn't cost extra either.
> 
> Sound engineers use the right tool for the job and don't worry about brand names or prestige. That is stuff duffers worry about.



An even more extreme example: consider super sensitive electronic measurement devices, things capable of measuring differences in properties of signals millions or billions of times smaller than what humans can detect. They don't use use fancy cables.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I've worked in some of the biggest studios in Hollywood. They don't use fancy cables. I asked a head engineer once and he said he got cables in bulk on big spools at Monoprice. Durability and shielding are important. It doesn't cost any more to get a cable that can do that. Frequency response balance is simply a matter of using the right wire for the right purpose. That doesn't cost extra either.
> 
> Sound engineers use the right tool for the job and don't worry about brand names or prestige. That is stuff duffers worry about.


Well I guess there's professional applications that also require balanced cables because of longer runs and significant enough interference in large auditoriums.....even then, those cables are moderately priced compared to prices I've seen audiophiles spend for interconnects or even power cables.  Really?  Or what about sound absorbing spikes for purely solid state gear?  I also remember reading on this forum years ago that people subscribed to improved sound with CDs if they marked out the outer edge with a marker.  My sound isolation for my turn table is hand made styrofoam pads inside cardboard tubes (so that now my records don't skip if I'm moving around).  I've had to deal with some serious sound interference in my townhouse: have a radio tower near me.  For my speaker receivers, I've used surge suppressors with RF filters, and still find Amazon 14 guage speaker cables are fine for longer runs with my 7.1.4 speaker setup.  When I built a subwoofer, the first plate amplifier sounded fine as is.  It started developing problems, so I replaced it with another.  It had terrible interference from the radio tower until I found a good ground loop isolator from Blue Jeans (so specialized application, and most one should expect to spend).


----------



## bigshot

If sound comes out and the output is to spec, it doesn't matter what the cable is made of or how much it cost. The problem with audiophiles is that they think that every dollar spent must make an audible improvement. They'll admit the law of diminishing returns and claim that their well trained hearing is sensitive to the last 1%, so they need to spend more. The truth is they hear just like everyone else and all that money is buying them nothing.

The other thing is that they list expensive equipment like a laundry list, but they never mention their listening room, which can be more important than the speakers and amps they put in it.


----------



## keesue

Thanks for all the thumbs up, fellas, glad you enjoyed the story.  The question posed (paraphrased) was how to convince audiophiles cables don’t make a difference has but one answer, really.  You can’t - period. 

Standing in a studio with Grammy Award winning producers and engineers and hearing a difference where they cannot is the quintessential conundrum.  You are out there on your own.  When studios audition Microphones, Preamps, EQs and Compressors, for example, it is a prerequisite that the device is transparent before any adjustment just as cable should be (and is).  The sound signature of any device is a consequence of altering the signal.  I think it is safe to say that changing a cable to alter the sound signature is simply absurd.  In no studio I have been associated with both domestically and internationally is that done.  This is precisely why studios have patch panels where the engineers can bring in the device of choice for the sound signature they want.  Changing cable is like changing the length of coaxial cable for frequency changes in Ham Radio. That however, is laugh for a different discipline.  (As a licensed Ham, I get a kick out of those arguments).

That said, the messianic compulsion to convince someone what they don’t hear or shouldn’t hear is an exercise in insanity, to paraphrase Einstein. 

I see the door.  Thanks for letting me drop by.

Regards to all...


----------



## bigshot (Aug 7, 2021)

Everyone can be wrong or right. And a sound engineer doesn't hear any better than any other person with human ears. Critical thinking is the key. You have to be in search of the truth to find it. The theme around here is... Welcome to Sound Science, sorry about your preconceptions.


----------



## Maxx134 (Aug 10, 2021)

There is a misconception here.
The thread title includes all audio cables.
Most cables that are costly, are the headphone and interconnect markets.

So what is the misconception?
That the studio XLR cables be used as an example.
The issue is that studio XLR method uses higher amplified runs of separately run balanced signals that are reversed polarity at their destination to electronically eliminate the noise and any interference issues in the long runs.

It's like cheating because it nothing like the lesser "line level" type voltages, and using reverse polarity noise cancellation technique. So of course the cable would not matter in the studios if they all standard type studio cables.
😯😄


----------



## keesue (Aug 10, 2021)

Indeed.  Head-Fi is a headphone forum; however, the ultimate test for any cable irrespective of frequency, level and useage, is its ability to pass an input signal at an appropriate  level and frequency unaltered for the intended use of the cable.  If they deviate, they are equalizers at frequency or attenuators at level.  An XLR cable provides the greater rejection of the two (single ended) at longer lengths and signal velocity using the principals you cite.  That said, the fundamental laws of measurable electron flow remain the same, otherwise, there would be no standard by which to make an objective determination for suitability.

I will stipulate that many people hear differences in cables; but, if the cables comply with the 'same in-same out' standard, it can be be concluded that those differences are in the listeners' heads.  Auditory perception is an individual thing.  No one can determine what an individual hears, and as such, those impressions should be respected as part of the hobby.  Their money - their prerogative. I respect that.  My audiophile friends are a kick in the pants in that regard.  My professional discipline precludes me from agreeing with them but I respect and enjoy their observations just the same, in the collegial spirit of the hobby.  The subjective forums on Head-Fi are interesting reads and I have enjoyed them over the years, particularly but not limited to headphones,

My point is that what is captured using neutral cables is what is passed onto the master.  Studio engineers demand that at cost with no special hearing required.  What takes place in the playback chain is individual as opposed to industry standard.

Nice read...


----------



## H T T (Sep 18, 2021)

Is a cable an LRC circuit? Yes, it is. Therefore, any LRC or change in the LRC circuit WILL affect source to output, simple physics. Whether that is perceptible is a whole 'nother argument.

Quote from @MOONDROP  that jives with my experience:



> Our stance on cables:
> not snake oil, but most of the time, It's better to just get a better headphone instead(unless you are approaching TOTL)


----------



## Maxx134 (Sep 18, 2021)

Difference is the cable design and usage. If used optimally then transparency secured.

 Studios use cables optimally, with powered & noise cancelling xlr design.
So to use studio anything in this argument is misleading..


----------



## bigshot

If you can hear a difference with a cable, something is wrong with the cable. You can’t improve audible sound beyond transparency.


----------



## PointyFox

How's this even up for debate?


----------



## Maxx134 (Sep 18, 2021)

Sometimes poor digital cable makes a difference also.

Properly design cable is ideal and enough, but then you get these "boutique" cable companies, that are simply not using cables within design parameters.
Parameters for CAT cable, or usb cable.
It's "looks" for them.
So I would say most time, specialty cable can backfire.

I know headphones cable with all kinds fancy braiding and super thin clear insulation is another nightmare.
All that thin insulation and windings  create this issue:


H T T said:


> Is a cable an LRC circuit? Yes, it is. Therefore, any LRC or change in the LRC circuit WILL affect source to output, simple physics. Whether that is perceptible is a whole 'nother argument.
> 
> Quote from @MOONDROP  that jives with my experience:


Yep, I heard some of these super fancy "headphone cables" with super duper fancy braiding, and was able to detect faint alterations that weren't normal.

It's a dam shame for owners. I also heard a dulling effect on some expensive all silver cables a friend had. He was upset he spent so much and noticed when he compare to a more insulated cable. Alot money spent on having silver, for nothing. 😛
Edit**
I don't remember the name of the expensive silver cables, but they had white insulation and braiding.
😯


----------



## Deolum

bigshot said:


> If you can hear a difference with a cable, something is wrong with the cable. You can’t improve audible sound beyond transparency.


No but they can change the sound a bit to a brighter or darker signature.


----------



## CoryGillmore

Deolum said:


> No but they can change the sound a bit to a brighter or darker signature.


Putting your copper cable in the oven for a few minutes at 300 degrees F achieves the warmest sound signature. But oooo weeee be careful putting silver cables in the freezer, I almost got hypothermia and died.


----------



## Marutks

Deolum said:


> No but they can change the sound a bit to a brighter or darker signature.



This has been measured many times and they never found any difference whatsover.   Please watch the cable review in my signature.


----------



## bigshot

Deolum said:


> No but they can change the sound a bit to a brighter or darker signature.


Changing the sound is DEGRADING the sound. If a cable isn’t audibly transparent, you are using the wrong cable for the job.


----------



## PointyFox

Yeah, they can't change the sound signature unless either something is wrong with it or it's one of those demo cables that has a hidden super high value resistor added.


----------



## Deolum

Marutks said:


> This has been measured many times and they never found any difference whatsover.   Please watch the cable review in my signature.


I don't care what has been measured many times. Just wanted to give you guys some new food to attack. Idk why this sound science thread was in my notifications. My last and only post here was 9 month ago. Just saw @bigshot saying what he was already saying 1.000.000 times and since it must be quite boring to say that to sound science guys who already know everything i wanted to give him some action.


----------



## bigshot

Very nice of you to think of me! Thank you for keeping me in your thoughts.


----------



## Whazzzup

you don’t


----------



## Paul Mohr (Sep 20, 2021)

I am normally in the camp that cables and what not do make a difference as long as both worked they way they should to begin with. I have tested many cables on speakers systems and home theater gear in the past. Never heard a difference. However recently my faith in that belief was shaken. I ordered a custom cable for my sundara's because I needed a longer cable and honestly I didn't like the stock cable. Much to my surprise I actually heard a difference. Tonally it sounded the same but for whatever reason the staging and imaging improved over the stock cable. And I don't believe it was any kind of bias on my part. I didn't order it thinking it would improve sound, I just needed a longer cable is all. I wasn't expecting there to be a difference either. I was actually worried it might be worse because of the length. And I wasn't trying to make myself feel better about purchase because I needed a longer cable so I was getting a different one anyway. And the custom cable actually cost less than the stock one. The stock cable is like 130 bucks and the new cable was only like 80 bucks shipped. And to be honest I didn't notice until I tried them back to back.

Was it in my head? Maybe, who knows. Was the original cable bad and did it ruin my listening experience in anyway? Nope not at all, other than it was annoying to use. Could it be some kind of mental bias? Yep sure could, but I can't think of a reason why my brain would try to justify it or trick me into thinking it was better. I didn't care one way or another nor did I expect it to be better. And it isn't like I can do any kind of a/b test or blind test. That is kind of hard to do with a headphone cable, especially if you live alone lol.

*edited because I talk too much and run on lol.*


----------



## sonitus mirus

How long was the cable, what type was it, what was it connecting?

 Again, if the cable is correct for the usage, there should be no issue finding any old cable to do the job without impacting sound in an audible manner.  The only mystery is to identify what might actually be responsible for impacting the signal that could potentially be heard.  It is either inherent to the cable properties that are relatively simple to measure or due to some electrical interference.  There is a cheap solution that does not require some irrationally-priced boutique product.


----------



## Paul Mohr

If you were responding to me, in my case it was the stock cable for my Sundara headphones which are a little over 4 feet long. And I didn't like how it felt or laid, its kind of stiff and weird. And it terminates into a 1/8 inch plug so I had to use an adapter to get it to 1/4 inch. And since it is too short for what I need I had to use an extension cable as well. Not sure what its made of but I think the company says its silver? Basically I just wanted a longer cable with the correct plug on it.

When I compared it to the other cable I didn't use the extension though. Just the stock length of cable with the 1/4 inch adapter compared to the new 10 foot cable. It could be the connector making a difference. Extra connections are never a good thing.

And the new cable isn't a fancy expensive boutique type cable. Just a normal well made cable (audiophileninja). It was like 80 bucks with express shipping. Which is actually like half the price of the stock hifiman cable. I could have gotten a cheaper cable off from amazon for like 20 or 30 bucks but the reviews were mixed and it seemed they might have some quality control issues. Which is not shocking at that price point. Good quality control costs money. I decided to spend the extra money on something that looked like it was built better, from a smaller company with good reviews in the hopes it would be a better product. Not concerned with sound quality just something that would last and possibly not be defective out of the box. No idea what his cables are made of to be honest. Looks and feels just like my XLR mic cables except it has a cloth covering. My guess would be its the same kind of cable.

I am for sure with you on the high end cable stuff and I simply don't get it. I was seeing cables in the 300 dollar and up range. I'm not spending more on a cable than I spent on my headphones lol. The choices I found were the cheap amazon cables that might or might not work, 70 bucks for what seemed to be a well made cable or 300+ dollars for some snake oil cable that was for sure not worth that price.

And I fully admit the difference I heard could have been in my head. The brain can do crazy things. And my brain is kind of crazy to start with lol. I was just shocked because I was not expecting there to be a difference. I didn't buy it because I thought it would be better, I got it because I needed a longer cable. I tested them back to back just for giggles not expecting there to be a difference because I really don't think cables matter and have never heard a difference. Unless you are talking really long runs then you need a cable that can handle that but even then they don't need to be super expensive. Just correct cable for the job and be able to stand up to whatever abuse they might take. Like say 50-100 foot long runs in a studio or something. And the difference wasn't really huge. Its not like a got the cable and plugged it in and went "Holy crap this sounds better!" I didn't notice until I tried them back to back and tried to hear a difference. And the new cable seemed to have a slightly better sound stage and imaging. For sure something that could have been in my head. I was just surprised I heard a difference when I wasn't expecting one. If someone lived with me I would try to do some kind of blind test but I live alone so that really isn't an option.

If you were not talking to me I just typed a whole bunch of stuff for no reason lmao. Sorry about that.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 20, 2021)

Paul Mohr said:


> If you were responding to me, in my case it was the stock cable for my Sundara headphones which are a little over 4 feet long. And I didn't like how it felt or laid, its kind of stiff and weird. And it terminates into a 1/8 inch plug so I had to use an adapter to get it to 1/4 inch. And since it is too short for what I need I had to use an extension cable as well. Not sure what its made of but I think the company says its silver? Basically I just wanted a longer cable with the correct plug on it.
> 
> When I compared it to the other cable I didn't use the extension though. Just the stock length of cable with the 1/4 inch adapter compared to the new 10 foot cable. It could be the connector making a difference. Extra connections are never a good thing.
> 
> ...


Longer cables should have higher resistance.
Depending on your source/amp some added resistance can make the sound better, many people do it with the impedance/resistance adaptors.
So just measure the resistance of both cables with a multimeter to see how different they are. As a general rule of thumb the resistance of 1/8 (full circuit, so twice the values of individual conductors) of the cables vs. the phone impedance can lead to a perceptible difference.

P. S. I did notice that in the Science Forum answering just directly in the comments instead of to a specific message is surprisingly common...


----------



## sonitus mirus

Paul Mohr said:


> If you were responding to me, in my case it was the stock cable for my Sundara headphones which are a little over 4 feet long. And I didn't like how it felt or laid, its kind of stiff and weird. And it terminates into a 1/8 inch plug so I had to use an adapter to get it to 1/4 inch. And since it is too short for what I need I had to use an extension cable as well. Not sure what its made of but I think the company says its silver? Basically I just wanted a longer cable with the correct plug on it.
> 
> When I compared it to the other cable I didn't use the extension though. Just the stock length of cable with the 1/4 inch adapter compared to the new 10 foot cable. It could be the connector making a difference. Extra connections are never a good thing.
> 
> ...



I would certainly consider Audiophileninja to be boutique and way overpriced.  You are paying for the time-consuming labor that might not provide much benefit.

You could probably find something from Monoprice for under $10 that fits your needs.

Don't underestimate modern manufacturing processes.  There is probably a better chance that someone hand-soldering and manually insulating and twisting/splicing wires together is going to have a few error at some point while making 1000 cables.  Where a modern automatic process might see 1 error in 10K to 100K units, with excellent consistency.  Not everything that is mass-produced is terrible and benefits from being handmade.    

There is a good chance you heard a difference, and if I had to guess, you may have damaged the wires in your shorter 4' long cable that came with the headphones or it may have been damaged out of the box.  I would have gently bent the original cable back and forth to try and force a more noticeable problem to see if perhaps one of the wires was broken.  Most likely this occurs at or near one of the connector ends.  Also, the soldering (cold solder) may have been inadequate and not making an ideal connection between the wire and one of the connectors.


----------



## castleofargh

Deolum said:


> I don't care what has been measured many times. Just wanted to give you guys some new food to attack. Idk why this sound science thread was in my notifications. My last and only post here was 9 month ago. Just saw @bigshot saying what he was already saying 1.000.000 times and since it must be quite boring to say that to sound science guys who already know everything i wanted to give him some action.


Was this necessary?




Paul Mohr said:


> I am normally in the camp that cables and what not do make a difference as long as both worked they way they should to begin with. I have tested many cables on speakers systems and home theater gear in the past. Never heard a difference. However recently my faith in that belief was shaken. I ordered a custom cable for my sundara's because I needed a longer cable and honestly I didn't like the stock cable. Much to my surprise I actually heard a difference. Tonally it sounded the same but for whatever reason the staging and imaging improved over the stock cable. And I don't believe it was any kind of bias on my part. I didn't order it thinking it would improve sound, I just needed a longer cable is all. I wasn't expecting there to be a difference either. I was actually worried it might be worse because of the length. And I wasn't trying to make myself feel better about purchase because I needed a longer cable so I was getting a different one anyway. And the custom cable actually cost less than the stock one. The stock cable is like 130 bucks and the new cable was only like 80 bucks shipped. And to be honest I didn't notice until I tried them back to back.
> 
> Was it in my head? Maybe, who knows. Was the original cable bad and did it ruin my listening experience in anyway? Nope not at all, other than it was annoying to use. Could it be some kind of mental bias? Yep sure could, but I can't think of a reason why my brain would try to justify it or trick me into thinking it was better. I didn't care one way or another nor did I expect it to be better. And it isn't like I can do any kind of a/b test or blind test. That is kind of hard to do with a headphone cable, especially if you live alone lol.
> 
> *edited because I talk too much and run on lol.*


Sadly, not all psychological biases work like that. For some there can indeed be the influence of our own desire and beliefs. But for others, even knowing about the bias, and seeing the ”trick” or evidence that our impression was wrong, doesn’t stop us from getting influenced.

Obviously that is but one of many possibilities that could explain your experience. But with a sighted impression we have no opportunity to cross it off.
Perhaps the 2 cables really cause an audible difference for electrical reasons?
Or perhaps it’s something silly like one being heavier or stiffer, and forcing a small change in placement on the head?
It's never aliens, but what about gremlins?
Or whatever plausible hypothesis I didn't think about?

Usually people will read the list, pick the answer that seems right to them, and happily jump to conclusion. Which is not great. I can offer a solid "I don't know" to what will most likely never go any further in term of controlled test. Listening tests about cables are a PITA so I wouldn't even advise you to try.


----------



## Deolum

castleofargh said:


> Was this necessary?


Yes. The thread is called how to convince people that audio cables don't make differences and after 170 pages you still didn't convince us fools.


----------



## Paul Mohr

I never considered monoprice, I didn't know they made headphone cables. I just did a search for sundara headphone replacement cables and went off those results. And browsed the various websites that came up. Monoprice was not one of them. I never thought to specifically seek it out as a source. And in the past on other forums I have asked about where to get replacement cables and the suggestions are always some crazy stupid expensive option I have no desire to throw money at. I don't think the original cables are damaged in anyway. I have heard messed up cables before and it is normally fairly obvious or manifests itself in a different way. Although I did mess with them and test them. Its something I always do with cables from time just to make sure they are working properly. 

I just looked at monoprice and I didn't see anything that would work with my headphones. Unless there is an option to custom order cables that I am not seeing.

And I fully understand how production works. I worked in factories, production, machining most of my life. Both on the floor as a worker, machine operator and in quality control for a while. Many people think mass produced items can't be as good. As you said, this is wrong and often times they can be better depending on how good the equipment is. The key is does the company care, do the workers care and how good is the quality control. A smooth running machine with a good operator can produce some really high quality parts with close tolerances faster than most humans can. The down side is if something goes wrong and the operator isn't paying attention or doesn't care it can also make a lot of bad parts really fast. And if you don't have decent quality control standards those parts can make it out the door. Or as I have seen in a few companies management will push them through anyway fully knowing they are bad. As much as people want to bag on Chinese factories they can make good products if you give them the specs and level of quality control you want. However you will pay for it. If you want them to make garbage they will do that too. They really don't care one way or another as long as they get their money.

And while audiophileninja might be considered boutique and overpriced it was certainly on the affordable spectrum in my opinion. Especially considering the price of the stock replacement from hifiman. I might have over spent but I don't feel I was ripped off or duped. And there were no crazy claims of special qualities or anything like that that I saw. Just handmade quality custom cables. I did have a few gripes about them that I put in a different thread. Nothing to do with quality or sound though.

I just measured both the cables and they have the same resistance according to my Fluke multi meter, 0.5 ohms. The adapter didn't change anything either.

Who knows why I heard what I heard to be honest. Might have been the cable might have been me. Or maybe I didn't hear a difference at all and just thought I did. I only did a few times back to back and just the one test on that one day. Maybe I was more or less stressed, maybe it was the amount of klonopin in my system. Maybe the moon and sun were in just the right phase lol. At the time it seemed like a pretty decent difference though. Maybe I should do the test several times on different days. I asked someone once that does this kind of stuff about these kinds of tests. He said to really do it right you need a lot of time and a lot of data. You can't just a/b something a few times or do a couple blind tests with a few people and get any real results. Unless the differences are obvious, in which case you could probably measure it with the right equipment. He said if he were to do it he would do it with a large sample size of people. He would do each person one at a time and he would run the test multiple times over the course of days or weeks. Then sift through the data.

He said in the end does it matter? If you like what you hear you like what hear. If like what you see you like what you see. The reasons are not overly important unless you are writing a paper on it. His field was psychology and neuroscience of course lol.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Deolum said:


> Yes. The thread is called how to convince people that audio cables don't make differences and after 170 pages you still didn't convince us fools.



To me, the thread title always seemed open-ended and rhetorical in nature and not meant to be the header used for a guide or for specific instructions anyone was meant to follow.  But then, I would think @castleofargh's reply to you was similarly meant to be rhetorical and did not require any response, yet you felt compelled to reply to that, too.  I'm sensing a theme.


----------



## chef8489

Paul Mohr said:


> I am normally in the camp that cables and what not do make a difference as long as both worked they way they should to begin with. I have tested many cables on speakers systems and home theater gear in the past. Never heard a difference. However recently my faith in that belief was shaken. I ordered a custom cable for my sundara's because I needed a longer cable and honestly I didn't like the stock cable. Much to my surprise I actually heard a difference. Tonally it sounded the same but for whatever reason the staging and imaging improved over the stock cable. And I don't believe it was any kind of bias on my part. I didn't order it thinking it would improve sound, I just needed a longer cable is all. I wasn't expecting there to be a difference either. I was actually worried it might be worse because of the length. And I wasn't trying to make myself feel better about purchase because I needed a longer cable so I was getting a different one anyway. And the custom cable actually cost less than the stock one. The stock cable is like 130 bucks and the new cable was only like 80 bucks shipped. And to be honest I didn't notice until I tried them back to back.
> 
> Was it in my head? Maybe, who knows. Was the original cable bad and did it ruin my listening experience in anyway? Nope not at all, other than it was annoying to use. Could it be some kind of mental bias? Yep sure could, but I can't think of a reason why my brain would try to justify it or trick me into thinking it was better. I didn't care one way or another nor did I expect it to be better. And it isn't like I can do any kind of a/b test or blind test. That is kind of hard to do with a headphone cable, especially if you live alone lol.
> 
> *edited because I talk too much and run on lol.*


How can a cable that has no sound passing through it only electricity effect the staging ie the placement of the instruments or singers on the stage as well as the imaging ie where the music is coming from, the depth of the music , the height and so on?

As long as the same current is transmitted through the wire the same sound will be produced from the driver.


----------



## bigshot

I noticed that the lights in my living room seem more vibrant and colors pop better when I have the table lamp plugged directly in the wall, not with a power strip.

signed A. Troll

P.S. Bigshot is a poo poo head!


----------



## castleofargh

Deolum said:


> Yes. The thread is called how to convince people that audio cables don't make differences and after 170 pages you still didn't convince us fools.


OP picked a thread title as was his prerogative when creating it. You don't like it, and TBH I don't like it either. Nor do I think that cables can't make a difference. But so what? It's still his thread, and the title does nothing forbidden in the forum's TOS as far a I know(unlike your latest posts).

As to convincing people, some can't be convinced that the planet is round, while others are easily convinced that a horse dewormer is an antivirus. so...


----------



## omegaorgun

FLAC vs MP3 is the real debate... @bigshot


----------



## bigshot

Not at low data rates.


----------



## abheybir

Well same way one can make people believe that earth is flat. imho cables do make a lot difference, different materials have different conductivity and thus can vary the signals passing through them.


----------



## sonitus mirus

abheybir said:


> Well same way one can make people believe that earth is flat. imho cables do make a lot difference, different materials have different conductivity and thus can vary the signals passing through them.



Absolutely!  However, these differences are typically at levels that are magnitudes below the threshold of audibility unless something is broken or a pathological use case is observed, such as a 2000-foot 24 AWG speaker wire attempting to drive 200W RMS transducer to ear-splitting volumes.


----------



## abheybir

sonitus mirus said:


> Absolutely!  However, these differences are typically at levels that are magnitudes below the threshold of audibility unless something is broken or a pathological use case is observed, such as a 2000-foot 24 AWG speaker wire attempting to drive 200W RMS transducer to ear-splitting volumes.


2000foot, damn!! well no offense I am just sharing my impressions based on different cables I have for my IEMs and headphones (silver, copper, hybrids). I don't think its some placebo.


----------



## sonitus mirus

abheybir said:


> 2000foot, damn!! well no offense I am just sharing my impressions based on different cables I have for my IEMs and headphones (silver, copper, hybrids). I don't think its some placebo.



As has been mentioned quite a bit, IEMs and very sensitive headphones may be impacted by otherwise minor but measurable differences that would not typically make any observable difference with the majority of connections.  Though, the difference from commonly used materials, all other things being equal, is easily shown through simple mathematics equations that it would be impossible for a human to detect any audible changes.  It would still follow basic rules of LRC, it is only that a smaller value could be responsible for a difference that could be heard.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 21, 2021)

When you go to Amazon and shop for an interconnect, it's been designed to perform transparently for the purpose of connecting one audio component to another. It doesn't matter if it's silver or copper, it has been designed to sound the same- perfect. The only time cables sound different is when you are using the wrong cable for the purpose, like the example Sonitus points out with certain non standard IEMs.



abheybir said:


> I am just sharing my impressions based on different cables I have for my IEMs and headphones (silver, copper, hybrids). I don't think its some placebo.



The way to know for sure is to do a simple line level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening test. EVERYONE is subject to expectation bias, including you and me. The way to eliminate that possibility is to not just depend on what you feel is correct, but to take the time to actually check and see with a controlled comparison.


----------



## Claypole

Do people still claim that copper cables sound smooth and warm, whilst silver ones are bright and airy, with sparkly highs? What if they made a cable out of gold? Would that be smooth and warm, but also bright and airy with sparkly highs?

Has anybody successfully guessed what material a cable is made out of from a DBT? Or do they need to read the marketing guff before hearing these differences? (Night and day differences that can’t be measured).


----------



## sonitus mirus

Claypole said:


> Do people still claim that copper cables sound smooth and warm, whilst silver ones are bright and airy, with sparkly highs? What if they made a cable out of gold? Would that be smooth and warm, but also bright and airy with sparkly highs?
> 
> Has anybody successfully guessed what material a cable is made out of from a DBT? Or do they need to read the marketing guff before hearing these differences? (Night and day differences that can’t be measured).



Lot's of people still do make ludicrous claims, including many audio review sites, more than a few engineers, and plenty of other experts in the audio industry.  For every fact you throw at the issue to support known science, there are an equal number of irrational and conflated excuses to illogically refute this science.  It is practically a hopeless endeavor to rationalize with the other side and correct the misconceptions.


----------



## Maxx134

Paul Mohr said:


> Tonally it sounded the same but for whatever reason the staging and imaging improved over the stock cable. A


I believe I have a possible reason or culprit. Crosstalk. Poor insulation between wires.




PhonoPhi said:


> Longer cables should have higher resistance


But music is like an "AC" signal, continuously changing in frequency, so what you should say is "impedance". 
If every component has RLC, we would have changes according to frequency.

I like to offer speculations in this thread (in the past), because I always get great answers to suggestions.

This time I like to propose a possible element not totally considered.
Magnetism.
It is involved with electricity, hand in hand, but not discussed.

Quote:
"_Electricity and magnetism are essentially two aspects of the same thing, because a changing electric field creates a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field creates an electric field.  (This is why physicists usually refer to "electromagnetism" or "electromagnetic" forces together, rather than separately.)_"

What if the wires are (because of the  electrons) creating stray magnetism?
Would that interference affect nearby conductors? Especially because of such changes of frequency in music?

Regardless, I do feel insulation is very important, especially for headphone cables.




Claypole said:


> Do people still claim that copper cables sound smooth and warm, whilst silver ones are bright and airy, with sparkly highs? What if they made a cable out of gold? Would that be smooth and warm, but also bright and airy with sparkly highs?


Yes... Goollddaa.. its better. 
Gold sounds "golden" 😂😋


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2021)

Crosstalk is the left channel and right channel bleeding together. Do you think the wires were crossed and it was turning to mono? Crosstalk is very rare with modern home audio. It was a big thing back when tape heads went out of align, or grooves in LPs got hot and bled across. The only way a wire could cross with another wire is if bare wires were touching.

Magnetism? uh... no. Generally insulation in headphone cables is important for microphonics. That's acoustic, not electronic.


----------



## Paul Mohr

I think it was in my head to be honest. I have stressed lately due to my mothers death and all that comes with it since I was her guardian. Lately nothing sounds the same to me or as good to be honest. When I am feeling a bit better I am going to try it again multiple times. I am willing to bet in the end I probably won't be able to tell the difference. Or one day one will sound better and the next the other one will. Which means its me.

And no, magnitism doesn't not effect music signals. As in having a magnet near a cable or something. I have tried it. Now it will effect a signal if its used in choke coil or something like in a crossover. They aslo use magnetic cores to remove hum in some power cables. So I wouldn't suggest wrapping your heaphone cable around one or anything lol. I am not an engineer or tech though. I am sure someone else here could explain exactly how magnatic fields work. And I don't think the electricity in audio could create a magnetic field. I just don't think that is how it works. A transformer is basically an electro magnet I think. Someone correct me if I am wrong. 8th grade science was a LONG time ago for me lol.


----------



## Maxx134 (Sep 22, 2021)

Paul Mohr said:


> I think it was in my head to be honest


One thing you should never do in audio, is doubt yourself. Don't let your scientific side of your brain, stop you from enjoying the artistic musical side.
If it sounds better one day enjoy it.
Some days it doesn't sound as good.
Your mind has everything to do with perception. Sometimes you can perceive more.




Paul Mohr said:


> As in having a magnet near a cable or something


Static magnets don't count.
Quote:
"_Static magnetic fields are not described by a simple formula, because magnets always have a north pole and a south pole, so the magnetic field always loops from one pole to the other_."

Also, I disagree with comments to the contrary. Magnetism cannot be discounted.
Quote:
"moving (changing currents, aka music) give rise to magnetic fields"
"Likewise, changing magnetic fields gives rise to electric currents"
They are intertwined. You cannot dismiss them. A "moving" electrical charge creates a magnet field.

I am not speculating on audible effects.
I am just stating what exists.
Anything else would be conjecture.
I did propose it as a "possible explanation" but if you rather use the age old "brain fooling you" explanation, then how can science progress forward.
Theories need observation to be validated, but when you take away "observation" with "its in your head" reasoning, then we have a stumbling block of doubt.

Actually I am using a narrow viewpoint, just to get my idea across.
Feel free to counter my points.


----------



## bigshot

Can you explain to me why magnetism would make the signal in one channel cross over into another channel in a separate wire? Is this something you actually think is likely?


----------



## Maxx134

bigshot said:


> Can you explain to me why magnetism would make the signal in one channel cross over into another channel in a separate wire? Is this something you actually think is likely?




Actually I rather not be boxed into that speculation of it being the actual signal, but instead an interference on the actual signal.
I have only been proposing insulation is more important than considered.

As for crossing from one conductor ro another. It looks terribly bad when you see all the braiding in headphone cables.  So one reasons come to mind.
"induction" created on a wire from an external magnetic field.


If you don't think magnet force not exist explain the reason why they tell you to turn off all electrical devices on a plane when taking off.
Electrical devices give off electro magnetic waves of interference.
🙂


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2021)

Maxx134 said:


> Actually I rather not be boxed into that speculation of it being the actual signal, but instead an interference on the actual signal.



The problem is that crosstalk isn't interference. It's the blending of two channels to reduce separation. That is what affects soundstage, the same as crossfeed. If you want to talk about interference, the most common one is RF interference, and it is obvious as noise that is separate from the signal, not crosstalk between two stereo channels. And RF isn't caused by insulation, it is caused by inadequate shielding.

It's great to speculate, but speculation doesn't mean much if you don't understand the principles you're speculating about. This isn't my bailiwick, but I know enough about it to know what crosstalk isn't.

I'm honestly not trying to trick you or box you into a corner with arguments. I'm just trying to focus my end of the conversation on things that are actual possibilities here. I'm not big on pie in the sky theories.


----------



## castleofargh (Sep 22, 2021)

Maxx134 said:


> I believe I have a possible reason or culprit. Crosstalk. Poor insulation between wires.


Sure, crosstalk is a thing. For some specific tasks, it’s something we have to take very seriously, and for some cables, we even have to be careful about short lengths of straight wires while terminating them. And then for other stuff, it’s irrelevant until crosstalk reaches a massive amount.
IMO, How the aliens managed to kidnapped me, should be on our minds after we have been able to confirm that aliens exist, and that I was kidnapped.

But yes, it’s about magnetic fields(crosstalk from wires. For aliens’ kidnapping method, IDK).


----------



## someguyontheinternet

I had only one instance where I was using a USB cable to my DAC that happened to cross my keyboard's USB cable and that actually did create an audible effect.
It was annoying trying to figure out where the problem came from. One day I accidentally dropped the Fiio Q1 I was using at that time from my display stand and the noise was gone. When I put it back the noise also came back. I slowly went from one position to the other and noticed the noise appeared exactly when the USB cable for my keyboard and the USB cable for the Q1 crossed.

So I guess it can happen. Using an old USB cable I had lying around solved the problem though. My guess is that the cable I used to connect the Q1 was simply of bad quality and that this problem should not appear too frequently. Since I never spend any amount over 10€ on USB cables I don't think it's a common problem, especially not a problem worth spending hundreds of $ (or more) on.


----------



## Lumithium

Few weeks ago I went to an audio shop and I was lucky enough to try out MAD24 with different PWaudio cables. And here's my thoughts.

I only heard MAD24 once before that and it was a month prior in AV show, which is very noisy on its own. And I have no recent experience of PWaudio cable rolling. I never heard of Gold 24, Monile, Antigoma and it's feat. 60 varient before. The salesperson purposefully didn't tell me anything about the cables, their name, prices, their materials etc, beforehand and told me just listen and tell him my thoughts. The Gold 24 cable aside, this is pretty much as blind as it gets, as there is no price bias, and I can't even tell which cable is which just by the looks because they are all almost identical. 

In the few hours of testing, I was able to tell the difference between Gold 24 and the rest pretty easily. I can feel the separation and space between the sound being slightly different and it sounds more revealing, though not by a significant margin.

The rest of the cables aren't as clear of a cut. I was able to tell the slight difference between feat 60 and it's original shielding version. One had slightly more distinct sound while the feat. 60 sounds a little more musical. However when I try to find the difference between Monile and Antigoma, I couldn't. There is maybe a very slight sound difference but I couldn't pinpoint it consistently. At first I thought he just throws an extra pair of Antigoma to throw me off. I was only convinced after he show me the name of the cable. All these cables did show cables do make a difference, at least on the analog side.

And there is absolutely no way I will know the difference between the cables in everyday use as I was testing them in the best case scenario possible, a pretty quiet room that has a lower noise floor than my home.


----------



## bfreedma

Lumithium said:


> Few weeks ago I went to an audio shop and I was lucky enough to try out MAD24 with different PWaudio cables. And here's my thoughts.
> 
> I only heard MAD24 once before that and it was a month prior in AV show, which is very noisy on its own. And I have no recent experience of PWaudio cable rolling. I never heard of Gold 24, Monile, Antigoma and it's feat. 60 varient before. The salesperson purposefully didn't tell me anything about the cables, their name, prices, their materials etc, beforehand and told me just listen and tell him my thoughts. The Gold 24 cable aside, this is pretty much as blind as it gets, as there is no price bias, and I can't even tell which cable is which just by the looks because they are all almost identical.
> 
> ...




Try again double blind - the results will be different.


----------



## Lumithium

bfreedma said:


> Try again double blind - the results will be different.


The difference between the Gold and the rest of the cables are noticable enough that I know for certain that anyone with good attention to details and a quiet enough room will be able to tell they sound different after a session of critical listening. And I only know the names of the cables after listening to all of them and expressed my thoughts on them, as the copper cables I tested looks identical, it would be a pretty big coincidence for me to randomly pick a cable I never heard of, and have my impressions mostly match up with the description of the difference between at least the 2 antigona cables and not swapped over? 

If you firmly believe they don't make a difference then good for you , no need to spend extra bucks on the cables.


----------



## castleofargh

bfreedma said:


> Try again double blind - the results will be different.


Or not. we can't know for sure. But I wouldn't trust a salesperson to setup a test for me. I don't want to fall into paranoia, but BS cable tests have been uncovered a few times.


----------



## bfreedma

Lumithium said:


> The difference between the Gold and the rest of the cables are noticable enough that I know for certain that anyone with good attention to details and a quiet enough room will be able to tell they sound different after a session of critical listening. And I only know the names of the cables after listening to all of them and expressed my thoughts on them, as the copper cables I tested looks identical, it would be a pretty big coincidence for me to randomly pick a cable I never heard of, and have my impressions mostly match up with the description of the difference between at least the 2 antigona cables and not swapped over?
> 
> If you firmly believe they don't make a difference then good for you , no need to spend extra bucks on the cables.



Try again double blind - the results will be different.

Sorry, but your sighted subjective opinion does not invalidate known science.  And congratulations on being the 1000th visitor to Sound Science making this claim, being unable to support it, then smarmily posting ”good for you- you can save money”

Actually, the joke is on you for buying into unsupported claims, not investigating the actual physics/electrics involved, then spending vastly more than necessary.


----------



## bfreedma

castleofargh said:


> Or not. we can't know for sure. But I wouldn't trust a salesperson to setup a test for me. I don't want to fall into paranoia, but BS cable tests have been uncovered a few times.



All true.  I guess I never considered that anyone seriously pursuing this topic would ever let someone with a financial stake in the outcome set up and proctor the testing.


----------



## Lumithium

bfreedma said:


> Try again double blind - the results will be different.
> 
> Sorry, but your sighted subjective opinion does not invalidate known science.  And congratulations on being the 1000th visitor to Sound Science making this claim, being unable to support it, then smarmily posting ”good for you- you can save money”
> 
> Actually, the joke is on you for buying into unsupported claims, not investigating the actual physics/electrics involved, then spending vastly more than necessary.


Not sure how I am spending vastly more than necessary when I haven't bought a single aftermarket cable ever ,all the ones I have are bundles from other gears and I never bothered to do cable rolling, as I'd save the money towards the next gear.

I am only speaking of my experience because that is the closest experience I have for cables, it is definitely a subjective thing and I don't know how it is the wrong feeling? Aren't sound subjective in the first place?


----------



## Lumithium

bfreedma said:


> All true.  I guess I never considered that anyone seriously pursuing this topic would ever let someone with a financial stake in the outcome set up and proctor the testing.


As for this I know for someone whose job is to sell stuff would definitely have the interest to try to get me to buy the most expensive cables, this point I do understand. I was just sharing my experience on the matter, that's all.


----------



## bfreedma

Lumithium said:


> Not sure how I am spending vastly more than necessary when I haven't bought a single aftermarket cable ever ,all the ones I have are bundles from other gears and I never bothered to do cable rolling, as I'd save the money towards the next gear.
> 
> I am only speaking of my experience because that is the closest experience I have for cables, it is definitely a subjective thing and I don't know how it is the wrong feeling? Aren't sound subjective in the first place?



EE/physics aren’t a “subjective thing”.

Try again double blind - the results will be different.

In this subforum (and this one only), supporting objective evidence is expected when making exceptional claims.


----------



## Lumithium (Sep 22, 2021)

bfreedma said:


> EE/physics aren’t a “subjective thing”.
> 
> Try again double blind - the results will be different.
> 
> In this subforum (and this one only), supporting objective evidence is expected when making exceptional claims.


Points taken. Maybe one day I can get my hands on some measurements and end the debate


----------



## bfreedma

Lumithium said:


> Points taken. Maybe one day I can get my hands on some measurements and end the debate



The measurements already exist - to date, other than edge cases and intentionally borked boutique cables, there is no support for cables sounding different based on materials.  Minor differences in conductivity would require far longer cables than would be found in home audio to be audible.

The debate is over and has been for some time.  Unfortunately, the cable industry and many consumers ignore hard evidence that doesn’t fit their profit motives and customer narrative.


----------



## Lumithium

bfreedma said:


> The measurements already exist - to date, other than edge cases and intentionally borked boutique cables, there is no support for cables sounding different based on materials.  Minor differences in conductivity would require far longer cables than would be found in home audio to be audible.
> 
> The debate is over and has been for some time.  Unfortunately, the cable industry and many consumers ignore hard evidence that doesn’t fit their profit motives and customer narrative.


Interesting. For measurements I just mean an FR curve. 

Anyways, other than conductivity, what about the surface area, solder material and methods?


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 22, 2021)

Lumithium said:


> Interesting. For measurements I just mean an FR curve.
> 
> Anyways, other than conductivity, what about the surface area, solder material and methods?



What about them? If they measure identical what difference does any of that make to sound? If the exact same information or electricity is going from point a through the cable to point B the dac or the drivers be it digital or analogue cables then none of that matters. it will be the dac or the speakers or drivers that makes the sound. Ie the dac will decode the digital signal and make it analog. Then the analog is sent via an electrical signal down wires to a driver that turns the electrical signal into sound waves. So there is no sound traveling down wires in either case. 

The whole idea that cable material, construction and so on can have a result on sound stage, warmth, resolution, and these other claims is just ludicrous. There is no sound passing through the cable for it to alter.


----------



## bigshot

A signal is a signal. You put a signal into one end of the wire and it comes out the other end of the wire. You compare what came out to what went in. If there's no audible difference, they are for all intents and purposes the same. There is no reason to expect that the frequency response would change after passing through a home audio cable. If it does, you are using the wrong wire or the cable is defective by manufacture or design.

This particular question has been answered since the 1920s at least, maybe earlier.


----------



## redrol

I had a guy send me a $600 dollar audio cable for some expensive IEMs that I tested vs a no-name $1 cord.  No differences.  I used an IEM I have been listening to for 2 years to determine if there were differences.  There are none.

Cables do nothing and its best to waste your money on hyped headphones at the very least.


----------



## Maxx134 (Sep 23, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> Sure, crosstalk is a thing. For some specific tasks, it’s something we have to take very seriously, and for some cables, we even have to be careful about short lengths of straight wires while terminating them. And then for other stuff, it’s irrelevant until crosstalk reaches a massive amount.
> IMO, How the aliens managed to kidnapped me, should be on our minds after we have been able to confirm that aliens exist, and that I was kidnapped



Yes, we tend to forget that it was encouraged, (in past) when making old, "point-to-point" wiring, that *not* to have paralleled wiring, and the more messy, the better.
They didn't want paralleled run wires.
Twisted was encouraged.

So I dunno why we acting like this wires affecting another is unknown, that wiring doesn't affect anything.
Wait, Actually I just realized that is more electronics design issue, and not a sound issue. 😅

Also, if you wanna mix aliens into the discussion:


Spoiler: Aliens!



They are technically regarded by government as "interdimensional" phenomena, not "extraterrestrial", so what that basically means, is that they are from this world, spirit world, the wandering spirits, seeking the ruin of souls. Disembodied spirits historically originate from the deaths of all the nephilim from either the great flood or wars, because they're is no place for them yet. Heaven & Hell is currently reserved for humans & fallen angels, not abominations.
Its a hard pill to swallow, if you wanna investigate & go there.


But I rather speculate on wires.🙃



bfreedma said:


> , not investigating the actual physics/electrics involved,


The problem is that when a consumer goes to check this, they do not look at audio engineering research and testing.

Instead, they end up looking at the vast literature posted online by cable companies, with their cool pseudoscience animations of electrical currents flowing and all manner of showcasing their cables...




bfreedma said:


> The debate is over and has been for some time. Unfortunately, the cable industry and many consumers ignore hard evidence that doesn’t fit their profit motives and customer narrative



Another issue is thats most of those old tests did not use pure 7N silver cable, or OCC copper cable, or GOLD 🤤 plated silver! 🤑🤩
That's what the cable companies are using to *lure* consumers in!

I remember rewiring a tube amp that (already) sounded great... Little did I know, it was using the cheapest, most brittle stranded Tin wire I ever seen! It practically crumbled on my fingers! Broke off the board when I touched it!
Although the cheap input wire was really well jacketed and shielded (with a foil).

I replaced all wire with some "nice" wiring...
Maybe the electrons liked it..😋


----------



## bigshot (Sep 23, 2021)

The energy passing through a headphone cable isn't anywhere near enough to affect the wire running along side of it. Not even in the same universe. You're coming up theories about crosstalk without understanding the principles involved first. That is like assuming because you wake up with a headache that your brain must have been probed by alien laser beams.

If your cables sound different than other cables, it is pretty safe to assume that either you are subject to bias and perceptual error, or the cable is defective. Cables can only sound transparent or degraded. And you can get a transparent cable at Amazon for three or four dollars.

A cable can't sound better than transparent. There is a line where human ears can't discern a difference any more.


----------



## Maxx134 (Sep 23, 2021)

I read somewhere long ago that humans can detect phase response between the ears to a very high frequency. I believe it is for perception.

Maybe this is were a possible culprit can be. Phase or timing irregularities from the more complex fancy wire.
Just throwing it out there.
Now I will run away 😄


----------



## Paul Mohr

I doubt that is the case with headphones or any kind of cables. It is thing when designing speakers though. This is something they take into account when designing a speaker, tweeters, driver placement and crossover networks. If a cable is causing this kind of issue I think they are either really messed up or you did something horribly wrong when hooking them up. Like reversed the + and - on one of them.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 23, 2021)

Maxx134 said:


> I read somewhere long ago that humans can detect phase response between the ears to a very high frequency



Another theory without understanding the fundamentals, and I bet the place you read that was spurious.

You know, you could probably come up with better theories if you made an effort to understand what the people around you say instead of picking and choosing what they say like a magpie.

The problem here is that you are assuming the phenomena exists and you're cherry picking reasons why it might exist. Generally with science you start by proving a phenomena exists before you explain it. There is absolutely no evidence that headphone cables have crosstalk. You're starting from an incorrect assumption.


----------



## Paul Mohr

You can use a plug in on a computer to add cross talk though. I tried it in reaper. It doesn't widen the headstage though it narrows it. I also tried and expander and other goofy gizmos and none of them made the headstage wider or more defined. It just made it sound weird.


----------



## bigshot

Crossfeed can improve ping pong stereo mixes. And some of them are more sophisticated than others, separating out certain sounds and applying a bit of a phase or reverb shift to it. Apple introduced a Spatialize setting the other day, and it can help separate out vocals a bit. But yeah, it can sound weird with some music.


----------



## redrol

Cables are the biggest profit for any headphone manufacture.  They require low cost in materials and have extremely high markups.  At this point I consider them a scam basically.. a scam that this website purpurates and none of the big guys involved have enough balls to call it out.  It's actually sad.
Convincing people that they are actually susceptible to placebo is the impossible part of all of this.


----------



## sonitus mirus

redrol said:


> Cables are the biggest profit for any headphone manufacture.  They require low cost in materials and have extremely high markups.  At this point I consider them a scam basically.. a scam that this website purpurates and none of the big guys involved have enough balls to call it out.  It's actually sad.
> Convincing people that they are actually susceptible to placebo is the impossible part of all of this.


Agreed, high markups can be attributed to practically every audio component; although, a cable generally has the lowest amount of labor and materials cost involved with its manufacture.   There exists both a pragmatist and an enthusiast market within the audio industry.  I can certainly appreciate a cable for many different attributes including, but not necessarily limited to, its RLC specifications, material, build quality, aesthetics, connection types, flexibility, length, and even any shielding from signal interference.  In some applications there could be a few limited, expensive solutions.  Though, with audio playback, there is really no rational need for anyone to put themselves in a situation where only a few expensive options are suitable.


----------



## Marutks

redrol said:


> At this point I consider them a scam basically.. a scam that this website purpurates and none of the big guys involved have enough balls to call it out.



I bought a pair of Focal headphones at CanJam London.  The scammer salesman offered me to buy a cable from him.
600 gbp for a cable!    I don't know if anyone fell for this scam but people like him should be banned from CanJam.


----------



## castleofargh

If the cable sleeve is made from troll skin killed in a dungeon, it's possible it adds +2 resistance against rolling chairs.


----------



## sonitus mirus

castleofargh said:


> If the cable sleeve is made from troll skin killed in a dungeon, it's possible it adds +2 resistance against rolling chairs.


The troll skin sleeve is highly flammable but am told that it does regenerate itself from scuffing and general wear.  Though, it can all depend on the type of chair mat used as being something like a lowly non-studded, antistatic mat or a +5 holy avenging tempered glass mat with beveled edges.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Crossfeed can improve ping pong stereo mixes.


Not only ping pong stereo, but almost any stereo mix that has too large channel separation for headphones, depending on how much excessive spatiatity bothers you. I am personally heavily bothered by excessive spatiatity so I crossfeed almost everything (maybe something like 98 % of stereo material).


----------



## 71 dB

Paul Mohr said:


> You can use a plug in on a computer to add cross talk though. I tried it in reaper. It doesn't widen the headstage though it narrows it. I also tried and expander and other goofy gizmos and none of them made the headstage wider or more defined. It just made it sound weird.


Crossfeed gives narrow sound if it is too strong. The key is to apply the correct amount of crossfeed. Also, I think many people think the superficially wide headphone superstereo is wideness when it is actually just as fake as 100 Hz bass boost in cheap boom boxes. It is not real deep bass, just excessive amount of 100 Hz. Real wide sound is when the spatial cues resemble what they are when listening to wide sound, what HRTF creates. Correct use of crossfeed modifies those cues closer to the real values and hence the sound can be "wider". After engaging crossfeed it is wise to let the ears to adjust for a minute or two, because the initial sudden change in the spatial cues give an impression of narrower sound, before the hearing adjusts and realizes the spatial cues are actually better (more natural).


----------



## sonitus mirus

71 dB said:


> Crossfeed gives narrow sound if it is too strong. The key is to apply the correct amount of crossfeed. Also, I think many people think the superficially wide headphone superstereo is wideness when it is actually just as fake as 100 Hz bass boost in cheap boom boxes. It is not real deep bass, just excessive amount of 100 Hz. Real wide sound is when the spatial cues resemble what they are when listening to wide sound, what HRTF creates. Correct use of crossfeed modifies those cues closer to the real values and hence the sound can be "wider". After engaging crossfeed it is wise to let the ears to adjust for a minute or two, because the initial sudden change in the spatial cues give an impression of narrower sound, before the hearing adjusts and realizes the spatial cues are actually better (more natural).



I don't listen with headphones too often, and I typically don't bother with crossfeed in most situations where I do listen using headphone.  When I do use crossfeed, I've found that the Jan Meier emulation at 650 Hz and -9.5 dB works the best for me.  It generally does not get in the way with most stereo content and it really helps with my Beatles mono box set and even some of the earlier experimental tracks in stereo.


----------



## BobG55

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't listen with headphones too often, and I typically don't bother with crossfeed in most situations where I do listen using headphone.  When I do use crossfeed, I've found that the Jan Meier emulation at 650 Hz and -9.5 dB works the best for me.  It generally does not get in the way with most stereo content and it really helps with my Beatles mono box set and even some of the earlier experimental tracks in stereo.


In my case I own the SPL Phonitor 2 and I also find it helps w/ my Beatles mono albums.


----------



## 71 dB

sonitus mirus said:


> I don't listen with headphones too often, and I typically don't bother with crossfeed in most situations where I do listen using headphone.  When I do use crossfeed, I've found that the Jan Meier emulation at 650 Hz and -9.5 dB works the best for me.  It generally does not get in the way with most stereo content and it really helps with my Beatles mono box set and even some of the earlier experimental tracks in stereo.


Beatles mono box? What? Isn't it monophonic sound? Sorry my ignorance. I don't listen to Beatles. Just interested of how crossfeed helps with mono. For mono sound I have recently developped a plugin to generate random noise-based pseudo-spatiality making mono sound less "lifeless" on headphones. That's kind of anti-crossfeed and I call the resulting sound _diffuse mono_.


----------



## sonitus mirus

71 dB said:


> Beatles mono box? What? Isn't it monophonic sound? Sorry my ignorance. I don't listen to Beatles. Just interested of how crossfeed helps with mono. For mono sound I have recently developped a plugin to generate random noise-based pseudo-spatiality making mono sound less "lifeless" on headphones. That's kind of anti-crossfeed and I call the resulting sound _diffuse mono_.



Sorry, that was a bit confusing.  The mono box set has some 1965 stereo mixes from _Help!_ and _Rubber Soul_.  Some of the tracks are really gimmicky with instruments and vocals only on one channel.  Makes it feel like my sinuses are stuffy when I listen to them with headphones.


----------



## bigshot

Those tracks really don't sound very good on speakers either. There is a similar thing in early quadrophonic recordings. Some mixes tended to isolate individual instruments into separate channels. Some people like this, but I don't. There's no bridging between channels to create a sound field. It's just sound coming at you from different directions, which gets tiresome.


----------



## 71 dB

sonitus mirus said:


> Sorry, that was a bit confusing.  The mono box set has some 1965 stereo mixes from _Help!_ and _Rubber Soul_.  Some of the tracks are really gimmicky with instruments and vocals only on one channel.  Makes it feel like my sinuses are stuffy when I listen to them with headphones.


Oh, some ping pong stereo tracks. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, those are completely unsuitable for headphones as they are.


----------



## gregorio

Maxx134 said:


> I did propose it as a "possible explanation" but if you rather use the age old "brain fooling you" explanation, then how can science progress forward.


Unfortunately, this statement is just so typical of what we have to deal with here. So many fallacies, falsehoods and hypocrisy in one sentence, even though you don't appear to be one of the fanatical, misguided audiophiles. It might be worth going through it a bit:

1. But it's not a "possible explanation"! If it flies in the face of science and has no supporting reliable evidence, then it's a "nonsense explanation". 
2. Instead of using the age old "brain fooling you" explanation, you rather use the age old magnetism explanation. Magnetism was first investigated about 2,500 years ago, the relationship with electricity was discovered 2 centuries ago and magnetism has been used as an explanation for all kinds nonsense.
3. Firstly, much of science does not "progress forward" and we wouldn't want it to! "1 + 1 = 2" is probably about the oldest science we have and it has never progressed, 1 + 1 still equals 2 millennia later and if it suddenly did progress to equalling something other than 2, modern human society would probably collapse. This is an obvious example but there are countless others, many specific to electricity (and magnetism). We have laws of physics and axioms, they may expand or we may find new ways to apply them in technology but they do not progress. Science progresses in those areas where we know our theories are incomplete and sending an analogue electrical signal down a cable is NOT one of those areas! Secondly, your statement is false anyway because "the age old brain fooling you explanation" is itself a large area of CURRENT scientific investigation. In fact, there is a scientific area specific to the perception of sound (called psycho-acoustics) and research is still active in this field because we know our knowledge is still incomplete.



Lumithium said:


> [1] I am only speaking of my experience because that is the closest experience I have for cables, it is definitely a subjective thing and I don't know how it is the wrong feeling? [2] Aren't sound subjective in the first place?


1. Another typical misguided audiophile statement! We often have feelings and experience things that are not logical, rational or accurate/correct, which is why we have schools with mandatory teaching of maths, history and science. If we didn't, we'd still be living in the dark ages and there wouldn't be any recording/reproduction technology in the first place! You have "the wrong feeling" because you are ignoring school level math, history and science.
2. Didn't you learn at school that sound is simply pressure waves moving through air, that we measure it with Decibels and that measurements are objective?

The above is why we can't convince some people, their personal (flawed) perception trumps even basic schooling and without even basic schooling, scientific facts have no meaning and carry no more weigh than any other biased opinion on the internet.

G


----------



## Lumithium

gregorio said:


> 1. Another typical misguided audiophile statement! We often have feelings and experience things that are not logical, rational or accurate/correct, which is why we have schools with mandatory teaching of maths, history and science. If we didn't, we'd still be living in the dark ages and there wouldn't be any recording/reproduction technology in the first place! You have "the wrong feeling" because you are ignoring school level math, history and science.
> 2. Didn't you learn at school that sound is simply pressure waves moving through air, that we measure it with Decibels and that measurements are objective?


Regarding the sound, decibels and measurements are objective, but they aren't everything. Just like an Orchestra aren't just about playing the right notes. A performer may purposely raise a tone to create extra tension, scientifically, they are playing the wrong note. But realistically, that tone may not ruin the performance, and in fact it can make the overall performance even more enjoyable. Is the performer right or wrong? If you follow all history and science, this performer would've been fired. But you are missing the bigger picture. 

I understand what the other person mean when they said I can have a bias because I was looking at the cables. To which I replied I understood and point taken after bit of conversation. As for your comment, I don't understand what you are trying to say, other than trying to insult my intelligence. 

Our science understanding isn't set and stone. It improvises as our technology advances. Right now the our understanding suggests it (cable) doesn't and shouldn't make a difference. A lot of people also thinks it does not make a difference. But who knows in the future if that is going to change as our understanding of hearing improves and our method of testing advances? And for the record, the thread title, "How do I convince people audio cables DO NOT make a difference?" On itself is based on our current understanding of sound, which as you said it isn't complete. The statement clearly implies that any future studies that suggest it may have effect on our way of perceiving sound is false. Which is clearly the opposite of science.



gregorio said:


> The above is why we can't convince some people, their personal (flawed) perception trumps even basic schooling and without even basic schooling, scientific facts have no meaning and carry no more weigh than any other biased opinion on the internet.


You are trying to imply that others biased opinions are wrong, while yours are right. The "scientific facts" that you, me, everyone else based on, can be false all along, like many other theories that have been proven wrong before. 

If one day a study suggest cables do make a difference in hearing, what side will you be on? Won't that make your "fact" you have been believing all this time wrong? And if you choose to ignore this question, then it makes you more biased and more "anti science" than me. Because you would be straight up denying the science you loved.

If my methods are flawed, I am fine with people pointing the mistakes I made. Like what others did to point out my flaws back then when I was testing cables, sure thing. But your comment has absolutely nothing constructive to give.


----------



## bfreedma

Lumithium said:


> Regarding the sound, decibels and measurements are objective, but they aren't everything. Just like an Orchestra aren't just about playing the right notes. A performer may purposely raise a tone to create extra tension, scientifically, they are playing the wrong note. But realistically, that tone may not ruin the performance, and in fact it can make the overall performance even more enjoyable. Is the performer right or wrong? If you follow all history and science, this performer would've been fired. But you are missing the bigger picture.
> 
> I understand what the other person mean when they said I can have a bias because I was looking at the cables. To which I replied I understood and point taken after bit of conversation. As for your comment, I don't understand what you are trying to say, other than trying to insult my intelligence.
> 
> ...



Version #10928 of the attempt to invalidate established science with unsupported FUD.  Yes, perhaps everything we know about the well studied field of audio reproduction is wrong.  Perhaps tomorrow, pigs will fly.

I‘m not staying up nights waiting for either to happen.

BTW, foundational science doesn’t change every time someone drops an unsupported idea in the bowl.  If you want to play that card, at least have a rational theory that is in some way supportable.  Repeatedly posting “you can’t prove what we currently know will never change” is as anti science as it gets.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 6, 2021)

Sound is frequency and amplitude over time. We can measure all those things. Scientists and engineers understood sound reproduction well enough to design digital audio to be audibly transparent. It seems to me that they wouldn’t be able to do that without an understanding of how sound works. They certainly didn’t guess.

We may not know everything about black holes, but sound reproduction has been studied and perfected for over a century. It’s not like we’re flying blind there.

Than you for inviting me to point out the flaw in your thinking. Happy to oblige. You’ve gotten to the point where you’re making stuff up and throwing out wild guesses to prop up your bias. If that isn’t obvious to you, it sure is to us.


----------



## Lumithium

bfreedma said:


> Version #10928 of the attempt to invalidate established science with unsupported FUD.  Yes, perhaps everything we know about the well studied field of audio reproduction is wrong.  Perhaps tomorrow, pigs will fly.
> 
> I‘m not staying up nights waiting for either to happen.
> 
> BTW, foundational science doesn’t change every time someone drops an unsupported idea in the bowl.  If you want to play that card, at least have a rational theory that is in some way supportable.  Repeatedly posting “you can’t prove what we currently know will never change” is as anti science as it gets.


The foundational science you mentioned won't change. How electrons and other stuff work on the cables are well understood. That's not the point I was trying to convey. 

The whole point of the reply is because his post that has no intention to add constructive feedback and just instead mocking the question just for the sake of it, and didn't even bother to continue read on, at which I did take back my original comment and taken the criticism that my original comparison is not as fair as it can be, so it's scientifically flawed. Had he read the rest of the thread, there will be no need for such comment to exist to begin with. The whole rest of the post is just a rant. 

I could stretch and list examples of how these happened before, but I understand your point.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 6, 2021)

There’s virtue in concise and to the point communication. No one is required to read the whole internet to get a point. If someone has a point to make, they should state it clearly and succinctly right up front. If they make it hard on the reader, they should expect that the reader won’t get read past a few sentences or a paragraph at most.

That said, making an oblique or indirect post is a lot better than using that as an excuse for creating an even more pointless and non communicative reply.


----------



## Lumithium

My apologies, was not my intention to start any theories with my comment. I just felt it is unfair to me that I get categorized as someone who can't listen when that is not the case.


----------



## bigshot

You might not understand how many people we get in this group who defend the most ridiculous positions to the death. It wears our patience thin at times. You'd think that a science based group would be calm and rational, but in our current culture, the word science is a lightning rod for stupid people.


----------



## Whazzzup

Sooo 177 pages 2650 posts I guess the answer is you can’t. But it was fun trying?


----------



## bfreedma

Whazzzup said:


> Sooo 177 pages 2650 posts I guess the answer is you can’t. But it was fun trying?



This thread does demonstrate a level of willful ignorance that‘s fully committed to resisting facts and logic.  Seems to be a bizarre matter of pride to some.


----------



## Whazzzup

bfreedma said:


> This thread does demonstrate a level of willful ignorance that‘s fully committed to resisting facts and logic.  Seems to be a bizarre matter of pride to some.


Well who wears the willful ignorance is in the eye of the beholder, but you had fun? Right?


----------



## bfreedma

Whazzzup said:


> Well who wears the willful ignorance is in the eye of the beholder, but you had fun? Right?



I suspect a good number of people who viewed this thread were able to figure out the money that they might have spent on “boutique” audio cables would be far better invested elsewhere.  So yes, there is some satisfaction there.

It’s also fun to see a few members repeatedly seagull this thread - fly in, add nothing of value, crap over everything, then leave.  So edgy and clever…


----------



## bigshot

I'm always enjoying myself. If I wasn't, I'd be doing something else instead.


----------



## tubebuyer2020

Could not find any cheap double-EMI-shielded cables. Plenty of double-shielded with the useless foil.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 6, 2021)

Do you live near a radio broadcasting tower or something?

My dad was a ham radio operator, and his antenna was strung right over the middle of the house. When he would go on the air, we could hear him talking on the stereo in the living room, even when it was turned off!


----------



## tubebuyer2020

bigshot said:


> Do you live near a radio broadcasting tower or something?
> 
> My dad was a ham radio operator, and his antenna was strung right over the middle of the house. When he would go on the air, we could hear him talking on the stereo in the living room, even when it was turned off!



I clearly said "EMI" not "RFI".


----------



## bigshot

What kind of problems are you experiencing that you need extra shielding? Would it be possible to solve them at the source?


----------



## tubebuyer2020

Transformer-like low hum - could be EMI, could be microphonics, could be a ground loop.


----------



## bigshot

If it is consistent even when you move things around, that is almost certainly a ground loop. Shielded cables won’t help. You should set up a ground wire and go hunting for the culprit.


----------



## magicscreen

One cable is louder than the other. I have recorded and measured it. 
How can they be the same when they differ in such a fundamental thing?


----------



## bigshot

You're making stuff up.


----------



## 71 dB

magicscreen said:


> One cable is louder than the other. I have recorded and measured it.
> How can they be the same when they differ in such a fundamental thing?


This is simple voltage division. The voltage generated by the amp is divided across the output impedance of the amp, the impedance of the cable and the impedance of the headphone driver. Lets assume all the impedances are purely resistive (very much the case at 1 kHz) that the impedances at 1 kHz are:

Amp output: 2 Ω
Cable 1: 1 Ω
Cable 2: 4 Ω
Headphones: 32 Ω

Using cable 1 the headphone gets 100 * 32 / (2+1+32) % = 91 % of the amp voltage.
Using cable 2 the headphone gets 100 * 32 / (2+4+32) % = 84 % of the amp voltage.

The difference in sound pressure level is:

20 * log10 (38/35) = 0.7 dB. 

This difference is not considered a difference, because it can (and should) be compensated by turning the volume up by 0.7 dB in case of cable 2.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 10, 2021)

He didn't find any cable with a different level and he didn't do any measurements. He's making stuff up. He's just baiting us to get us to go all scientific trying to get us to think up a theory to prove his boloney so he can run us in circles again.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> He didn't find any cable with a different level and he didn't do any measurements. He's making stuff up. He's just baiting us to get us to go all scientific trying to get us to think up a theory to prove his boloney so he can run us in circles again.


All I did was telling him eating 91 % or 84 % of a chocolate bar doesn't make the chocolate taste any different. Regardless of whether he has made any measurements or not, he doesn't have legs to stand on on this front.


----------



## bigshot

He wouldn’t know how to measure anything if his life depended on it.


----------



## 71 dB (Oct 10, 2021)

bigshot said:


> He wouldn’t know how to measure anything if his life depended on it.


Does this mean the correct way to react to his posts is to reply "You're making stuff up."?

His lack of knowledge of how to measure is not my problem. My problem is to know how to react to his claims correctly. Why is this a problem for me? Because you come at me when I try something and I have to justify my efforts so that I don't look like a troll feeder.


----------



## castleofargh (Oct 10, 2021)

I agree. @magicscreen refers to something real. it certainly is a rare occurrence for him in this subsection of the forum, but a valid argument doesn't depend on who's making it. This is not Tweeter. #scientificmethodman

It's not all that hard to find cables with relatively big differences in impedance that might lead, under certain circumstances, to noticeable sound difference.
For what @71 dB explained about impedance relations and resulting voltages(which is likely to be most cases of actual sound differences for amateur audio, beside someone messing up when soldering the pins), we can get a noticeable amount of variation in amplitude of the overall gain or just at some frequencies. By that logic, cables can indeed make a difference.
Obviously any half decent listening test would match levels before starting, and remove a bunch of cases from the table. But we already have established over the years that it is an insurmountable standard for this community. So we're stuck. They only experience BS conditions and do mistake volume differences for about anything but what they are. IMO, not clearly acknowledging the potential volume difference, is only reinforcing their beliefs that something else in the sound(that can't be measured or similar silliness) is causing their impressions.

When it comes to impedance affecting sound, instead of looking for the most out of spec cable and not even knowing how, I rely on secret ancient artifacts long forgotten by the modern audiophile civilization. Mystic tools such as "the volume knob!" and "the equalizer!". But that's me, I always do weird revolutionary stuff like measuring a few variables for the cables I purchase to make sure I got what I paid for. I admit it, I'm a bad boy.

One exception I always bring up is for some IEMs with stupidly low impedance where I would look into voltage divider or just adding resistors in series(which could count as part of the cable I guess...). Because damping is going to suck anyway, and the extra resistance might save the amp section. I did that fairly often some years back. Now I just stay clear of those IEMs that are stupid-loads™, and my nomad life is exponentially easier and more enjoyable as a result. But again, weird IEMs exist, they can be popular and many have been FOTM(I have an hypothesis about audiophiles being on the M side of SM). Swapping cables on those IEMs is likely to actually be audible. To me swapping cables is backward thinking(unless the original cable had some known defect), and not the best solution, but with some luck it could look like one solution.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 10, 2021)

castleofargh said:


> I agree. @magicscreen refers to something real. it's certainly is a rare occurrence for him in this subsection of the forum, but a valid argument doesn't depend on who's making it. This is not Tweeter. #scientificmethodman
> 
> It's not all that hard to find cables with relatively big differences in impedance that might lead, under certain circumstances, to noticeable sound difference.
> For what @71 dB explained about impedance relations and resulting voltages(which is likely to be most cases of actual sound differences for amateur audio, beside someone messing up when soldering the pins), we can get a noticeable amount of variation in amplitude of the overall gain or just at some frequencies. By that logic, cables can indeed make a difference.
> ...


Thank you for restroring my faith in this thread (otherwise, most off-topic chats resembled unorganized troll hunting over a bottle or two of merlot )

Exactly my experience: cables can matter, low-impedance IEMs (16 Ohm is a good boundary) are to be avoided for sanity.

Then if cables are a purely resistive load - with the volume matching and an ideal source - they should not matter.

But portable sources are far from ideal, and contrary to what many here beleive are engineered to sound different (somewhat similar to different flavours of different merlot vintages)

Then we can agree that the pragmatic simplicity of enjoying music with 192 or 256 mp3s and an Apple dongle is very reasonable. After all, some bottle of wine from Walmart should bring about the same effect, based on its ethanol content, as overly sophisticated vintages 

P. S. Edited for typos


----------



## redrol (Oct 10, 2021)

One time I tried every cable I have with a set of revealing IEMs.  Of course this takes minutes per IEM and so my audio memory is not going to work.  I ended up running a Y splitter with 2 cables connected and only used the Left from one and Right from other with one set of IEMs.  This way at the very least I can try and hear a volume difference.  The IEM in question has a stated impedance of 8 ohm.  I heard absolutely no differences even comparing a PW Monile $550.00 USD with a no-name something included in a $28 bux set of Blon 03.  I kinda wished there was some difference since the price disparity is so great, but nope!



> After all, some bottle of wine from Walmart should bring about the same effect, based on its ethanol content, as overly sophisticated vintages



I'll give you this one and also because I really dislike the taste of sour grape juice.  I did see some hilarious youtube videos where wine experts fall flat on their face doing taste tests.  It was at that point I realized the wine industry is kind of a scam.  On the other hand, give me a bottle of good scotch and I can taste that quite easily.


----------



## sonitus mirus

PhonoPhi said:


> Thank you for restroring my faith in this thread (otherwise, most off-topic chats resembled unorganized troll hunting over a bottle or two of merlot )
> 
> Exactly my experience: cables can matter, low-impedance IEMs (16 Ohm is a good boundary) are to be avoided for sanity.
> 
> ...



I think most people that have provided feedback have made the assumption that if any difference is enough to be audible, it should be clearly shown through typical measurements.   That has been the theme as I have understood it.  That differences can be heard with various cables may well be the case with low-impedance devices, but it is not some mystery of science that has yet to be discovered.

Granted, not everyone is able to identify all of the parameters necessary to select an ideal cable for their particular applications, but referencing marketing blurbs and reading the audiophile site reviews that get paid from these marketers is not helpful.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 10, 2021)

If you read his posts, he is incapable of measuring anything. He's just saying that because he knows that is what we're going to ask. He's a troll. He's just wasting our time running in circles coming up with unlikely explanations of why he might be hearing what he isn't hearing at all. I don't think he ever mentioned what kind of cables or what he was using the cables for. We decided for ourselves it was IEMs and specialty cables. He doesn't know what you're talking about when you talk about impedance and IEMs. He's fishing. Go ahead and ask him how he measured the difference. See what he says. He won't answer because he didn't measure anything.

Conversations go in two directions. It isn't just about the answer. You can learn a lot by looking at how a person asks the question. It's great to be eager to answer a question thoroughly, but people like this aren't looking for answers. They're looking for attention. All trolls aren't overtly antagonistic. A lot of them just are attention starved and they're looking to manipulate people into paying attention to them. I'm not into that at all. Internet forums have a lot of people who are great to communicate with. I focus on them.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> If you read his posts, he is incapable of measuring anything. He's just saying that because he knows that is what we're going to ask. He's a troll. He's just wasting our time running in circles coming up with unlikely explanations of why he might be hearing what he isn't hearing at all. I don't think he ever mentioned what kind of cables or what he was using the cables for. We decided for ourselves it was IEMs and specialty cables. He doesn't know what you're talking about when you talk about impedance and IEMs. He's fishing. Go ahead and ask him how he measured the difference. See what he says. He won't answer because he didn't measure anything.
> 
> Conversations go in two directions. It isn't just about the answer. You can learn a lot by looking at how a person asks the question. It's great to be eager to answer a question thoroughly, but people like this aren't looking for answers. They're looking for attention. All trolls aren't overtly antagonistic. A lot of them just are attention starved and they're looking to manipulate people into paying attention to them. I'm not into that at all. Internet forums have a lot of people who are great to communicate with. I focus on them.


Still, I am amazed by the amount of people who respond to simple line level differences (which with the previous posts were about....even with given cable A or B, could have slight difference due to resistance: which if you matched with volume is completely negated).  I've started responding to a YouTube channel of a 4K video reviewer who's a home enthusiast (and big enough to get early releases), but often times shows lack of knowledge about film sources, digital intermediates, film restoration, and audio codecs.  Several times I've tried to correct him when he's said "I wished this disc was not TrueHD but lossless DTS-MA or Dolby Atmos".  TrueHD is now the defacto lossless UHD base codec with lossless Atmos. I have tried to inform him that if the same source at same level is encoded in TrueHD or DTS-MA, they'd sound identical.  It's just that sound levels go all over the place.  Now with home theater system: I find I have to raise the volume quite a bit with Dolby Atmos with streaming sources....and then with UHD sources, they're at lower volume.


----------



## bigshot

He mentioned this same thing a way back in the thread and was told all this. He was asked for clarification about what cables he was comparing and how he was using and testing them and he didn't answer. Now we've looped back to one and we're back to guessing what he is talking about again. This thread is flypaper for frustration. I like you guys and you have interesting things to say. I'd rather chat with you folks about just about any topic. How was your weekend?


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> If you read his posts, he is incapable of measuring anything. He's just saying that because he knows that is what we're going to ask. He's a troll.


Maybe, but replies are not only to these trolls. Some other people may read them. Give rope to a troll in a controlled way and you can make him walk backwards into his troll cave.



bigshot said:


> He's just wasting our time


No, he is not wasting _our_ time. We are wasting _our_ time dealing with him. I have only myself to blame and you have only yourself to blame. We could get offline and save a lot of time, but we don't. The blame is on us. He is wasting his own time, but that is not my problem. 



bigshot said:


> He doesn't know what you're talking about when you talk about impedance and IEMs.


Maybe talking about impedances makes him google it and even learn something? Then again maybe not. Ignorant people are ignorant for a reason. I have learned that the only chance to have progress with an ignorant individual is patience and time. Even that fails most of the time.



bigshot said:


> Conversations go in two directions. It isn't just about the answer. You can learn a lot by looking at how a person asks the question. It's great to be eager to answer a question thoroughly, but people like this aren't looking for answers. They're looking for attention.


Why is that? The need for attention is a sign of something, maybe the feel of being overlooked/neglected for example. In reality people want understanding and acceptance, but those are hard to get. Seeking for attention is plan B and an effective way to get attention is becoming a troll. 



bigshot said:


> All trolls aren't overtly antagonistic. A lot of them just are attention starved and they're looking to manipulate people into paying attention to them. I'm not into that at all. Internet forums have a lot of people who are great to communicate with. I focus on them.


Just ignore trolls then and focus on what you are here for. Let other people deal with them.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I'd rather chat with you folks about just about any topic. How was your weekend?


Pretty good, thanks for asking! I spent time listening to the music of Dietrich Buxtehude, Johann Friedrich Fasch and Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel. 

How was yours? Hopefully not ruined by online trolls...


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> I'd rather chat with you folks about just about any topic. How was your weekend?


I'm treating today as another day of my weekend (since I have Indigenous People's Day/Columbus Day off).  This weekend I worked on mounting an OLED TV and bookshelf speakers in my bedroom.  I was amazed that the LG 55" OLED is a few bucks cheaper than Samsung QLED (even though every review site says LG OLED has best picture quality).  It's also good that the area I was mounting is best for 55"....I had been using a 32" LCD TV.  When trying to check out cheaper TV options at Best Buy, they all seemed to have crappy picture quality (so it seems you either go for cheapest option or go OLED).

To also stay on audio: the TV has a Dolby Atmos AI sound DSP.  My bookshelf speakers kick in when the TV is set with TV and optical source.  The bookshelves do add quite a bit more range. They're older Acoustic Research speakers my dad gave me, and I repaired disintegrated surround rings.  They're not ported, yet they have pretty impressive bass response.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 11, 2021)

Davesrose said:


> This weekend I worked on mounting an OLED TV and bookshelf speakers in my bedroom.



That sounds like you're going to have a really good bedroom system. You may not want to get out of bed! I need to do something like that. But I have this big stupid piece of furniture that limits the size of the TV. Remember those big cabinets with doors they had for CRT TVs? I have one of those. I really should throw the thing out, but it's nice wood. It's odd that furniture goes obsolete, but this is a huge albatross. I can't figure out another use for it.



71 dB said:


> Pretty good, thanks for asking! I spent time listening to the music of Dietrich Buxtehude, Johann Friedrich Fasch and Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel.  How was yours?



Early music like that is nice and relaxing.

I spent the weekend working on a project for the digital archive I operate. We got in hundreds and hundreds of DVDs and blu-rays of 1960s anime series. I've been cataloguing, ripping and compressing episodes to M4V. Every disk is mastered a little different. It's hard to pull individual episodes out of a 40GB chunk to make each episode a separate file. Some eps have four chapters and some have five. I found that I'd set up a conversion in handbrake and the title sequence for one would be attached to the end credits of the previous one. I finally got it all worked out. I've been ripping for a couple of months now in my spare time. When I'm done it will be a great research tool. Very little of this made it to the US. I did the same thing with a huge batch of Russian animation a few months ago. I also had volunteers in scanning books by Hokusai. We're on a Japanese kick right now.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> That sounds like you're going to have a really good bedroom system. You may not want to get out of bed! I need to do something like that. But I have this big stupid piece of furniture that limits the size of the TV. Remember those big cabinets with doors they had for CRT TVs? I have one of those. I really should throw the thing out, but it's nice wood. It's odd that furniture goes obsolete, but this is a huge albatross. I can't figure out another use for it.


I'm lucky that for my main system, my entertainment system I bought with my first house is component areas underneath and a long glass top for a big sized TV.  At the time, it was a 42" plasma....and now it could accommodate up to 85" OLED.  So my main setup still is best for watching movies (also having nice 7.1.4 speakers).  My bedroom setup is for watching TV right before bed: I've also noticed the 55" OLED's processors are more forgiving for old SD content than the LCD TV was.

Speaking of entertainment centers....that does remind me of my grandparent's condo in Florida: they bought it from previous owners and furniture was all from the 70s.  So the central bookshelf center in the living room was gold framework and glass with areas that were gray sections.  It had a 19" CRT TV (original one actually having one of the early wired remotes).  When I went TV shopping with my grandmother, it still wound up being 19" TV she got: even though I kept thinking she didn't really need to keep that furniture.  And then with her other house, it took many hours going to Circuit City to replace her old Sony slim Trinitron (it having a wood cabinet and very thin depth due to special CRT).  It was me and the sales guy saying that there's no special order for such a thing anymore: 19" TVs just have the deep tube and black plastic (back then of course....now I'm dating myself about types of CRT).


----------



## Davesrose (Oct 11, 2021)

bigshot said:


> I spent the weekend working on a project for the digital archive I operate. We got in hundreds and hundreds of DVDs and blu-rays of 1960s anime series. I've been cataloguing, ripping and compressing episodes to M4V. Every disk is mastered a little different. It's hard to pull individual episodes out of a 40GB chunk to make each episode a separate file. Some eps have four chapters and some have five. I found that I'd set up a conversion in handbrake and the title sequence for one would be attached to the end credits of the previous one. I finally got it all worked out. I've been ripping for a couple of months now in my spare time. When I'm done it will be a great research tool. Very little of this made it to the US. I did the same thing with a huge batch of Russian animation a few months ago. I also had volunteers in scanning books by Hokusai. We're on a Japanese kick right now.


That's neat: previously I have learned you are involved with animation resources (I kinda coincide of having been involved with medical 3D animation, photography, and now software development in the medical sector).  Lately my personal projects have been maintaining databases.  Interested: why M4V as your container?  Seems h.264 mp4 is most universal for all platforms (though h.265 is also becoming pretty regular).  Would be interesting to see these culture's animation (not familiar with Russian)...and it looks now everyone is into Asian media (I'm hearing so much about Squid Game).


----------



## bigshot

M4V and MP4 are pretty much interchangeable. It's just the format that Handbrake spits out. We archive the original file and create streamable knockdowns for inclusion in our database.

Russia has a huge animation industry and they have since the 1920s. There's an ocean of material that we know nothing about in the US. Every time I think I've seen it all, the world opens up wider and there's more to take in.


----------



## Davesrose

bigshot said:


> Russia has a huge animation industry and they have since the 1920s. There's an ocean of material that we know nothing about in the US. Every time I think I've seen it all, the world opens up wider and there's more to take in.


Interesting that's about the same time as Disney was starting.  And before that, practical effects started with Méliès.  At any point, were they influenced by the west?  I'm familiar with some Soviet film makers who both had some western influences but had their own sensibilities.  It's also neat that since cinema is over 100 years old, there tends to be a cycle of themes.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 11, 2021)

In the very beginning, Russian animation was primarily used for propaganda. It was raw like a political cartoon. In the late 30s and early 40s, it was heavily influenced by the West, but within a few years, there was a movement to create more culturally relevant films. They did cartoons based on Russian folk tales and experimented with other techniques, like stop motion puppet films, paper cut outs and experimental animation. The animation industry was subsidized by the government, and the main studio there, Soyuzmultfilm is still in operation and over the years, it's produced over 1,500 animated films.

Here is an example, a puppet film starring the character Cheburashka... (switch on the subtitles)


----------



## Maxx134

71 dB said:


> This is simple voltage division. The voltage generated by the amp is divided across the output impedance of the amp, the impedance of the cable and the impedance of the headphone driver. Lets assume all the impedances are purely resistive (very much the case at 1 kHz) that the impedances at 1 kHz are:
> 
> Amp output: 2 Ω
> Cable 1: 1 Ω
> ...


This is a stagnant, static, "frozen-in-time" type of measurement. 
Then simplifying it to "output level".

Musical signals will be way more complex with varying frequencies and voltages... So we would end up with varying, complex impedance changing in time, according to the music.

So the wire, while not having any "sound" of its own, would instead indirectly affect the other two items it links, with a varying impedance.
The speaker and amp load, would react, according to thier own design.

Does it matter if it is small? That is the question when your talking about changes which would affect a transducer or amplifier.
The ratio of how small, vanishes quickly in the IEM market.



sonitus mirus said:


> I think most people that have provided feedback have made the assumption that if any difference is enough to be audible, it should be clearly shown through typical measurements


There are no typical measurements to capture live streaming voltages of multiple frequencies and levels of AC, which is what music is. It must be a more complicated measurement, than typical ohms law being discussed here.

This thread is living inside a bubble.
It's not just old school speaker amps anymore. We have sensitive equipment and areas taking prominence, especially the IEM & DAP market.

Title is too generalized, and loses ground with headphone cable  market.

 I have mentioned vaguely many times about the "outside world" in which we have multitudes of cable companies using various complex sciences to make thier cable designs..
There is a multitude of cable websites information which have not been touched here.
Look at the the insane amount of design effort in this pic:


And thag is just one cable in one company...

The more you look, the deeper the rabbit hole becomes about the amount of things going on that are being tested and tried with, especially the IEM cable manufacturers.
It is there, that the complexity gets more involved.
They take into account everything.

Just a quick Google, and look at the issues of cable I find:

Here we read that the electrical energy is outside the wire!!
What?🤔

Here we see that "Litz" addresses both "skin" & "proximity" effect.. Proximity?!🤔


Here we see efficiency gains exceeding 50% in low Khz range.. Thats the Audible range! 🤔


Here we see that once we force electrons thru wire, we have to add in a created "electromagnetic force"!
So much for simple "ohms law"...😮


Here we see that "Litz" will effect wire from 10khz, which is the "Trebles" range in Audio frequencies.
Also note other types wire affecting frequencies below 10khz...


Finally, here we see that not only is  Silver is the best conductor, but that it has _*more free electrons..*_.
Wouldn't having more free electrons would alude to it being more easily affected by everything stated above?

These are the kinds of things I see outside this bubble of a thread, on a random google search. They are not connected, but together they show that there is much topic about the cables that's not discussed.

 Maybe the general negative biased towards cable companies, (which I believe they did deserve), is no longer a good thing, because the effort and push they were claiming on cables, are now becoming more relevant because of the sensitivity of the IEM market.

The IEM market, is the ideal market to test the interaction of cables, and how they alter the IEM sonic performance, because IEMs are having the most complex impedances and most sensitivities.
Some are having 12 drivers or more.

IEMs have multiples of "Electrostatic", "Balanced Armature", and "dynamic"  drivers, all combined and interacting in unison within the same IEM, creating probably the most complex headphones with regards to every type of impedance (RCL).

So my conclusion is, that we have actuall interaction of cables, which would normally be totally negligible on other gear, now becoming an issue with IEMs.


----------



## 71 dB

Having a cable that has too much inductance or/and capacity is called bad engineering. Yes, the electric power is transmitted "around" the wire.


----------



## PhonoPhi

Maxx134 said:


> This is a stagnant, static, "frozen-in-time" type of measurement.
> Then simplifying it to "output level".
> 
> Musical signals will be way more complex with varying frequencies and voltages... So we would end up with varying, complex impedance changing in time, according to the music.
> ...


I have two simple conclusions:

1. A lot of gibberish above. Of course - the modulations are described by AC (characteristic response times and frequencies). Capacitance and inductance of IEM cables are unsignificant to matter, so the IEM cable is just a resistive load. But then...

2. Instead of trying to convince people, neo-Darvinistically,  those who can fall for such gibberish deserve paying "snake oil audiophile taxes". So go for that perfectly crafted Litz 1% Au graphene nanocomposite and the world will smile with/at you


----------



## Maxx134 (Nov 27, 2021)

I will say I have no where scratched the surface of the problems(meaning my lack willingness to research on the topic) , so I will instead point to the other guy (cable makers) and say, don't look at me (the messenger) go argue with him (cable company making millions) who probably has alot points to argue.
I am just shinning the light that hey, your opponent of debate is "over there"..

I guess a real cable company guy would be too afraid to come here😂
But they're out there and growing like minions now, I believe especially because of the problems in the IEM market.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Nov 27, 2021)

I tried to ask several cables sellers and manufacturers at AE to explain me exactly in what audible characteristics and how exactly would be their ~$100 cables better/different from 0.2-0.3 Ohm ~$10-$20 ones (I was ready to buy, loved the colours and patterns, and was ready to settle for even semi- or quarter-credible arguments to chuckle later). I was not given anything more than "better sound", "bigger", "more transparent", and "many guys noted improvevent"...
 Then there are some guys in Head-Fi making "tables of cable compatibilities with IEMs" with defensive aggressiveness of their gibberish, so I personally gave up.

Sources clearly matter so much more, and with good USB DACs at cable prices that are more than real (at least to my limited ears, and the science behind it is more or less understandable).
 At the same time here, at SS, there are guys that are convinced that "all DACs" sound the same", which is perhaps true deeply conceptually 

To each their own.


----------



## redrol

I can't tell the difference between a throw away 1 bux cable and a 600 dollar one.  Thats because there are no differences in the human hearing frequency range.


----------



## castleofargh

Maxx134 said:


> This is a stagnant, static, "frozen-in-time" type of measurement.
> Then simplifying it to "output level".
> 
> Musical signals will be way more complex with varying frequencies and voltages... So we would end up with varying, complex impedance changing in time, according to the music.
> ...


Litz cables are very good choices for some purposes, I'm certainly not trying to bash that type of wire arrangement. But I'm not sold on them being great for IEM cables. The one and only benefit of silver is to have slightly better conductivity than copper for the same diameter. Litz does the opposite. You'll need an IEM cable that's bigger than typical ones for the same impedance. Something all users really love!!! I can't stop reading raving IEMs reviews about how a fat stiff cable is life. 
As for skin effect, what do you expect to gain at audible frequencies on a short cable? I'd bet on not a all lot.




Now if it's more about having free electrons and giving them the right to vote, I have nothing against that. I'm even up to declare them positive charges if it helps them fit in society. They're already ashamed of how slow they're moving, I think they don't need the extra stigma of being called negative all the time.


----------



## bfreedma

Maxx134 said:


> This is a stagnant, static, "frozen-in-time" type of measurement.
> Then simplifying it to "output level".
> 
> Musical signals will be way more complex with varying frequencies and voltages... So we would end up with varying, complex impedance changing in time, according to the music.
> ...



Marketing materials being espoused as “scientific” supporting evidence, an appeal to authority where the authority has a profit motive, and a serving of word salad clearly demonstrating a lack of basic understanding of the topic at hand.  Awesome………


----------



## gregorio

Maxx134 said:


> These are the kinds of things I see outside this bubble of a thread, on a random google search. They are not connected, but together they show that there is much topic about the cables that's not discussed.



There has been a massive amount of research into cables, for a very long time, because billions of dollars depended on them for the telcos as well as national security and that was by the 1920s! By the 1950s you can add trillions more for the world’s TV and radio broadcasters and of course trillions more with the computer era.

The audiophile cable business is absolutely tiny by comparison and works like many other areas of the audiophile market: Find a problem and then provide a solution to it. Typically, they either invent some completely nonsense/fictitious problem or they take a problem that’s actually real but isn’t applicable to audio signals. Skin effect for example is real but doesn’t affect audio frequencies.

Silver is another good example. Yes, it’s more conductive than copper, of course the audiophile cable companies won’t provide actual measurements though because the reality is that it doesn’t make any practical difference. A 6ft copper cable has roughly the same conductivity as an identical silver cable of 6ft 2ins. What’s there to gain for paying 10+ times more? Sure, when we’re transporting signals 1,000 feet or 5,000 miles through hostile environments there are cable design considerations but 20ft inside a nice cosy home, not so much!

G


----------



## bigshot

I think if someone claims that high end cables sound better, you can pretty much figure that they are apt to spout all kinds of foolishness.


----------



## chef8489

Bumping an old thread because I came across this thread. I cant understand how people can be so ignorant on haw a usb cable works and not understand there is no sound going through it and there is no way that it can change the sound characteristics of your music: ie change the highs, mids and so on.


----------



## redrol

It's by not understanding even the basics of electronics, digital information transfer.  IE, uneducated people that pretend based on marketing.


----------



## chef8489

redrol said:


> It's by not understanding even the basics of electronics, digital information transfer.  IE, uneducated people that pretend based on marketing.


Its crazy how companies can prey on audiophiles like that knowing good and well their products don't make a difference. Any engineer knows this. Any reasonable knowledgeble person that knows about how digital signals work. People in these threads just look like fools and idiots.


----------



## SpeakerBox

Digital sound is still lacking (to my ears) no matter what cable you use.


----------



## bigshot

You probably make no effort to EQ.


----------



## chef8489 (Aug 27, 2022)

SpeakerBox said:


> Digital sound is still lacking (to my ears) no matter what cable you use.


How is that when digital sound is exact transparent to what is originally recorded? But on a second not thats because cables don't matter.


----------



## Plumbus the Wise

SpeakerBox said:


> Digital sound is still lacking (to my ears) no matter what cable you use.


What?


----------



## redrol

Analog sound is highly lacking for all the source material I can actually acquire.  Vinyl has tons of noise and pops and clicks.  Cassette tapes are now potatoes with no fidelity since they are 30 years old.  8 track.. nopers.


----------



## Terriero

I was imagining today (in a PM with my friend @Kammerat Rebekka here) to suggest people to change the cables of their coffee makers (with a very good power cable) and maybe their perception would be:

A. The coffee acquires another incredible taste.
B. They can hear more smoothly the sound when preparing their preferred coffee...

You can suggest more options, use your imagination


----------



## chef8489 (Aug 28, 2022)

I just posted a question about usb cables in that thread. I'm sure it's not going to go over well.


As predicted, no one would answer my question which I thought was a valid question. Basically how does a usb cable change the sound characteristics of the music and described how the cable worked and the dac and source.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Aug 29, 2022)

Debunking the pseudoscience...


----------



## castleofargh

DarginMahkum said:


> Debunking the pseudoscience...



 I was sure it was a hoax from some dude pulling our leg to see what can be published, like the chicken chicken chicken paper.


----------



## chef8489

castleofargh said:


> I was sure it was a hoax from some dude pulling our leg to see what can be published, like the chicken chicken chicken paper.


I of course have been banned from that thread for asking a question which is complete bs.


----------



## bfreedma

chef8489 said:


> I of course have been banned from that thread for asking a question which is complete bs.



Just one more reminder that in 2022, actual facts take a back seat to the subjective opinions of those who think that 5 minutes of internet "research" somehow supersedes the knowledge of those who have spent decades working with a particular technology.

That thread is a particularly good example of this phenomenon.  Right up there with the thread on "audiophile" Ethernet switches and how they act as repeatable EQ - 802 standards be damned...


----------



## chef8489

bfreedma said:


> Just one more reminder that in 2022, actual facts take a back seat to the subjective opinions of those who think that 5 minutes of internet "research" somehow supersedes the knowledge of those who have spent decades working with a particular technology.
> 
> That thread is a particularly good example of this phenomenon.  Right up there with the thread on "audiophile" Ethernet switches and how they act as repeatable EQ - 802 standards be damned...


Yep I was reading another ridiculous thread on ethernet cables and couldn't belive the rubbish in it. It just kept getting worse and worse. You replied many times in it.  People are so blissfully ignorant and double down on the misinformation no matter what facts and science you present. It's crazy. They can't answer how anything actually works and just deflect with oh I hear a difference and it drives me nuts because it's impossible and so foolish. It just makes people look dumb when they push impossible stuff like ethernet and usb cables change sound characteristics like bass and soundstage. Make the music more clear or less shrill or sibilant.


----------



## bfreedma

chef8489 said:


> Yep I was reading another ridiculous thread on ethernet cables and couldn't belive the rubbish in it. It just kept getting worse and worse. You replied many times in it.  People are so blissfully ignorant and double down on the misinformation no matter what facts and science you present. It's crazy. They can't answer how anything actually works and just deflect with oh I hear a difference and it drives me nuts because it's impossible and so foolish. It just makes people look dumb when they push impossible stuff like ethernet and usb cables change sound characteristics like bass and soundstage. Make the music more clear or less shrill or sibilant.



The behavior in those threads is mostly a defense mechanism.  It's very hard for people to acknowledge that they are incorrect, particularly after they've spent 4 figures on a USB and/or Ethernet cable.

No amount of actual knowledge can compete with Dunning Kruger - they're audiophiles who've read marketing content from people with a profit motive and now know that decades of published research is wrong.


----------



## chef8489

bfreedma said:


> The behavior in those threads is mostly a defense mechanism.  It's very hard for people to acknowledge that they are incorrect, particularly after they've spent 4 figures on a USB and/or Ethernet cable.
> 
> No amount of actual knowledge can compete with Dunning Kruger - they're audiophiles who've read marketing content from people with a profit motive and now know that decades of published research is wrong.


Most of my posts got deleted in the thread I posted which is typical censorship of this website in an echo chamber thread. They left the original question up and that's it.


----------



## bfreedma

chef8489 said:


> Most of my posts got deleted in the thread I posted which is typical censorship of this website in an echo chamber thread. They left the original question up and that's it.



I saw your posts and the responses.  

What happened to you is why I rarely respond to those threads any longer - being 100% factually accurate isn't enough to prevent posts from being deleted.  Clearly, we aren't going to be able post information that may show vendors in a negative light.  

I understand the reality of this as without advertising, Head-Fi wouldn't exist as we know it, but wish that the bar wasn't tilted so far in the favor of vendors that we can't even discuss known operational parameters.


----------



## chef8489

bfreedma said:


> I saw your posts and the responses.
> 
> What happened to you is why I rarely respond to those threads any longer - being 100% factually accurate isn't enough to prevent posts from being deleted.  Clearly, we aren't going to be able post information that may show vendors in a negative light.
> 
> I understand the reality of this as without advertising, Head-Fi wouldn't exist as we know it, but wish that the bar wasn't tilted so far in the favor of vendors that we can't even discuss known operational parameters.


What makes me angry was I was extremely polite and open for responses yet was attacked and my responses were deleted and I was banned. I have been around here for a very long time. I am not a new member. He'll I was an original member of the original head-fi before this account. It just baffling. It shows that the mods no longer are interested in truthful open discussion of audio technology. I miss the days when Jude actually cared and was more involved and the site was less about money and more about the truth and discovery about audio.


----------



## bfreedma

chef8489 said:


> What makes me angry was I was extremely polite and open for responses yet was attacked and my responses were deleted and I was banned. I have been around here for a very long time. I am not a new member. He'll I was an original member of the original head-fi before this account. It just baffling. It shows that the mods no longer are interested in truthful open discussion of audio technology. I miss the days when Jude actually cared and was more involved and the site was less about money and more about the truth and discovery about audio.



Once there's a financial motivation, objectivity tends to go out the window.

I saw you take a lot of personal attacks - at this point, I think our "audiophile" members have realized that going on the attack will get factual posts deleted along with their insults.


----------



## chef8489

bfreedma said:


> Once there's a financial motivation, objectivity tends to go out the window.
> 
> I saw you take a lot of personal attacks - at this point, I think our "audiophile" members have realized that going on the attack will get factual posts deleted along with their insults.


I guess I'll stick my arguments to sound science and just ignore the fools.


----------



## bfreedma

chef8489 said:


> I guess I'll stick my arguments to sound science and just ignore the fools.



That thread is still going - even with the posts removed, the usual suspects are still whining.

Bet you $1 USD that in the next 24 hours, someone calls those that don't believe the marketing claims a "flat earther" in that thread.  I love the irony of those inevitable responses.

They're already going on with the usual "You can't have a position without listening to the cable in your system".   As if science isn't valid unless personally confirmed - who knows, gravity might not work as expected - need to jump off that building...


----------



## chef8489

bfreedma said:


> That thread is still going - even with the posts removed, the usual suspects are still whining.
> 
> Bet you $1 USD that in the next 24 hours, someone calls those that don't believe the marketing claims a "flat earther" in that thread.  I love the irony of those inevitable responses.
> 
> They're already going on with the usual "You can't have a position without listening to the cable in your system".   As if science isn't valid unless personally confirmed - who knows, gravity might not work as expected - need to jump off that building...


It's ironic ar those are the flat earthers. They are the ones that refuse to believe science. They are the small minute sub category that believe in magic and impossibility.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference.

Hum. 🤔

Money ? Sex ?... All of that. 😇

I want to be convinced. 😋


----------



## tricolor

Hey! 
Happy to see a thread based on science.  The sad reality is that we do live in a world where economics (capitalism) rules... and in order to keep the status quo, it might  be convenient to overlook "science".
stay safe!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

How do I convince people that recent messenger RNA injections DO NOT make a difference.

...


😁😅😇


----------



## Chris Kaoss

DaveStarWalker said:


> How do I convince people that recent messenger RNA injections DO NOT make a difference.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


   
It has to happen one day. ^^


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> What makes me angry was I was extremely polite and open for responses yet was attacked and my responses were deleted and I was banned.


It doesn’t make any difference; polite, authoritative, open, absolute/closed. It also doesn’t make any difference if you mention or reference science or if you deliberately avoid it and just use simple facts and logic instead. The shills, extremists and trolls will attack regardless and the mods will delete your posts. I’ve spent time on certain posts deliberately avoiding any mention or reference to science, even any indirect reference to science and still had them deleted on the grounds that they’re science and should only be posted in the Sound Science subforum!


chef8489 said:


> It just baffling. It shows that the mods no longer are interested in truthful open discussion of audio technology.


That’s because there can no longer be any truthful discussion of modern audio technology! There can be instruction of the fundamental principles of how it works but not any rational/truthful discussion. We could have an effectively theoretical discussion, EG. Impressive or not so impressive specs/numbers which are all inaudible regardless. And of course we could have a discussion about historical audio technologies from ages past which were superseded decades ago (wax cylinders, tubes, vinyl, DAC topologies like R2R and NOS and various other examples). But no practical truthful discussion of modern audio terminology. 

The only real exception to the above is transducers but Head-fi limits itself to just headphones, so that’s really the only thing we can have a truthful discussion about.

So, it’s not really baffling at all. If Head-Fi prioritised truthful facts/science or even just allowed it these days, it would decimate it’s advertising revenue, which is very largely reliant on snake oil. The only thing I find baffling is why this subforum is still allowed to exist, although it is in a remote corner of the site and we’re attacked and censored if we venture out to any of the other subforum.

Head-Fi has become a ridiculous contradiction. Audio technology (or any technology) is the practical application of scientific knowledge, so how can you have a discussion forum for audio technology where scientific knowledge is banned? Unfortunately, especially in this “post-truth” world, this is somehow not ridiculous, it’s actually pretty much normal. With the right influencer (or ex-president or prime-minister) you could probably rebrand Monty Python sketches as factual documentaries!

G

PS: Rant over


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> How do I convince people that recent messenger RNA injections DO NOT make a difference.


A. Donate large sums of money to certain GOP senators. 
B. Employ Dominic Cummings to develop a campaign strategy. 
C. Commission a scientific paper by Reiss, Stuart, Kunchur or Oohashi. 
D. Advertise on social media.

Getting an audiophile marketer would seem an obvious addition to this list as convincing people of falsehoods is their job. However, their expertise is in convincing people that everything does make a difference, so I’m not sure if they could handle convincing people of a falsehood the other way around, that something does not make a difference. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> A. Donate large sums of money to certain GOP senators.
> B. Employ Dominic Cummings to develop a campaign strategy.
> C. Commission a scientific paper by Reiss, Stuart, Kunchur or Oohashi.
> D. Advertise on social media.
> ...


Um... I think at some point, if something is really wrong, it doesn't stand the test of time.

Something to think about.


----------



## DarginMahkum

DaveStarWalker said:


> Um... I think at some point, if something is really wrong, it doesn't stand the test of time.
> 
> Something to think about.


Naah, you give too much credit to hoomans.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Um... I think at some point, if something is really wrong, it doesn't stand the test of time.


I think that’s often the case but it depends on how much time we’re talking about. Most of the “issues” regarding digital audio raised by audiophiles/marketing were put to bed more than 2 decades ago, with amps 3 decades or more and audiophile cables have been around for what, 40-50 years? And yet here we still are.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> I think that’s often the case but it depends on how much time we’re talking about. Most of the “issues” regarding digital audio raised by audiophiles/marketing were put to bed more than 2 decades ago, with amps 3 decades or more and audiophile cables have been around for what, 40-50 years? And yet here we still are.
> 
> G


Yes absolutly.

I think the first so-called "audiophile cables" date from the 70s : Mogami for example.

When you listen to Yoshihiko Kannari's recordings at Three Blind Mice for exemple, it makes you think... a lot. 

About cables and recording techniques...


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> When you listen to Yoshihiko Kannari's recordings at Three Blind Mice for exemple, it makes you think... a lot.
> 
> About cables and recording techniques...


It makes me think about recording techniques from a historical perspective but why would it make me think about cables?

G


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 1, 2022)

Human mind's most important task is conflict resolution and avoidance when possible. We try to simplify the situation and reach a conclusion as soon as possible, as 'in the jungle' conflicts keeps us preoccupied and slows us down while running away from danger. Education is what should help us face the conflicts and endure it while searching for a better solution.

For anyone that is not prepared to feel the discomfort of conflicts, the shortest decisions come to rescue and we are back to our comfort zone. Bias, prejudices, even pseudoscience gives us the shortest path to our comfort zone. Especially if someone is not competent enough to take the not-understandable direction, it might even become scary and highly uncomfortable. As most of the people function this way, this helps us also to belong to a pack.

So a conspiracy theory or a plain wrong thing that can easily be proved wrong by scratching the surface, gives us the same result, as long as we don't experience the discomfort of a conflict. Money has always been the shortest path. As long as most of the population can buy out the next answer, it is highly unlikely that they will face the conflict, especially if they are not trained for it.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 1, 2022)

gregorio said:


> It makes me think about recording techniques from a historical perspective but why would it make me think about cables?
> 
> G


Because he was exclusively used Mogami cables. It is crystal clear and precise like a very few records...


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Because he was exclusively used Mogami cables.


Ah, I see the confusion. Mogami do make overpriced cables aimed at the audiophile market but they also make studio cables and these are not overpriced, in fact they’re very competitively priced, just a few bucks a metre. I’ve got some myself.

All the top studios use cable in this price range, Van Damme, Klotz, Mogami, Canare or whatever. Some of these companies also make expensive audiophile cables but that’s not what we use in commercial recording studios! This is why, when listening to a recording, we never think about cables.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> Ah, I see the confusion. Mogami do make overpriced cables aimed at the audiophile market but they also make studio cables and these are not overpriced, in fact they’re very competitively priced, just a few bucks a metre. I’ve got some myself.
> 
> All the top studios use cable in this price range, Van Damme, Klotz, Mogami, Canare or whatever. Some of these companies also make expensive audiophile cables but that’s not what we use in commercial recording studios! This is why, when listening to a recording, we never think about cables.
> 
> G


But we should 😉


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> But we should


Why?

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> Why?
> 
> G


Because it is useful. 😉

Try MA recordings for instance. 👍

Stockfish Records.

Etc.😋


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Because it is useful.


There are literally hundreds of things that are useful. The mics, how and where they’re placed, the pre-amp type and settings, the calibration of the tape machine, the editing, all the different mixing and processing and countless things about the performance itself. However, of all these numerous useful things, cable is not one of them!

There are better and far, far more great recordings done at Abbey Road, Air, CTS, Capitol, Olympic and countless other top studios and they all use just standard studio cable. Some, like Abbey Road, have a deal with one company (Van Damme) to supply studio cable while others just use a combination of the manufacturers I listed before depending on convenience and best price at the time, because there’s no difference. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> There are literally hundreds of things that are useful. The mics, how and where they’re placed, the pre-amp type and settings, the calibration of the tape machine, the editing, all the different mixing and processing and countless things about the performance itself. However, of all these numerous useful things, cable is not one of them!
> 
> There are better and far, far more great recordings done at Abbey Road, Air, CTS, Capitol, Olympic and countless other top studios and they all use just standard studio cable. Some, like Abbey Road, have a deal with one company (Van Damme) to supply studio cable while others just use a combination of the manufacturers I listed before depending on convenience and best price at the time, because there’s no difference.
> 
> G


Yes.

And cables are a full part of the equation. 😉


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> And cables are a full part of the equation.


No, they’re not even the tiniest part of the equation, let alone a full part. The mics and everything else I mentioned are part of the equation, the cables are not, they make no difference.

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

Cables make big difference in sound and i found it out when i first used vovox instrument and microphone cables

now i am looking ti upgrade my in ear monitors cable but i am not very familiar which brand i should buy… i see people saying about effect audio ares s and pw no5 or no 10

anyone can give me some advice??


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Cables make big difference in sound


Sure, if they are broken or the wrong specification for the job, otherwise they make no difference in sound. 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> anyone can give me some advice??


Yes, ignore audiophile marketing and either actually measure the performance or perform a controlled (blind/double blind) test!

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Sure, if they are broken or the wrong specification for the job, otherwise they make no difference in sound.
> 
> Yes, ignore audiophile marketing and either actually measure the performance or perform a controlled (blind/double blind) test!
> 
> G


I made plenty of blind test to proof to a friend of my who couldnt hear the difference at my microphone vovox cable.. and everytime i knew which cable was.. he finaly admit that i got better ears and hearing skills than him.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> I made plenty of blind test to proof to a friend of my who couldnt hear the difference at my microphone vovox cable.. and everytime i knew which cable was..


Again: Sure, if the cable you were comparing it with was broken or the wrong specification for the job.

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Again: Sure, if the cable you were comparing it with was broken or the wrong specification for the job.
> 
> G


Brand new klotz microphone cable vs vovox sonorus direct.. nothing was broken or wrong


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Brand new klotz microphone cable vs vovox sonorus direct.. nothing was broken or wrong


Even a brand new cable can be faulty, although very rarely. The only other possibility is a fault with your test methodology. 

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Even a brand new cable can be faulty, although very rarely. The only other possibility is a fault with your test methodology.
> 
> G


Why you dont accept the fact that some people have better hearing skills from some other people??


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Why you dont accept the fact that some people have better hearing skills from some other people??



There's a significant difference between discussing the variability of human hearing and making claims that would require hearing far beyond known auditory capability.

Bluntly, there have been dozens of people who have made the same claim you are making in this thread and others in Sound Science.  To date, none of them have been able to substantiate those claims.  If you want to continue, please share, in detail, how your blind tests were constructed, how many trials the subjects took, and what their accuracy rates were.  Or show measurements indicating that the difference exists.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Why you dont accept the fact that some people have better hearing skills from some other people??


But I do accept that, in fact my job depends on that fact. 

What I don’t accept is that anyone can run 100m in 0.0000009 seconds or have hearing a million times more sensitive than a human being!!

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> There's a significant difference between discussing the variability of human hearing and making claims that would require hearing far beyond known auditory capability.
> 
> Bluntly, there have been dozens of people who have made the same claim you are making in this thread and others in Sound Science.  To date, none of them have been able to substantiate those claims.  If you want to continue, please share, in detail, how your blind tests were constructed, how many trials the subjects took, and what their accuracy rates were.  Or show measurements indicating that the difference exists.


Had my eyes blind and i had my high quality microphone and singing without music .. and everytime my friend who is also sound engineer like me  he changed the cable  i was able to tell him everytime which cable was used..


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Had my eyes blind and i had my high quality microphone and singing without music .. and everytime my friend who is also sound engineer like me  he changed the cable  i was able to tell him everytime which cable was used..



You're going to have to provide a lot more detail about your testing than that.  It doesn't sound like you were even comparing the same audio content - are you saying you sung into the mic using different cables then listened to that back to compare the cables?  If so, all you likely heard was the differences in your sung versions.

BTW, "Blind Testing" doesn't require you to cover your eyes, just to not be aware of the switching.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Had my eyes blind and i had my high quality microphone and singing without music


If you were singing, how could you hear the differences between cables? Please explain exactly how you ran this test. 

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> You're going to have to provide a lot more detail about your testing than that.  It doesn't sound like you were even comparing the same audio content - are you saying you sung into the mic using different cables then listened to that back to compare the cables?  If so, all you likely heard was the differences in your sung versions.
> 
> BTW, "Blind Testing" doesn't require you to cover your eyes, just to not be aware of the switching.


man i did this test by hearing the samples of these cables which many people provide on youtube.. everytime i can recognise the difference from vovox cable vs standard cables… but after all.. i hear and i feel the difference for my self when i sing or play.. and since i am happy with it i dont need to proof more things to people who are not able to feel and hear the difference… for these people me and many other that we can hear the difference we are just crazy and insane people..


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 1, 2022)

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> man i did this test by hearing the samples of these cables which many people provide on youtube.. everytime i can recognise the difference from vovox cable vs standard cables… but after all.. i hear and i feel the difference for my self when i sing or play.. and since i am happy with it i dont need to proof more things to people who are not able to feel and hear the difference… for these people me and many other that we can hear the difference we are just crazy and insane people..



So you didn't actually perform any valid testing, you listened to recordings other people made then published to Youtube?  What happened to your claim of blind testing these yourself?

And out of all of the possible valid technical reasons there could be differences, you determined that it was the cables used, not Youtube's codecs, not in the equipment used to make the recordings, not differences in the samples, etc.

I am not a professional recording engineer.  Frankly based on your posts, I'm struggling to believe you are.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2022)

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> man i did this test by hearing the samples of these cables which many people provide on youtube.. everytime i can recognise the difference from vovox cable vs standard cables


Hang on, you said you did a blind test by singing into a mic. Now you seem to be admitting that was a lie and you just used samples others created on YouTube?!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i hear and i feel the difference for my self when i sing or play..


No, you do not hear or feel the difference. The differences are way, way below audibility!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> and since i am happy with it i dont need to proof more things to people who are not able to feel and hear the difference


Of course you do! If your are going to come on to a public forum and effectively claim your hearing is 10,000 times more sensitive than any human being in history then you do have to provide some reliable evidence of such an astonishing claim!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> for these people me and many other that we can hear the difference we are just crazy and insane people..


Not at all, people who claim they can run 440,000kph or hear differences at 0.001dB are of course entirely sane!

If you are actually a sound engineer, then why don’t you measure the performance of the two cables or do a null test?

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Hang on, you said you did a blind test by singing into a mic. Now you seem to be admitting that was a lie and you just used samples others created on YouTube?!
> 
> No, you do not hear or feel the difference. The differences are way, way below audibility!
> 
> ...


I have first heard the youtube videos and when i heard the difference from there and even from crappy laptop speakers i said to my self that i must try for my self these cables.. then i bought my first vovox cables and i shocked when i tryed both in studio and in my live gigs.. .. so at the end you believe.. that i am a guy which i wana come to a forum with 3 posts or 5 posts ?? In a forum that no body will ever remember my name or will never meet me in person and so what?? To claim that i hear and brag about the money i spent??  Or do you think that i am stupid enough to spend so much money for my imagination??  Believe it or not i hear a difference and i dont care if you dont hear or you dont believe me… end of discussion for me.. and for your record measurements have done many many times from all of these companys like vovox or klotz or mogami.. they are not stupid and they are not awarded for no reason..


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 1, 2022)

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> I have first heard the youtube videos and when i heard the difference from there and even from crappy laptop speakers i said to my self that i must try for my self these cables.. then i bought my first vovox cables and i shocked when i tryed both in studio and in my live gigs.. .. so at the end you believe.. that i am a guy which i wana come to a forum with 3 posts or 5 posts ?? In a forum that no body will ever remember my name or will never meet me in person and so what?? To claim that i hear and brag about the money i spent??  Or do you think that i am stupid enough to spend so much money for my imagination??  Believe it or not i hear a difference and i dont care if you dont hear or you dont believe me… end of discussion for me.. and for your record measurements have done many many times from all of these companys like vovox or klotz or mogami.. they are not stupid and they are not awarded for no reason..



Nice rant.  Entirely lacking objective data though.  You state vovox, klotz and mogami have measurements supporting your claims - now would be an excellent time to share those links.

I don't doubt that you believe you hear a difference.  I do very seriously doubt that there is an audible difference between cables, or that you could successfully identify these cables in a properly constructed blind test.

It's hard to give you any credibility when you change your description of what you tested and how those tests were performed in 3 consecutive posts.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> No, they’re not even the tiniest part of the equation, let alone a full part. The mics and everything else I mentioned are part of the equation, the cables are not, they make no difference.
> 
> G



Totally desagree with this statement.

But, this isn't very important, in fact.

Only life and real experience have the right answer. 😉

And I do have the right answer already, so it isn't matter, to me. 😇


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> then i bought my first vovox cables and i shocked when i tryed both in studio and in my live gigs.. .. so at the end you believe..


Not if you’re an engineer you don’t. What you actually do is some reliable measuring and testing! If you didn’t do that and instead just believed what you thought you heard, then you are not a real engineer and that’s just another lie!!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Or do you think that i am stupid enough to spend so much money for my imagination??


From everything you’ve said so far it’s increasingly difficult to come to any other conclusion!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> and for your record measurements have done many many times from all of these companys like vovox or klotz or mogami.. they are not stupid and they are not awarded for no reason..


They are not stupid and neither are all the real engineers in the world’s top studios! Which is why they don’t care if they use Klotz, Van Damme or other relatively cheap, standard mic cables. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Brand new klotz microphone cable vs vovox sonorus direct.. nothing was broken or wrong



I know very well the Vovox Sonorus = great product. It was mine long time ago. 

It is used by Stockfish Records. 👍


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Totally desagree with this statement.


Then provide some evidence. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Only life and real experience have the right answer.


No, science has the right answer. What do you think science is for?


DaveStarWalker said:


> And I do have the right answer already, so it isn't matter, to me.


Apparently you don’t have the right answer but of course, I don’t know whether being wrong matters to you or not. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Abbey road = Studio Connections. Bw and Classé Audio Omega for monitoring purpose.

Skywalker ranch = Shunyata cables, bw...

Bob Ludwig = Transparent Cables. EgglestonWorks Ivy loudspeakers...

Etc. 😉


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> Then provide some evidence.
> 
> No, science has the right answer. What do you think science is for?
> 
> ...



Science is a method, not a revelated truth. Never. 

At best, it is a statistic redondance. 

You make a great misinterpretation between Science and scientism... 

Try Karl Popper, Paul Fayerabend, Thomas Kuhn... 

Epistemology classics.

And then, we should talk together. 😉


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> Thomas Kuhn...


I tried to read him, but after 50 pages or so I had to give up. I couldn't take his intrusive and insanely dry style. I agree with him that oftentimes science isn't pretty. It can be chaotic process of paradigm shifts, but still science_ delivers_. Science isn't worthless just because it isn't a beautiful line of steady progress. The messiness tells about human nature, the scientists then science itself. There is nothing to replace science. It is the best we have, so in that sense what is the point of Kuhn's ramblings? Should people be made even more anti-science they already are? What good would that do to humanity?


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> Science is a method, not a revelated truth. Never.


Science is the method of getting as close to the truth as possible. Trying to get closer and closer is what science is about.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 1, 2022)

71 dB said:


> I tried to read him, but after 50 pages or so I had to give up. I couldn't take his intrusive and insanely dry style. I agree with him that oftentimes science isn't pretty. It can be chaotic process of paradigm shifts, but still science_ delivers_. Science isn't worthless just because it isn't a beautiful line of steady progress. The messiness tells about human nature, the scientists then science itself. There is nothing to replace science. It is the best we have, so in that sense what is the point of Kuhn's ramblings? Should people be made even more anti-science they already are? What good would that do to humanity?



OK but this is one of the basics about the science of the Science (epistemology). 

Paradigm = he is the father of this modern concept. 😉

And yes, Science is a worthy method. Certainly the best. But truth for instance, is a totally another universe. 

Beware of every form of absolutism. This is not good. 

Science without conscience is the ruin of the soul. Sort of. 😉


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Abbey road = Studio Connections.


“_Van Damme has consistently delivered a quality cable solution to the Studios for nearly 30 years_” - Simon Campbell, Head of Technical Service, Abbey Road Studios. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Skywalker ranch = Shunyata cables


These are Skywalker Sound’s mic cables:
“PREMIUM CABLES DIRECT FROM STAGE TO CONTROL ROOM
Wireworld 65’ (2)
Canare Starquad 110’ (16)
Gotham 125’ - Skywalker Sound Equipment list. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Bob Ludwig = Transparent Cables.


Ah, you got one right. I believe Bob Ludwig is an endorser of Transparent Cables so of course he must use them. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Science is a method, not a revelated truth.


Right, so we don’t use Watts to tell us the truth of electrical power, volts to tell us the voltage or Ohms to tell us the resistance and 1+1=2 is not the truth. Got it, thanks for the science lesson!

G


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK but this is one of the basics about the science of the Science (epistemology).
> 
> Paradigm = he is the father of this modern concept. 😉


Okay, but his book was probably the only book in my life I wasn't able to read through. All I could think about while reading it was "Who writes like this?"


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Okay, but his book was probably the only book in my life I wasn't able to read through. All I could think about while reading it was "Who writes like this?"


And who read like this lol 😂🤣😅😉


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> And who read like this lol 😂🤣😅😉


Me. I am used to books that use for example humour to keep the reader engaged and get to the point within a few pages.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Me. I am used to books that use for example humour to keep the reader engaged and get to the point within a few pages.


Karl Popper was a very good writer. Like it. 😉


----------



## bfreedma

DaveStarWalker said:


> Science is a method, not a revelated truth. Never.
> 
> At best, it is a statistic redondance.
> 
> ...



While discussing philosophy is certainly interesting, the vast majority of what we're calling science is the truth as we know it today.  That may change, but change will be based on evidence, not random internet claims.

Using philosophical examples without evidence to counter known science is often the model chosen by those who simply don't want to believe the science where it's safe and easy, with no personal risk.  Do you question gravity in the same way?   If not, why not?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Are you interested in Quantum mechanics? About gravity ?

If not, you should. 👍

And epistemology isn't an ontological philosophy, metaphysics wise. We not discuss about the angels sexes, but about... the multiple sciences's genres. 😇😂😉


----------



## gregorio

bfreedma said:


> Using philosophical examples without evidence to counter known science is often the model chosen by those who simply don't want to believe the science


Or, as a deflection when the facts they have quoted to support their audiophile marketing myths are shown to be false!

G


----------



## bfreedma

DaveStarWalker said:


> Are you interested in Quantum mechanics? About gravity ?
> 
> If not, you should. 👍
> 
> And epistemology isn't an ontological philosophy, metaphysics wise. We not discuss about the angels sexes, but about... the multiple sciences's genres. 😇😂😉



Yes, I'm interested in QM.  Right now, I'm interested in how you believe QM will impact our baseline knowledge of Earth's gravity.  And how your questioning of QM/gravity impacts your daily life, because we're discussing some very basic science around cables.  

While we will certainly learn more/refine our learning around both QM/gravity and cables/performance, I don't expect any of that new knowledge will completely supersede what we know today.  I may be proven wrong, but that's going to require objective evidence, not random philosophical discussion.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> Or, as a deflection when the facts they have quoted to support their audiophile marketing myths are shown to be false!
> 
> G


Note that this applies to any speech.

Also, the basis of science is to be falsifiable (Falsifiability / Popper).

To meditate... 😉


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bfreedma said:


> Yes, I'm interested in QM.  Right now, I'm interested in how you believe QM will impact our baseline knowledge of Earth's gravity.  And how your questioning of QM/gravity impacts your daily life, because we're discussing some very basic science around cables.
> 
> While we will certainly learn more/refine our learning around both QM/gravity and cables/performance, I don't expect any of that new knowledge will completely supersede what we know today.  I may be proven wrong, but that's going to require objective evidence, not random philosophical discussion.



Good. 

Cable discussions always opens up vast perspectives. 😇👌👍


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> Or, as a deflection when the facts they have quoted to support their audiophile marketing myths are shown to be false!
> 
> G



Exactly - it's an easy out for those who want to believe the marketing over the evidence.

Throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes that something might stick is not science, it's a form of whataboutism being used as a substitute for facts.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> If you were singing, how could you hear the differences between cables? Please explain exactly how you ran this test.
> 
> G


When you speak or sing you dont hear your voice?? You dont feel the response of the microphone?? I even notice speed of response from cables.. i am very sorry that you cant even hear your self or when speak or sing you cant hear your self and cant recognise your voice sound


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 1, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> Exactly - it's an easy out for those who want to believe the marketing over the evidence.
> 
> Throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes that something might stick is not science, it's a form of whataboutism being used as a substitute for facts.


Not an argument.

Just a believer behavior. 😉

Be aware of your own speech.


----------



## bfreedma

DaveStarWalker said:


> Good.
> 
> Cable discussions always opens up vast perspectives. 😇👌👍



Either we're experiencing a language barrier, or you're just refusing to address any questions, because you've posted nothing that "opens up vast perspectives"


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 1, 2022)

Sorry about that.

There is no one more deaf than the one who does not want to hear.

This is the point. Exactly the point. 😉

So good night, I have a movie to see. 🎥👍


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> When you speak or sing you dont hear your voice?? You dont feel the response of the microphone?? I even notice speed of response from cables.. i am very sorry that you cant even hear your self or when speak or sing you cant hear your self and cant recognise your voice sound



So much for your claims of "blind testing".  We're now back to full on subjective opinions, none of which appear to have any relevance to audio cables.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> Exactly - it's an easy out for those who want to believe the marketing over the evidence.
> 
> Throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes that something might stick is not science, it's a form of whataboutism being used as a substitute for facts.


Can you explain me by science frequency numbers .. what we the musicians call  i feel my guitar very hard at my hands when playing please make it softer and by changing some frequencys from eq the musician feel it softer and easier to play and not get his hand tired and hurt?? How this happen because all of you scientists of sound you cant feel or understand that some frequencys are making our ears give us hapiness and some others make us sad or mad… its same thing with the music .. some music pieces are smooth and sweet with sweet frequencys and some other pieces with aggresive and offensive frequencys.. i hope you can understand what i mean because my english are not the best


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> When you speak or sing you dont hear your voice??


Of course I do. What I don’t hear and what no human can possibly hear is cable differences millions of times lower in level than that!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> You dont feel the response of the microphone??


How can you feel the response of a microphone? A microphone responds by producing a tiny electrical current. 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> I even notice speed of response from cables..


Of course you do, can you also run at near the speed of light?

G


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Can you explain me by science frequency numbers .. what we the musicians call  i feel my guitar very hard at my hands when playing please make it softer and by changing some frequencys from eq the musician feel it softer and easier to play and not get his hand tired and hurt?? How this happen because all of you scientists of sound you cant feel or understand that some frequencys are making our ears give us hapiness and some others make us sad or mad… its same thing with the music .. some music pieces are smooth and sweet with sweet frequencys and some other pieces with aggresive and offensive frequencys.. i hope you can understand what i mean because my english are not the best



How about we stick to your original claims about cables and not deflect to entirely unrelated topics.  It should be rather obvious that changing how you play an instrument will result in audible differences and/or emotional responses.  Unfortunately for this discussion, a cable is not a musical instrument, nor does a properly built cable audibly alter frequency response.

FWIW, your English is very good,  Your grasp of audio science?  Not so much.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Can you explain me by science frequency numbers .. what we the musicians call i feel my guitar very hard at my hands when playing please make it softer and by changing some frequencys from eq the musician feel it softer and easier to play and not get his hand tired and hurt??


Hang on, if you’re a sound engineer as you claimed then you would already know the answer to that question!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> How this happen because all of you scientists of sound you cant feel or understand that some frequencys are making our ears give us hapiness and some others make us sad or mad…


Pythagoras worked that out over 2,000 years ago!

G


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> Hang on, if you’re a sound engineer as you claimed then you would already know the answer to that question!
> 
> Pythagoras worked that out over 2,000 years ago!
> 
> G



In 2022, everyone claims to be a Sound Engineer if they've ever made a recording.  I feel your pain - everyone who can plug in an Ethernet cable claims to be a Network Engineer...


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> How about we stick to your original claims about cables and not deflect to entirely unrelated topics.  It should be rather obvious that changing how you play an instrument will result in audible differences and/or emotional responses.  Unfortunately for this discussion, a cable is not a musical instrument, nor does a properly built cable audibly alter frequency response.
> 
> FWIW, your English is very good,  Your grasp of audio science?  Not so much.


by your writing seems that you dont have much experience of performing musician or singer… how a singer can understand the difference from 2 microphones when both the singing try are different a bit slightly different  for example some words are a bit less dynamic etc.. but still when the singer try a piannisimo to fortisimo dynamic difference notes he can hear difference from a microphone to microphone for example from a shure beta 58a to shure ksm8.. with exactly the same way can understand hear and feel the difference from a cable.. ofc the difference is a lot smaller that the 2 microphones but its still audible for people who have the hearing skill and know how to hear things…

at the end only if you have trained your ear you can notice the sound differences from cable to cable.. and we the musicians and sound engineers we are training our ears everyday..  when i get a music theme and i start writing down all the notes i hear.. this mean my ears are skilled to do that..


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Hang on, if you’re a sound engineer as you claimed then you would already know the answer to that question!
> 
> Pythagoras worked that out over 2,000 years ago!
> 
> G


I know the answer thats why i made the question to you. Because if you cant understand how this works then you will never be able to feel the difference in your ears from a cable


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Pythagoras worked that out over 2,000 years ago!
> 
> G


Pythagoras was a smart guy...


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> by your writing seems that you dont have much experience of performing musician or singer… how a singer can understand the difference from 2 microphones when both the singing try are different a bit slightly different  for example some words are a bit less dynamic etc.. but still when the singer try a piannisimo to fortisimo dynamic difference notes he can hear difference from a microphone to microphone for example from a shure beta 58a to shure ksm8.. with exactly the same way can understand hear and feel the difference from a cable.. ofc the difference is a lot smaller that the 2 microphones but its still audible for people who have the hearing skill and know how to hear things…
> 
> at the end only if you have trained your ear you can notice the sound differences from cable to cable.. and we the musicians and sound engineers we are training our ears everyday..  when i get a music theme and i start writing down all the notes i hear.. this mean my ears are skilled to do that..



So we've gone from "I've done blind testing" to "Believe your ears".  And the topic has changed from "I hear differences in cables" to "Different recordings of my voice made at different times sound different".

Who could have predicted.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

do you play any instrument or singing?? Are you proffesional singer or musician??


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> do you play any instrument or singing?? Are you proffesional singer or musician??



I am not a professional.  Does being a professional singer or musician grant someone the ability to hear things 100X  (or more) below established human audibility?  

At this point, you're just deflecting - if you have any evidence to support your claims about cable audibility, I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Otherwise, let's leave your blind test of cables, that turned into a sighted test of Youtube, that's now turned into a discussion of instruments where it is.


----------



## DarginMahkum (Sep 1, 2022)

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Can you explain me by science frequency numbers .. what we the musicians call  i feel my guitar very hard at my hands when playing please make it softer and by changing some frequencys from eq the musician feel it softer and easier to play and not get his hand tired and hurt?? How this happen because all of you scientists of sound you cant feel or understand that some frequencys are making our ears give us hapiness and some others make us sad or mad… its same thing with the music .. some music pieces are smooth and sweet with sweet frequencys and some other pieces with aggresive and offensive frequencys.. i hope you can understand what i mean because my english are not the best


It is not making our ears sad. A particular culture relates for example, a happy emotion to a particular musical scale (major) and we are programmed to hearing it and relating it to a happy moment as we constantly hear it all around us with the same emotional conditioning. Then comes another culture, uses the same scale for a sad moment, even during a funeral and suddenly the same scale is a sad one. Then there is a culture that uses quarter notes (maqams) for example, people that are used to hearing only chromatic scale cannot even hear. It sounds wrong to them, as their ears are not used to hearing it. For example, western ears are mostly stuck with a chromatic scale. Even in western music, the classical musicians may not be able to cope with some jazz harmonies, from their own culture.

So, there is no hurting or sad or happy frequency. That is your bias hearing a particular scale and classifying it with a particular emotional conditioning or hearing a note out of chromatic scale or a complex jazz chord and classifying it as wrong.

Bias is the bread and butter of audiophile snake-oil.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2022)

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> by your writing seems that you dont have much experience of performing musician or singer…


You just don’t seem able to stop getting everything completely wrong! I studied orchestral performance at a top conservertoire and one of my good friends there was Bryn Terfel, isn’t he a singer? I played with the Royal Opera House and other top orchestras and as an engineer I’ve worked with Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo and some famous pop singers. I’ve worked with many top musicians, including some guitarists, Dave Gilmour, Steve Hackett and Julian Bream for example.


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> but still when the singer try a piannisimo to fortisimo dynamic difference notes he can hear difference from a microphone to microphone for example from a shure beta 58a to shure ksm8..


They can hear a difference when they come into the control room to hear the recording and those singing to a cue mix can hear differences in dynamic range down to about 3-6dB. What they absolutely can’t hear is differences in cables 100,000 times lower than that!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> with exactly the same way can understand hear and feel the difference from a cable..


The differences between microphone outputs are many decibels, not a few thousandths of a decibel. No human can hear anywhere even vaguely close to those levels!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> at the end only if you have trained your ear you can notice the sound differences from cable to cable..


You can’t train yourself to run near the speed of light nor hear things 10,000 times lower than the human threshold of audibility!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> and we the musicians and sound engineers we are training our ears everyday..


No we are not training our ears every day, what we are training is our listening skills, our ears are actually getting slightly worse everyday.


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> when i get a music theme and i start writing down all the notes i hear.. this mean my ears are skilled to do that..


Exactly, you’ve trained your listening skills to discriminate pitch in music which has a level of around 25dB to 100dB, not cable differences at around 0.001dB!!!

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> You just don’t seem able to stop getting everything completely wrong! I studied orchestral performance at a top conservertoire and one of my good friends there was Bryn Terfel, isn’t he a singer? I played with the Royal Opera House and other top orchestras and as an engineer I’ve worked with Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo and some famous pop singers. I’ve worked with many top musicians, including some guitarists, Dave Gilmour, Steve Hackett and Julian Bream for example.
> 
> They can hear a difference when they come into the control room to hear the recording and those singing to a cue mix can hear differences in dynamic range down to about 3-6dB. What they absolutely can’t hear is differences in cables 100,000 times lower than that!
> 
> ...


The sound difference from cable when you use many db is audible . I am sorry if you cant listen it or you cant understand it...


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

DarginMahkum said:


> It is not making our ears sad. A particular culture relates for example, a happy emotion to a particular musical scale (major) and we are programmed to hearing it and relating it to a happy moment as we constantly hear it all around us with the same emotional conditioning. Then comes another culture, uses the same scale for a sad moment, even during a funeral and suddenly the same scale is a sad one. Then there is a culture that uses quarter notes (maqams) for example, people that are used to hearing only chromatic scale cannot even hear. It sounds wrong to them, as their ears are not used to hearing it. For example, western ears are mostly stuck with a chromatic scale. Even in western music, the classical musicians may not be able to cope with some jazz harmonies, from their own culture.
> 
> So, there is no hurting or sad or happy frequency. That is your bias hearing a particular scale and classifying it with a particular emotional conditioning or hearing a note out of chromatic scale or a complex jazz chord and classifying it as wrong.
> 
> Bias is the bread and butter of audiophile snake-oil.


I can accept your point of view .. its just some frequencys that can make our hands feel free and flying when we play guitar and some other frequencys that make our hands and fingers not able to run on the strings.. and make us feel the whole instrument hard very hard.. all of this of course are affected from pickup from cables from pre amp from eq fx compressor and amp.. which means i might need to boost some frequencys to make it feel soft or boost some other frequencys and make it feel hard for a player.. and the funny thing is that in the end some players feel it hard and other player the same exacly result feel it soft and like it.. its also a matter of taste…

anyway at the end i wana point that a musician and singer can also feel not only hear the sound difference… compared to someone who just uses his ears to listen a sample that is created from the musician or singer.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> The sound difference from cable when you use many db is audible .


The differences in cables is in the region of a few thousandths of a dB. If you really were an engineer as you claim, you would have verified this for yourself! A few thousandths of a dB is absolutely not audible. The absolute human hearing threshold is about 0.2dB and even then, only under very specific circumstances, 0.7dB - 1dB is the typical threshold for trained listeners with musical signals. 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> I am sorry if you cant listen it or you cant understand it...


And I am sorry you don’t understand that you’re effectively claiming you’re not a human being and that you are demonstrably making up falsehoods!!

G


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> all of this of course are affected from pickup from cables from pre amp from eq fx compressor and amp..


When you adjust your pre-amp, EQ, compressor or amp, do you adjust them by several dB or by a few thousandths of a dB?

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos (Sep 1, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> I am not a professional.  Does being a professional singer or musician grant someone the ability to hear things 100X  (or more) below established human audibility?
> 
> At this point, you're just deflecting - if you have any evidence to support your claims about cable audibility, I'm happy to continue the discussion.
> 
> Otherwise, let's leave your blind test of cables, that turned into a sighted test of Youtube, that's now turned into a discussion of instruments where it is.


ofc a musician and a singer has a better perception of sound compared to someone who trusts only machines that will show the numbers of the testing results.. and not his ears and his feelings.. its like trying to hear with your eyes and not with your ears… so i am sorry i cant discuss woth people who hearing with eyes and need measurements to proof him that he isnt able to hear differences between cables


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> ofc a musician and a singer has a better perception of sound compared to someone who trusts only machines that will show the numbers of the testing results.. and not his ears and his feelings


We are not talking about the perception of sound, a cable doesn’t have any perception nor does it carry any sound! We are talking about audio signals and cable performance. And, audio measurement devices are many times more sensitive than human hearing. No way you could be a sound engineer and not know all this, so that’s another lie exposed!!

G


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> ofc a musician and a singer has a better perception of sound compared to someone who trusts only machines that will show the numbers of the testing results.. and not his ears and his feelings.. its like trying to hear with your eyes and not with your ears… so i am sorry i cant discuss woth people who hearing with eyes and need measurements to proof him that he isnt able to hear differences between cables



And I’m sorry we can’t have a rational discussion of what’s actually audible to humans.

I’m also disappointed that what started as a claim of blind testing has devolved, yet again, to “trust your ears” and “my hearing is 100x that of established audible thresholds“.  What other superpowers do you posses?


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> And I’m sorry we can’t have a rational discussion of what’s actually audible to humans.
> 
> I’m also disappointed that what started as a claim of blind testing has devolved, yet again, to “trust your ears” and “my hearing is 100x that of established audible thresholds“.  What other superpowers do you posses?


I have 3 x wifes and 1 married wife and 11 kids


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos (Sep 1, 2022)

gregorio said:


> We are not talking about the perception of sound, a cable doesn’t have any perception nor does it carry any sound! We are talking about audio signals and cable performance. And, audio measurement devices are many times more sensitive than human hearing. No way you could be a sound engineer and not know all this, so that’s another lie exposed!!
> 
> G


Depending of what sound engineer is meaning in your country.. in greece sound engineer is the guy behind the foh mixxing desk.. and i am this kind of a guy in a very hard situation… and i dont need to proof any of these to people who trustes the machine measurements instead of their ears… i am 100% sure that if you were for examble behind a mixxing desk with 16 musicians and 4 singers on stage and you had around 40 channels to mix you would use for sure the RTA (real time analizer) to make your sound and you would still be lost in there.. while i am trust my ears and fixxing everything in a very decent time response


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

This topic should be How i convince some people that they dont have the ability to hear what some other people can hear


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i am 100% sure that if you were for examble behind a mixxing desk with 16 musicians and 4 singers on stage and you had around 40 channels to mix you would use for sure the RTA (real time analizer) to make your sound and you would still be lost in there.


I have been behind a mixing desk with multiple musicians and around 40 channels of sound, numerous times. I’ve done that job at the Glastonbury Festival, the Hollywood Bowl, Suntory Hall in Tokyo, the Royal Albert Hall, Philharmonic Hall in Berlin and numerous others. The sound at ALL of these venues was calibrated with RTA’s, not just human hearing.

Of course no one can mix with an RTA because that’s not what an RTA does or is for. Again, any educated, real engineer would absolutely know all this!!

Everywhere else in the world, a sound engineer is someone who has studied and been trained as a sound engineer, not someone who just finds themselves behind a mixing desk and plays with some knobs/faders until they think it sounds nice!

G


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> This topic should be How i convince some people that they dont have the ability to hear what some other people can hear



Perhaps you should start by not lying about having done blind testing.  Then we can move on to explaining how you can hear several orders of magnitudes better than any other human.

You're making big claims that require evidence to substantiate.  So far, you've offered none.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> This topic should be How i convince some people that they dont have the ability to hear what some other people can hear


How many times, no human can hear differences of a few thousandths of a dB. Even a beginner engineer can easily test this for themselves but you lie about your testing and about your credentials.

This thread is named correctly, what you seem to want it to be called is: What lies can I make up to convince people that my delusions are real!

G


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> This topic should be How i convince some people that they dont have the ability to hear what some other people can hear



No one is arguing that human hearing isn't variable.  What is being discussed is your belief that your hearing is better than any other person who has ever been tested by an irrational margin.

Get back to me when you've provided any evidence that you've actually heard a difference in cables.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> I have been behind a mixing desk with multiple musicians and around 40 channels of sound, numerous times. I’ve done that job at the Glastonbury Festival, the Hollywood Bowl, Suntory Hall in Tokyo, the Royal Albert Hall, Philharmonic Hall in Berlin and numerous others. The sound at ALL of these venues was calibrated with RTA’s, not just human hearing.
> 
> Of course no one can mix with an RTA because that’s not what an RTA does or is for. Again, any educated, real engineer would absolutely know all this!!
> 
> ...


Congratulations 

because then it seems that you are the one messing with knobs and faders and cant hear the difference between cables

i also calibrate systems with RTA pink noise and my earthworks measurement microphones.. but many times i preffer the result of my ears and making my sound result sound like some songs i like the way it sound e.g dire straits you and your friend.. or peter gabriel sledgehammer or chris jones no sanctuary here


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> No one is arguing that human hearing isn't variable.  What is being discussed is your belief that your hearing is better than any other person who has ever been tested by an irrational margin.
> 
> Get back to me when you've provided any evidence that you've actually heard a difference in cables.


i am very sure for what i hear man and what i feel in my hands when i play… i told you i even can feel the speed and some things come in front in the mix and some others stays behind .... and i really dont need to proof anything to anyone. i feel very good for my self that i can hear all these details.. and i already wasted much time here commenting … because all started for a comment that i claim that i can hear difference between cables…

anyway have a nice evening and happy lifes


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> because then it seems that you are the one messing with knobs and faders and cant hear the difference between cables


Yes, of course I can’t hear the difference between cables because no human being can. You can’t hear the difference either, because I presume you are a human too aren’t you? You just falsely believe you can because you’ve never done a proper test! If you really could hear the difference you could have won $1m and you should get yourself to a university because every audio scientist on the planet would sell their mother for a chance at studying and publishing a paper about a human being with super powers!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i also calibrate systems with RTA pink noise and my earthworks measurement microphones


Why?


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> but many times i preffer the result of my ears


RTA’s don’t measure your or anyone else’s preferences, they just measure the actual frequency response. How can you argue about RTA’s without even knowing what they do?

G


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i am very sure for what i hear man and what i feel in my hands when i play… i told you i even can feel the speed and some things come in front in the mix and some others stays behind .... and i really dont need to proof anything to anyone. i feel very good for my self that i can hear all these details.. and i already wasted much time here commenting … because all started for a comment that i claim that i can hear difference between cables…
> 
> anyway have a nice evening and happy lifes



You are correct - you can believe whatever you like.  If you want others here to believe you, it’s upon you to provide supporting evidence.

If I said that the moon was made of cheese and my only “proof” was the claim that I could smell it from my living room, would you believe me?  Because that’s what you’re asking me to do in regards to your hearing.


----------



## bigshot

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i am very sure for what i hear man and what i feel in my hands when i play… i told you i even can feel the speed and some things come in front in the mix and some others stays behind ....


I see dead people.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Yes, of course I can’t hear the difference between cables because no human being can. You can’t hear the difference either, because I presume you are a human too aren’t you? You just falsely believe you can because you’ve never done a proper test! If you really could hear the difference you could have won $1m and you should get yourself to a university because every audio scientist on the planet would sell their mother for a chance at studying and publishing a paper about a human being with super powers!
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


there many reasons that sometimes i use rta and measurements microphones with oscillator and pink noise .. to make flat a system in A place that has many reflects and boosts some frequencys that our ear cant analyze it 100%…

the other way i mention is different and for different purposes..  i didnt say anywhere that rta is measyring my personal preferences..  the frequency response that are measuring isnt enough for my personal preference and since bands and productions in greece trusts and likes my sound prefferences i do things in a way i feel and like the way it sounds and not way the frequency response shows..  all this has to do always with the places and the system that is installed … i many times have to do with wrong installations and in wrong places and nothing can be done buy changing the position of the installed system or fix the room  and the only thing i have sometimes to fix some crap situations like this is a graphic  31 band eq..

anyway i am tired here have a nice day and keep not hearing cable diffferences i dont mind and i dont care

anything i write isnt hmm im not sure if it is correct to say it like this  Its no offense and nothing personal

after all i dont know you and you dont know me and we will never meet in person so..

good hear happy hearing and have a nice day bye bye


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i am very sure for what i hear man and what i feel in my hands when i play


No your not, you’ve never tested properly to be sure. You’re maybe sure you believe you can hear the difference but believing you have super powers and actually having super powers are two entirely different things! 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> and i really dont need to proof anything to anyone.


If you’re going to publicly claim you have super human powers then you have to provide some reliable evidence to avoid being treated as completely delusional. 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i feel very good for my self that i can hear all these details


I’m sure you do feel good, many deluded people do. That doesn’t mean you’re not deluded though. I feel sorry for you, it’s very difficult to be a good engineer if you think you can hear all these details that you actually can’t. I can’t imagine being able to create a competent mix if I had no idea if what I was hearing was real or imaginary.

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bigshot said:


> I see dead people.


Hahaha you are funny

what is the difference of neve 1073 pre amp vs ssl??

the neve is very fast and get things in front.. 

thats something everyone knows.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> You are correct - you can believe whatever you like.  If you want others here to believe you, it’s upon you to provide supporting evidence.
> 
> If I said that the moon was made of cheese and my only “proof” was the claim that I could smell it from my living room, would you believe me?  Because that’s what you’re asking me to do in regards to your hearing.


Hahahah funny examble ok call me crazy or insane and i really dont care if others here will believe me.. i speak with many people who can hear also difference from cable to cable.. so for these people you are the deaf ones that cant hear differences.. and for you these people are insane and crazy or idiots or how you like to call us i dont really care..

anyway bye bye to all


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> to make flat a system in A place that has many reflects and boosts some frequencys that our ear cant analyze it 100%…


So your hearing can’t tell when the response is flat and can’t analyse 100% so you use an RTA which can do that but your hearing is still 10,000 times better than an RTA. 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> the frequency response that are measuring isnt enough for my personal preference


The frequency response it’s measuring has nothing to do with your personal preference, they’re two different things. 

Your responses are getting more and more nonsensical and still the only evidence you’ve provided that you really do have super human powers is a listening test you’ve lied about, your assertion that you’re an engineer (though you know nothing a real engineer would know) and your assertion that you are convinced that you have super powers. Oh dear!

G


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> Hahahah funny examble ok call me crazy or insane and i really dont care if others here will believe me.. i speak with many people who can hear also difference from cable to cable.. so for these people you are the deaf ones that cant hear differences.. and for you these people are insane and crazy or idiots or how you like to call us i dont really care..
> 
> anyway bye bye to all



So now anything multiple people believe is an objective fact?

Many people believe in the Loch Ness monster, so it must exist
Many people believe the world is flat, so Earth must not be a sphere
Many people believe in ghosts - they must be real…


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> So now anything multiple people believe is an objective fact?
> 
> Many people believe in the Loch Ness monster, so it must exist
> Many people believe the world is flat, so Earth must not be a sphere
> Many people believe in ghosts - they must be real…


I didnt say i believe.. i said i hear.. not i believe i hear.. i dont believe it i hear it and i also feel it

its just so simple bro…


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i speak with many people who can hear also difference from cable to cable


No, you have never spoken with a single person who can hear difference from cable to cable. I believe you have spoken to some who are just as deluded as you though. 


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> you are the deaf ones that cant hear differences


Is it a hearing impairment if you can’t hear what is way below audibility or is it a hearing impairment to falsely think you can hear something that can’t be heard?

G


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> I didnt say i believe.. i said i hear.


You CANNOT differentiate hearing from false perception unless you do a controlled test and as you haven’t done that then it IS just a belief!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> its just so simple bro…


Yes it is, but for some reason it seems to be beyond you, even though you know the solution. Why don’t you just do the test you falsely claimed to have done, what are you frightened of? The answer to all this is indeed simple bro!

G


----------



## IanB52

Just want to point out, there are a lot of repetitive tactics that keep popping up.
For example, tons of people are hearing differences in cables, using various descriptors, to the point that literally the adjacent forum on this site is dedicated to them. 

Somebody in this forum: "Nobody can hear a difference, because it doesn't exist," 
Visitor pops in pops: "I hear a difference," 
Reply: "What makes YOU so special that YOU can hear something that nobody else can!? Go way out of the way to prove that you have golden ears and aren't just some crazy narcissist!" 

All the while, there continues to be a very active and populated adjacent forum discussing cables differences. And the same thing happens again, and again, and again. 

Of course, every single subjective report about these kinds of things must be qualified with double-blind ABX tests, which are extremely onerous, time consuming and expensive to set up, and would be conducted entirely for the benefit of critics who in all likelihood will nitpick and move the goalpost if proven wrong. That leaves aside the fact that nobody in audio uses double blind tests, and that there is a huge question surrounding if it is even an appropriate hurdle to implement, or if ABX is actually more accurate than AB tests. 

Nobody is going to do these tests for you because to any healthy person they are going to be a huge waste of time. Like in the above exchange, the critic risks no effort, but places a heavy burden of activity onto an individual who simply reports the same thing as thousands of others. In all likelihood, if that person passed the test, the results would be dismissed on some arbitrary grounds, OR at best confined to the individual person, so every single person who reports the same phenomenon must prove they have miraculous golden ears again and again, as if they are the only one. So of course, nobody is willing to do this, and by design, it validates the critics who themselves risk nothing and make no effort.

Speaking for myself on the original title, the chance that you could get me to unhear things that I hear every day is about the same as convincing me that I am a brain in a jar and living a digital simulation. You might as well try to convince someone that peanut butter and strawberries taste the same or that green and orange are the same.


----------



## DarginMahkum

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> This topic should be How i convince some people that they dont have the ability to hear what some other people can hear


What you are claiming is like, "I am a musician, I have experience, so I can hear up to 30 kHz", but you cannot. It is not something to do with experience. Some things are limited to what a human can hear and made of. Learning the notes is training your ears in the audible region. You are not a cat and no matter how much you practice, you will still be limited with what humans can hear. I just checked the mic impedances and a standard microphone has 100 to 200 ohms (even upto 1kohms) and a mic preamp has 1000 to 2000 ohm input impedance. You claim to hear the difference of 1101 to 1102 (best case), which is especially for human ears not possible.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2022)

IanB52 said:


> Of course, every single subjective report about these kinds of things must be qualified with double-blind ABX tests


Yes, of course, otherwise it’s just biases changing perception.


IanB52 said:


> which are extremely onerous, time consuming and expensive to set up


They are not onerous, they can be quite quick and they are absolutely free to setup and run.


IanB52 said:


> and would be conducted entirely for the benefit of critics


Of course not, they would be entirely for the benefit of science and therefore human kind, if passed.


IanB52 said:


> That leaves aside the fact that nobody in audio uses double blind tests


Which is not a fact, it’s a falsehood!


IanB52 said:


> and that there is a huge question surrounding if it is even an appropriate hurdle to implement, or if ABX is actually more accurate than AB tests.


No, there’s no question at all, let alone a huge question. It’s an entirely standard scientifically accepted test and has been for decades!


IanB52 said:


> Nobody is going to do these tests for you because to any healthy person they are going to be a huge waste of time.


Only if healthy people include the deluded or insane!


IanB52 said:


> Like in the above exchange, the critic risks no effort, but places a heavy burden of activity onto an individual who simply reports the same thing as thousands of others.


There are thousands who simply report the earth is flat, that 5G causes covid and all manner of utter nonsense. Do you believe it all just because a few thousand report something that is scientifically impossible?


IanB52 said:


> so every single person who reports the same phenomenon must prove they have miraculous golden ears again and again, as if they are the only one.


What do you mean again and again? No one has ever proved that ability despite being offered $1m to do so!

Except for the first quote, there’s not a single true fact in any of the rest of what I’ve quoted. Quite an achievement!

G


----------



## bfreedma

IanB52 said:


> Just want to point out, there are a lot of repetitive tactics that keep popping up.
> For example, tons of people are hearing differences in cables, using various descriptors, to the point that literally the adjacent forum on this site is dedicated to them.
> 
> Somebody in this forum: "Nobody can hear a difference, because it doesn't exist,"
> ...



tldr version: Objective evidence requires effort to produce so let’s not bother.   Just accept claims of superhuman performance that conflicts with known science and hearing capability


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> This thread is named correctly, what you seem to want it to be called is: What lies can I make up to convince people that my delusions are real!
> 
> G


If delusions didn't feel real they wouldn't be delusions...


----------



## IanB52 (Sep 1, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> tldr version: Objective evidence requires effort to produce so let’s not bother.   Just accept claims of superhuman performance that conflicts with known science and hearing capability



Nobody said "superhuman", which clearly wouldn't make sense as so many people are making identical claims over many years.

I've been around a while, so I'm not going to try to convince you. I have found that some people form experiences first through thought, and some people experience first through their senses. And people have extremely different internal models of the world. It makes no sense to me the idea that many thousands of people would be willing to be fork over tons of money over many years based on a marketing suggestion. But I know that to many people it is easy to believe that mass daylight hallucinations are exceedingly common, which makes sense if you think that cognition and belief precede all sensory input, rather than the other way around. It is strange that this doesn't happen all that much when driving a car or operating heavy machinery, but I digress...

Also, the exhausting part is that there is plenty of evidence about differences with cables etc. but after a while it becomes such a chore to post it, summarize, etc when somebody else could just use a search function. A healthy person isn't going to go out of their way to educate you if you can't be bothered to learn, and if you already demonstrate such a bias that it would be a waste of time, and potentially open that person to various bad faith tactics, nobody is going to engage you. The adversarial role necessarily prevents any good faith inquiry, and sadly it means that you don't learn anything new.

In the past I have gone as far as making audio comparisons for various people. Each and every time they would either ignore that I actually made the recordings, or find some red herring or excuse not to compare them. Each time I felt like a total chump. Intuitively, I think everyone knows that jumping through hoops for highly biased people ends this way. And there is always a high chance that you are being tasked with performing these things not because anybody is interested in the truth, but because they like to see you dance around and look stupid for their amusement. If you can't demonstrate a lack of bias, some goodwill, curiosity, and willingness to meet others half way and put in a tiny bit of effort, nobody is going to engage with you.


----------



## IanB52

71 dB said:


> If delusions didn't feel real they wouldn't be delusions...


A delusion is a belief. What you are actually discussing are sensory impressions.


----------



## 71 dB

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> i am very sure for what i hear man and what i feel in my hands when i play…


There are people in mental institutions who are "very sure" they are Napoleon...



Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> .... and i really dont need to proof anything to anyone.


You are correct, you don't need to prove anything to anyone, but nobody here needs to believe your unbelievable claims either.


----------



## gregorio

IanB52 said:


> It makes no sense to me the idea that many thousands of people would be willing to be fork over tons of money over many years based on a marketing suggestion.


That’s bizarre, what do you think marketing is for then?


IanB52 said:


> Nobody said "superhuman",


That’s maybe the problem, they obviously don’t seem to realise that’s exactly what they’re claiming!


IanB52 said:


> which clearly wouldn't make sense as so many people are making identical claims over many years.


Why is it that so many people are making identical claims over so many years yet never once in all that time has a single one of them ever been able to prove it, even when offered $1m to do so?


IanB52 said:


> Also, the exhausting part is that there is plenty of evidence about differences with cables etc. but after a while it becomes such a chore to post it, summarize, etc


Now you’re making up your own argument! No one has said there’s no difference between cables, what’s actually been stated is that there are differences but they’re way below audibility. 


IanB52 said:


> A healthy person isn't going to go out of their way to educate you if you can't be bothered to learn


Why on Earth would I want to be educated to ignore the facts, reject the science/objective evidence and instead believe false marketing and suffer from aural delusions? That’s the exact opposite of education and someone providing such an “education” is not a “healthy person”, they’re a complete nut job!

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos (Sep 1, 2022)

71 dB said:


> There are people in mental institutions who are "very sure" they are Napoleon...
> 
> 
> You are correct, you don't need to prove anything to anyone, but nobody here needs to believe your unbelievable claims either.


You are funny…. All the people who buy these cables are having mental issues and think that they are napoleon… ..

at the end even if i was able right now by someway to proove the 3 of you that i hear the difference and that there is a difference.. i wouldnt want to open your eyes like that because you dont worth it.. exaclty like the other good guy said that no body would like to educate people who are biased its not worth it i preffer this people to call me insane and crazy instead of educating them and then never hear a thank you or show some appriciation

and for the record.. i am 32 year old and i still hear 18000hz .. i do test every 6 months with a doctor .. i just dont know how they call in english that chamber and that test that proofs the hearing result..


----------



## 71 dB

bfreedma said:


> Many people believe in ghosts - they must be real…


Bigshot even sees them!


----------



## bfreedma

71 dB said:


> If delusions didn't feel real they wouldn't be delusions...



I think I might have to borrow that phrase.  Nicely put.


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> All the people who buy these cables are having mental issues and think that they are napoleon…


They don’t think they’re Napoleon, they effectively think they are Superman or Wonder Woman, they’re just so uneducated and suckered by marketing they don’t realise that’s what they’re claiming!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> even if i was able right now by someway to proove the 3 of you that i hear the difference


But you’re not able to prove that because it’s impossible, so the rest of what you stated is irrelevant.

G


----------



## IanB52

gregorio said:


> That’s bizarre, what do you think marketing is for then?
> 
> That’s maybe the problem, they obviously don’t seem to realise that’s exactly what they’re claiming!
> 
> ...


Well, good luck with that. You're going to be doing this for the rest of your life, so I hope you find it enjoyable.


----------



## bfreedma

IanB52 said:


> Nobody said "superhuman", which clearly wouldn't make sense as so many people are making identical claims over many years.
> 
> I've been around a while, so I'm not going to try to convince you. I have found that some people form experiences first through thought, and some people experience first through their senses. And people have extremely different internal models of the world. It makes no sense to me the idea that many thousands of people would be willing to be fork over tons of money over many years based on a marketing suggestion. But I know that to many people it is easy to believe that mass daylight hallucinations are exceedingly common, which makes sense if you think that cognition and belief precede all sensory input, rather than the other way around. It is strange that this doesn't happen all that much when driving a car or operating heavy machinery, but I digress...
> 
> ...



Could you post a link some of this plentiful evidence.  I’m searching but only coming up with the usual marketing material twisting inaudible performance criteria into a reason to buy product.  

I’m not asking you to “educate me”, just provide something objective and peer reviewed and I’ll take it from there.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> They don’t think they’re Napoleon, they effectively think they are Superman or Wonder Woman, they’re just so uneducated and suckered by marketing they don’t realise that’s what they’re claiming!
> 
> But you’re not able to prove that because it’s impossible, so the rest of what you stated is irrelevant.
> 
> G


This is the video that i first heard and said What?? If i can hear this clarity and brightness of vovox from the muddy and dirty of standar cable from my laptop speakers then the difference will be huge at my pa system.. and ofc the difference was huge.,



if you cant hear the difference in this video then you definitely not have the ability to hear the details.. and that makes you less good hearing than the people who hear this difference.. sorry for bad english


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> You are funny…. All the people who buy these cables are having mental issues and think that they are napoleon… ..
> 
> at the end even if i was able right now by someway to proove the 3 of you that i hear the difference and that there is a difference.. i wouldnt want to open your eyes like that because you dont worth it.. exaclty like the other good guy said that no body would like to educate people who are biased its not worth it i preffer this people to call me insane and crazy instead of educating them and then never hear a thank you or show some appriciation
> 
> and for the record.. i am 32 year old and i still hear 18000hz .. i do test every 6 months with a doctor .. i just dont know how they call in english that chamber and that test that proofs the hearing result..



You’ve gone from “I’ve done blind testing” to “I could prove it to you but I won’t“

You have zero credibility.


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

You can check this also


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> You’ve gone from “I’ve done blind testing” to “I could prove it to you but I won’t“
> 
> You have zero credibility.


I cant proof to blind people that they are blind…since they never be able to see


----------



## 71 dB

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> You are funny…. All the people who buy these cables are having mental issues and think that they are napoleon… ..


Who knows, perhaps some of them DO believe they are Napoleon, but what they should all have is the belief in snake oil marketing. That's not a mental issue. It is ignorance of audio science, placebo effect etc.



Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> at the end even if i was able right now by someway to proove the 3 of you that i hear the difference and that there is a difference.. i wouldnt want to open your eyes like that because you dont worth it..


We are not worth it? You actually sound like Napoleon!


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> This is the video that i first heard and said What?? If i can hear this clarity and brightness of vovox from the muddy and dirty of standar cable from my laptop speakers then the difference will be huge at my pa system.. and ofc the difference was huge.,
> 
> 
> 
> if you cant hear the difference in this video then you definitely not have the ability to hear the details.. and that makes you less good hearing than the people who hear this difference.. sorry for bad english




A video from a company that sells cables and has this statement at the top of their website “Stop pretending that there is no difference between the cheap junk cables that you paid a couple dollars for. You have come to Sound Pure for great gear and great advice”. Seriously?

This video has no provenance and comes from someone with a profit motive.  Who knows what was done while recording it to encourage you to buy a product from them.  This doesn’t rise to the level of evidence, let alone proof.


----------



## bfreedma

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> You can check this also



We’ve gone from a video from a reseller to a video from the manufacturer.

Did you expect them to say “these cables sound like every other properly built cable”?  Not going to sell product that way.


----------



## gregorio

IanB52 said:


> Well, good luck with that.


That’s the point of being educated, so you have better “luck” than an uneducated nut job. This is why so many are willing to pay a lot of money to be formally educated at university rather than just listen to nut jobs on YouTube or other social media for free. 


IanB52 said:


> You're going to be doing this for the rest of your life, so I hope you find it enjoyable.


Although ignorance can apparently be bliss, I prefer to know the facts rather than believing any old nut job or snake oil marketing. If you enjoy being suckered and/or trying to sucker others for the rest of your life that’s up to you. 

G


----------



## gregorio

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> if you cant hear the difference in this video then you definitely not have the ability to hear the details


Of course I can hear the difference in that video but that’s a marketing video it’s NOT a reliable controlled listening test and what would be the point of posting a marketing video publicly where both cables sounded the same? They have to make them sound different. 

The gullibility of some audiophiles is staggering. How do they get through life without constantly being swindled out of all their money?

G


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

bfreedma said:


> A video from a company that sells cables and has this statement at the top of their website “Stop pretending that there is no difference between the cheap junk cables that you paid a couple dollars for. You have come to Sound Pure for great gear and great advice”. Seriously?
> 
> This video has no provenance and comes from someone with a profit motive.  Who knows what was done while recording it to encourage you to buy a product from them.  This doesn’t rise to the level of evidence, let alone proof.


The first thing I thought when i first saw and heard this video was also the same thing you say here.. maybe they made it sound like that so we eat the fairy tail that these cables have better sound and we go spend money etc….but i said to my self that since i can hear difference in this possible fake video from my laptop speakers then i have to try it and i will buy 1 cable to test if it is really have the difference they claime.. and fking yeah the difference exists and its audible..  what is recorded and said in that video is 100% truth… end of discussion for me ..

they even have directivity in the cable.. the jack jack instrument cable has a direction of the way the signal travel..

they are tec awarded on namm show many times and i dont think that the people who awarded vovox cables are think that they are napoleon or they see ghosts

enough from me


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

gregorio said:


> Of course I can hear the difference in that video but that’s a marketing video it’s NOT a reliable controlled listening test and what would be the point of posting a marketing video publicly where both cables sounded the same? They have to make them sound different.
> 
> The gullibility of some audiophiles is staggering. How do they get through life without constantly being swindled out of all their money?
> 
> G


You supposed to be sound engineer as you said?? You cant understand that this kind of sound difference you heard in this video isnt eq difference and its better signal difference??


----------



## gregorio (Sep 1, 2022)

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> You supposed to be sound engineer as you said?? You cant understand that this kind of sound difference you heard in this video isnt eq difference and its better signal difference??


And you’re supposed to be a sound engineer but you don’t know how easy it is to deliberately degrade a signal, honestly? Just more evidence that you clearly are NOT actually a sound engineer!


bfreedma said:


> Did you expect them to say “these cables sound like every other properly built cable”?


It’s really amazing isn’t it? It’s hard to have any optimism that our species can survive when the actual facts/science are actively fought against while YouTube marketing is to be believed and this somehow equates to expertise and/or education. It sometimes seems that education, logic and critical thinking are things of the past. 

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 1, 2022)

IanB52 said:


> It makes no sense to me the idea that many thousands of people would be willing to be fork over tons of money over many years based on a marketing suggestion.


Are you serious?! There’s a whole industry based on getting people to do just that. It’s called “advertising”. Are your clothes really “whiter than white”? Is that product really “new and improved”? What’s the brand of cigarette more doctors smoke? Do you believe everything used car salesmen tell you too?

“Let’s all pretend to be sound engineers! It’s an anonymous Internet forum… We can say anything we want! No one will know!”

It’s a complete waste of time to give people like this the respect of a reply. It’ll only go in circles.


----------



## IanB52 (Sep 1, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Of course I can hear the difference in that video but that’s a marketing video it’s NOT a reliable controlled listening test and what would be the point of posting a marketing video publicly where both cables sounded the same? They have to make them sound different.


More gatekeeping. There are oodles of cable comparison videos online, most of them not posted by manufacturers. But if you do insist on the kind of rarified double blind tests (and unwilling to conduct them yourself) that generally exist in medicine, and almost never in audio, you can whittle down the data set until it feels very comfortable.


----------



## IanB52 (Sep 1, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Are you serious?! There’s a whole industry based on getting people to do just that. It’s called “advertising”. Are your clothes really “whiter than white”? Is that product really “new and improved”? What’s the brand of cigarette more doctors smoke? Do you believe everything used car salesmen tell you too?
> 
> “Let’s all pretend to be sound engineers! It’s an anonymous Internet forum… We can say anything we want! No one will know!”
> 
> It’s a complete waste of time to give people like this the respect of a reply. It’ll only go in circles.


Come now. If the world you believe in was true nobody would ever return or sell an item, and you could get people to jump into traffic with a single advertisement. 

Then again, people will believe anything for any length of time, for no reason, even if repeatedly contradicted by their own experience. You may even believe you are a guy at a computer, but really you are working in the a salt mine in Nigeria. How would you even know? Marketing is that good.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> It’s really amazing isn’t it? It’s hard to have any optimism that our species can survive when the actual facts/science are actively fought against while YouTube marketing is to be believed and this somehow equates to expertise and/or education. It sometimes seems that education, logic and critical thinking are things of the past



I’ve been staring at the screen trying to come up with a funny/snarky reply but I can’t.  It’s rather discouraging how often logic and critical thinking go missing from far too many discussions.

The best thing about the internet - easy access to information
The worst thing about the internet - easy access to information


----------



## Steve999 (Sep 2, 2022)

Presumptuous, conceited and humorless narrator interjects with the following epistemological and philosophical commentary:

1. The way I see it, we all rely on crude heuristics for most things we do in life. When driving for example we do not measure the required angle of turn and width of the road and speed of other vehicles before deciding when to make a turn across traffic. Heuristics rather than close critical thinking serve us much better in the moment for most things.

2. Cable believers, as I might call them, or audio subjectivists more generally.[as distinguished from audio fraudsters] perhaps are holding on to their heuristics a little too tightly with respect to that particular subject matter?

3. The truth underlying the matter of audio cables, as I see it, as it pertains to the subject matter in this thread, is for many counterintuitive and requires some combination of book-learning and practical experience that is actually pretty rich and complex, in order to undue falsely held beliefs. Not only must one work their way up the learning curve, but there is also an interference curve pertaining to existing false beliefs. And thus, the answer to the title of this thread is quite vexing.

4. I find the behavior displayed in this thread much easier to understand if I dispense with the idea of free will, and try to accept that some folks are a lot luckier in love and in life than others, and that includes ability, life resources and intuition as applied to intellectual endeavors, a true but not the only font of wondrous riches during our one pass at this life.

5. But perhaps the more accurately we are able to process information, viewing all Homo sapiens sapiens as a single organism and phenomenon, as a singular “we,”  the more likely we will be to survive and enjoy our remarkable but fleeting existence? And perhaps it is all an evolving process that again is not subject to any notion of free will? And thus the process of debate and learning, however cumbersome and inflicted by the ills of human nature, is a sacred one indeed? Is it not our only shot at eternity?

IMHO & etc.

By the way I have found today’s give-and-take exceptionally entertaining. Thanks to all!!


----------



## orion1973 (Sep 2, 2022)

I’m a new member, just here because lately I’ve been a bit bored and am recently into hacking up headphones for fun. While I’m not a music recording engineer I have worked in broadcast, A/V, concert, live events for over 27 years. My hearing is about shot at this point I will admit. World of difference between professional gear and high end consumer gear. Professional cables are made to a certain standard, to perform a certain task. Most of the difference is in shielding and gauge of wire and permanent installations require plenum cable in case of fire. Balanced mic cables include a ground wire that connects to both the chassis of the mic and the chassis of the amp/ DSP whatever.. if it doesn’t have a separate ground like how your homes electrical system has a separate ground it’s not considered “balanced” You need this because your trying to eliminate electrical interference and because a lot of mics require 48volt Phantom power . Video cables are a lot more finicky then audio cables. 12GSDI cables are specked by how far they can send a signal. Another example is  network cables. Cat6 cables are constructed with thicker gauge wires and have a plastic spline in them to keep the wires isolated from each other to avoid interference, Cat5 doesn’t have these features.  But these are standards not nonsensical marketing schemes. I mean if you google “gold plated s/pidif cables, you will find some for sale…. Also no one can hear a difference in mic cables… unless one is bad or the electrical system in a particular facility is just god awful..


----------



## gregorio (Sep 2, 2022)

IanB52 said:


> There are oodles of cable comparison videos online, most of them not posted by manufacturers.


Same argument again, there’s also oodles of people online stating 5G causes Covid, that the earth is flat, that vaccines don’t work, that the earth was created by god 6,000 years ago and all sorts of other nonsense. Do you really believe all of it simply because there’s oodles of people saying so online? Have you never heard of shills, do you honestly believe audiophiles are immune to snake oil? You’re willing to believe a few thousand deluded audiophiles making a ridiculous claim over many years, none of whom have ever demonstrated the ability to hear the difference between cables or a hearing ability anywhere near the levels required to do so but you’re not willing to believe the countless scientists and engineers and millions of people who’ve had their hearing tested over the course of ~130 years? Why, because there’s no audiophile marketing advertising this fact?


IanB52 said:


> But if you do insist on the kind of rarified double blind tests (and unwilling to conduct them yourself) that generally exist in medicine, and almost never in audio, you can whittle down the data set until it feels very comfortable.


Again, just a repeat of the same falsehoods! Why do DBTs “generally exist” in medicine if they don’t work or there’s “huge questions” about them?

You originally stated no one in audio did DBTs but now you’re saying “almost never”, so even your own story varies, let alone the actual facts. I was a university lecturer for several years, we had about 300 students a year studying various forms of sound or music engineering. As part of their courses they were all taught how to do DBT/ABX, they all underwent at least a couple and had to design one for themselves. That’s about 1,000 DBTs a year and many universities with audio engineering courses did something similar, so that’s countless thousands of DBTs a year. How’s that no one or “almost never”? Pretty much every professional engineer I’ve ever met have done DBTs/ABX at least once and I’ve done quite a few myself, before and after the dozens I did with students. And lastly, it’s been a routine test procedure in the audio sciences for many decades.

While it’s true that most music/sound engineers quite rarely do DBTs and in many cases would benefit from doing more, it’s complete BS to state no audio scientist or engineer ever does them or even “almost never” does them. There are countless thousands of published papers and studies which prove your assertion false, and countless more that are not published but inform international standards organisations,  the telecoms and media industries and pro-audio companies.

Simply repeating marketing lies or even making them up yourself is acceptable (and even encouraged) in other subforums but it’s obviously prohibited in science, is not acceptable in audio education, is usually outed in pro-audio and certainly does not cut it in this subforum! How is it possible you don’t know ANY of this?

G


----------



## gregorio

IanB52 said:


> If the world you believe in was true nobody would ever return or sell an item, and you could get people to jump into traffic with a single advertisement.


The world he (and I) believe in is not a world where marketing/advertising is always 100% effective with just a single advertisement. That’s some nonsense false world you’ve invented in order to misrepresent what we believe/know and has been proven!

And incidentally, I don’t see why you couldn’t get some people to jump into traffic with the right advertising campaign. It’s got people to jump in front of trains, it’s put people in hospital for eating cleaning products and undergoing unnecessary and ineffective cosmetic treatments. How many people died of Covid because they believed the false advertising/information that vaccines were dangerous or didn’t work. How many have died as a consequence of Tobacco advertising? There’s numerous examples, is getting some people to jump into traffic really such a stretch of the imagination?


IanB52 said:


> You may even believe you are a guy at a computer, but really you are working in the a salt mine in Nigeria. How would you even know? Marketing is that good.


No one is saying marketing is that good. Isn’t it obvious that audiophile cable marketing doesn’t need to convince all audiophiles their entire reality doesn’t exist? It just needs to plant enough of a suggestion that there is an audible difference between cables to cause some to experience a placebo effect.

Again, do you really not know any of the above or are you just inventing utter nonsense in order to deliberately misrepresent the argument?

G


----------



## 71 dB

Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> You cant understand that this kind of sound difference you heard in this video isnt eq difference and its better signal difference??


Frankly I don't know what it is. Two properly made cables should not sound that different. I admit that I know nothing about guitar cables. I don't know the output or input impedance levels of guitars and guitar amps. I don't know if the "standard" cable in that comparison was a normal "standard" cable or the worst cable they could find to produce an audible difference. Since it is a _marketing_ video, it would be foolish to believe its message 100 % without scepticism. At least I would need to hear a scientific reasoning for the better sound with their cables. That video didn't give one.

My theory is that fancy cables sell with their _look and brand_. Standard and professional cables often look dull, because they are manufactured to do their job, transmit the signal without unnecessary bells and whistles. These fancy cables however always look like jewelry! They are often sold in wooden boxes with silk lining! It is a mental trick. (Some if not most) people want fancy looking stuff and are willing to be mislead to believe whatever snake oil marketing to justify the investment, because buying fancy looking audio cables would be stupid, but luckily they sound BETTER so there is a reason to put tons of money into them. Except most of the time they don't sound better. 

In my naive youth I did believe marketing a lot, but in my 20's I learned to understand the World much better. University studies teached me to be critical. I make irrational choises when I purchase stuff, but at least I know they are irrational. Why do irrational stuff? Because it can be FUN! However I will never put my money on fancy cables, because there are much better options to have fun in life!


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 2, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Frankly I don't know what it is. Two properly made cables should not sound that different. I admit that I know nothing about guitar cables. I don't know the output or input impedance levels of guitars and guitar amps. I don't know if the "standard" cable in that comparison was a normal "standard" cable or the worst cable they could find to produce an audible difference. Since it is a _marketing_ video, it would be foolish to believe its message 100 % without scepticism. At least I would need to hear a scientific reasoning for the better sound with their cables. That video didn't give one.
> 
> My theory is that fancy cables sell with their _look and brand_. Standard and professional cables often look dull, because they are manufactured to do their job, transmit the signal without unnecessary bells and whistles. These fancy cables however always look like jewelry! They are often sold in wooden boxes with silk lining! It is a mental trick. (Some if not most) people want fancy looking stuff and are willing to be mislead to believe whatever snake oil marketing to justify the investment, because buying fancy looking audio cables would be stupid, but luckily they sound BETTER so there is a reason to put tons of money into them. Except most of the time they don't sound better.
> 
> In my naive youth I did believe marketing a lot, but in my 20's I learned to understand the World much better. University studies teached me to be critical. I make irrational choises when I purchase stuff, but at least I know they are irrational. Why do irrational stuff? Because it can be FUN! However I will never put my money on fancy cables, because there are much better options to have fun in life!


Hi 71 dB, 

I do have a total Counter-example.

Short version :

I needed a cable for one of my pairs of uiem's (Kaiser Encore).

I made various listening sessions, various cables, various materials, braiding, etc.. And very diverse prices (1 to 10 ! ) Only one criterion : the final result (and ergonomics = very important).

Judgement ? Qualities of timbres, opening, dynamics, transients...

Well, this is the cheapest and seemingly least luxurious cable I've chosen.

I then did my listening again a week later = choice confirmed. 

Because... It was to my ears the best pairing.

But, with another uiem (Ringo) ... It was the perfect contrary... The most expensive was the best.

I then did my listening again a week later = choice confirmed. 

Because it was the best pairing.

Nothing about price or appearance : I had tried other cables that were much more expensive with my Ringo's too, for instance. But it was not so good...


----------



## gregorio (Sep 2, 2022)

71 dB said:


> I admit that I know nothing about guitar cables. I don't know the output or input impedance levels of guitars and guitar amps.


Electric guitars are a very special case, which is presumably why it’s been chosen. Some EGuitars have active outputs, many are passive and the output impedance of these guitars are typically quite high but go higher as the volume or tone controls are lowered, output impedance can exceed 100kOhms. This output is typically plugged into a guitar “pedal”, which commonly have an input impedance of 1mOhm, so no problem but some might have only 500kOhms input impedance. Then you might go from that pedal to another and maybe even another again, until then going to the amp, all of which *might* have different and potentially problematic impedance relationships.

In most cases a dirt cheap guitar cable will perform identically (within some tiny fraction of a dB) as the most expensive but in some cases cable capacitance can cause audible differences. As is typically the case with consumer cables, there’s 4 potential options: Make a cable for yourself with the necessary low capacitance for probably about $15, buy a good quality ready made for around $25-$40, buy an “audiophile” guitar cable for say $200 or buy a really silly “audiophile” guitar cable for say $6k. In all cases they will of course sound identical, provided you get the cable capacitance right if you have some dodgy impedance relationships.

While it would have been easy to doctor the signal for that YouTube vid, it’s also possible that it was indeed just the difference between cables but you would have to setup the right guitar, with the volume/tone lowered, output to a relatively low Z input pedal and choose a guitar cable of a sufficient length and a high enough capacitance. Of course, that’s effectively deliberately screwing it up and even though it is a guitar cable, it’s the wrong guitar cable for this job.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 2, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi 71 dB,
> 
> I do have a total Counter-example.
> 
> ...



Illustration :





First case. 4 wires. Cheap. Best pairing.





Second case. Best pairing, fancy looking cable I guess, pricey, 8 wires...

And to conclude :





Best pairing. Stock cable, cheapest, 8 wires, good looking but nothing special about.....

Thats all folks. 😇😉


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi 71 dB,
> 
> I do have a total *Counter-example*.
> 
> Nothing about price or appearance : I had tried other cables that were much more expensive with my Ringo's too, for instance. But it was not so good...


Obviously you are not one of those "some if not most people" who want fancy looking stuff...


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Obviously you are not one of those "some if not most people" who want fancy looking stuff...


Indeed. 😉

But those people does exist, it is true. 👍


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Electric guitars are a very special case, which is presumably why it’s been chosen. Some EGuitars have active outputs, many are passive and the output impedance of these guitars are typically quite high but go higher as the volume or tone controls are lowered, output impedance can exceed 100kOhms. This output is typically plugged into a guitar “pedal”, which commonly have an input impedance of 1mOhm, so no problem but some might have only 500kOhms input impedance. Then you might go from that pedal to another and maybe even another again, until then going to the amp, all of which *might* have different and potentially problematic impedance relationships.
> 
> In most cases a dirt cheap guitar cable will perform identically (within some tiny fraction of a dB) as the most expensive but in some cases cable capacitance can cause audible differences. As is typically the case with consumer cables, there’s 4 potential options: Make a cable for yourself with the necessary low capacitance for probably about $15, buy a good quality ready made for around $25-$40, buy an “audiophile” guitar cable for say $200 or buy a really silly “audiophile” guitar cable for say $6k. In all cases they will of course sound identical, provided you get the cable capacitance right if you have some dodgy impedance relationships.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this mini-lecture about guitar-related impedances. 

It occured to me, that the difference in sound in that video can be as simple as caused by playing differently! Maybe they simply played 10 times with both cables and selected the worst "take" for the standard cable and the best "take" for their fancy cable. I could investicate this by analysing the sound, but frankly I have better things to do in life!

To my ears the stardard cable sounds more "neutral" than the fancy cable which sounds more mid-rangy and "lively." Maybe the fancy cable has interesting capacitance that gives a "nicely" coloured sound? Wouldn't be the first time in history.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

_16 bit / 44.1 kHz is all I need because I am human, not a bat, dog or dolphin!_

The same...


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 2, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Thanks for this mini-lecture about guitar-related impedances.
> 
> It occured to me, that the difference in sound in that video can be as simple as caused by playing differently! Maybe they simply played 10 times with both cables and selected the worst "take" for the standard cable and the best "take" for their fancy cable. I could investicate this by analysing the sound, but frankly I have better things to do in life!
> 
> To my ears the stardard cable sounds more "neutral" than the fancy cable which sounds more mid-rangy and "lively." Maybe the fancy cable has interesting capacitance that gives a "nicely" coloured sound? Wouldn't be the first time in history.



Well. Difficult to say. "Neutrality' is a word I am wary of. I prefere to talk about "balance". But it is an another discussion (but a worthy discussion).

But... I think you are right to a certain extend.

For instance, the 3082 coaxial Mogami cable, which is a cheap cable... is a "neutral" cable.

I have used them with my sedentary system (loudspeakers cables), long time ago.

But...If a compare it to my current loudspeaker cables (pure copper cable too but this is not the main information at all...), many things are missing.

In one word :

With the Mogami it is very good, but it remains "hifi"
With the other cable (no need to publicize it), it sounds realistic, vivid, real (tones, dynamics, scenery, etc).

Just a testimony, not a proof of anything. And it is just one exemple.

If you want to know, then rendez-vous in Paris !


----------



## orion1973

I’m completely confused. What does 8 wires going to a headphone get anyone? Why is anyone concerned about 8 wires but they want detachable cables which just introduces another potential failure point, for no real reason. What does it mean “balanced headphones”? I mean isn’t a headphone still just a pair of tiny speakers? Two wires to each that complete a circuit like a light bulb? Basically just a fancy electromagnet attached to a special piece of plastic that makes sounds. Reverse the positive and negative and the diaphragm will push when it’s supposed to pull, pull when it’s supposed to push? I’m reading descriptions of balanced headphones with negative and positive phase cancellation and such and it’s like they are describing a signal wire or something. And they are just lifting the ground? Seriously what’s up with XLR cables attached to headphones, that don’t have an internal amp? I’m legit confused with some of this.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

orion1973 said:


> I’m completely confused. What does 8 wires going to a headphone get anyone?





orion1973 said:


> (...)


Really ?

I don't know.  

As far as *only* listening is concerned.

Electrically, it certainly plays on the RLC, this lowers the resistance (twice as many conductors = normal)....

But as far as *only and pure* listening is concerned.... I don't know. 

For instance, for my Kaiser Encore's, I have preferred a 4 wires vs mainy 8 wires cables...  However, I have read everywhere that the 8 wires are more open, more dynamic, more... But this was not here the case. The 4 wires (plus 4 thin wires. 26 AWG ? 28 ?) cable, was the best in listening performances, with these particular uiem's.

There were some type 2, type 4 and type 6 litz cables, braided and coaxial cables...

I own some 8 wires cables... because they were second hand cables. And they were mounted with 8 wires. The stock cable of the Fh9 is an 8 wires. That's all.


----------



## reter

i should open a digital store and do business, selling cables surely is one of the easiest income lol with almost minimum cost


----------



## DaveStarWalker

reter said:


> i should open a digital store and do business, selling cables surely is one of the easiest income lol with almost minimum cost


The problem is that many people are already doing it.   

But feel free, try it.


----------



## orion1973

DaveStarWalker said:


> Electrically, it certainly plays on the RLC, this lowers the resistance (twice as many conductors = normal)....


 If your talking about just lowering resistance you can do that by a myriad of other means.



DaveStarWalker said:


> However, I have read everywhere that the 8 wires are more open, more dynamic,


Are you talking about tonal quality’s? I don’t see how wires can affect that.


----------



## DarginMahkum

I should have known: A cable thread is a cable thread. Doesn't matter who has the microphone. See you guys in another thread...


----------



## orion1973

Day to day I have to concern myself more with things like dante net and managing the processing power of DSPs. A quality mic cable is a quality mic cable. One brand is not typically superior to another as long as they are of the same spec and length.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

orion1973 said:


> If your talking about just lowering resistance you can do that by a myriad of other means.
> 
> 
> Are you talking about tonal quality’s? I don’t see how wires can affect that.



This is not me that talking about that...

And about the resistance, you double the amount of wires, so...

That's all.


----------



## KeithPhantom

orion1973 said:


> Are you talking about tonal quality’s? I don’t see how wires can affect that.





DaveStarWalker said:


> This is not me that talking about that...





DaveStarWalker said:


> With the Mogami it is very good, but it remains "hifi"
> With the other cable (no need to publicize it), it sounds realistic, vivid, real (tones, dynamics, scenery, etc).


Yes, you are mentioning subjective qualities. As I haven't read anything authoritative, there's no need to provide evidence, just remember that any claims need to be substantiated with evidence.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 2, 2022)

KeithPhantom said:


> Yes, you are mentioning subjective qualities. As I haven't read anything authoritative, there's no need to provide evidence, just remember that any claims need to be substantiated with evidence.



Only one evidence is possible in this case :

You come to my house, and listen by yourself = guaranteed effect. 👂👌

You are welcomed, in France, Paris. 🇫🇷👍

I still have a bunch of old cables (XLR, loudspeakers...) = no one sound the same. A pity... 😴


----------



## reter

what about cables made of air? does that change the quality of the sound?


----------



## orion1973

reter said:


> what about cables made of air? does that change the quality of the sound?


Yes, Bluetooth does change the quality of sound.


----------



## castleofargh

In the last pages we've seen really lame behaviors, a lot of circular stuff, deflection, strawmaning, plain BS for the lolz, personal attacks. Yesterday was prolific but not a day to be proud of IMO.
At the same time, I've been curious about the Synergistic quantum fuse since I first saw it in the sig of my compatriot. I know how bad it is to even bring it up but apparently I can't help myself. Am I the troll I've been trying to eliminate all this time?



If I was testing when I can recognize something by touching it, would you guys allow me to answer while looking straight at the objects? Would you count my confident answer as evidence that I surely identified them by touch? 
Why should we have knowledge of what is being heard when the question is about being able to hear a difference? Why should we see the cables as we listen to them if the question is about being able to hear a difference?




For IEM cables, it's always the most extreme case and the one I keep bringing back, so if you allow me I'll just quote myself and save some time:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how...ke-a-difference.481385/page-152#post-16296853


----------



## bfin3

A couple times I've bought slightly expensive cables. They usually sounded better than the free ones I had before. 🤷‍♂️ I haven't bought the crazy ones that cost more than my car. They seem a little silly. But I haven't heard them so I don't know for sure that it doesn't make a difference.

I have heard nice tube amps and solid state amps. The tube apps don't sound worse. Objectively they measure worse in every respect. Perhaps there's more to the enjoyment of sound than we are currently measuring. You might be saving money by preventing yourself from trying them. You might also be missing out on better sound.

If you're reading this and you aren't sure, pick up a used cable at a discount and form your own opinion. If you don't think it does anything you can sell it back and be confident that you learned something


----------



## bigshot

IanB52 said:


> Come now. If the world you believe in was true nobody would ever return or sell an item, and you could get people to jump into traffic with a single advertisement.
> 
> Then again, people will believe anything for any length of time, for no reason, even if repeatedly contradicted by their own experience. You may even believe you are a guy at a computer, but really you are working in the a salt mine in Nigeria. How would you even know? Marketing is that good.


What does that word salad mean?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Dear castleofargh, you haven't changed since the French forum Tellement Nomade... 😂

I love you too, forever bro. ♥️💋💕😘👍


----------



## bigshot

Everyone loves castle!


----------



## orion1973

reter said:


> what about cables made of air? does that change the quality of the sound?


Also… I think (I hope anyway) that we all can agree that Bluetooth sounds the worst..


----------



## bigshot

Whic codec? Not all Bluetooth is the same. Some Bluetooth codecs are transparent, and some aren’t.


----------



## orion1973

bigshot said:


> Whic codec? Not all Bluetooth is the same. Some Bluetooth codecs are transparent, and some aren’t.


Lol! Apples going to kill all Variants of Bluetooth at some point anyway in order to sell more AirPod Maxes, AirPod pros and Beats.. why else would they have high res music that none of the headphones they sell can take advantage of? Same reason they killed off the headphone jack. Yep Bluetooth’s days are numbered..


----------



## bigshot

You didn’t answer my question. You just threw up more smoke.


----------



## orion1973

bigshot said:


> You didn’t answer my question. You just threw up more smoke.


Homes, Bluetooth is for chumps! Even the transparent Codecs… but if you put yourself in a vacuum chamber and use LDAC, you’ll get better soundstage and the mids will really open up…. Always got to make sure your oxygen bottle has at least an hours worth more of O2 in it though, cause if you dose off for a bit and you wake up gasping for air, your going to be contorting and bending around more then Harry Houdini…. Ask me how I know…. Also vacuum chambers aren’t cheap…


----------



## bigshot

Transparent codecs are transparent, just like high data rate audio and CDs. They all sound the same, because they are perfectly transparent.


----------



## KeithPhantom

orion1973 said:


> you’ll get better soundstage


How do you know that? How do you measure that? 


orion1973 said:


> the mids will really open up


This is a linear change. That means that it is equalizing; can you prove that this is the case by providing an FFT?


----------



## bigshot

Soundstage is mostly a function of the mix. After that, it’s channel separation. I don’t see any way cables could affect that. Cables, if you are using the wrong one for the job affect frequency response. Or if it is picking up RF interference, noise. Again, neither of those are directly connected to soundstage.

In the audiophile world, the word soundstage usually means expectation bias and placebo effect.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Soundstage is mostly a function of the mix. After that, it’s channel separation.


Soundstage is much more complex than that. Otherwise 60+ years old "ping-pong" stereo recordings would have excellent soundstage.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Soundstage is mostly a function of the mix. After that, it’s channel separation. I don’t see any way cables could affect that. Cables, if you are using the wrong one for the job affect frequency response. Or if it is picking up RF interference, noise. Again, neither of those are directly connected to soundstage.
> 
> In the audiophile world, the word soundstage usually means expectation bias and placebo effect.


Hi bigshot, 

Have you ever heard a well-tuned stereophonic (or multiphonic) system ?

Holography, 3d, total disappearance of the loudspeakers as acoustic emissing points...

No ? 🤔

If it's the case, you should. 😉


----------



## Dimitris Morfopoulos

71 dB said:


> Frankly I don't know what it is. Two properly made cables should not sound that different. I admit that I know nothing about guitar cables. I don't know the output or input impedance levels of guitars and guitar amps. I don't know if the "standard" cable in that comparison was a normal "standard" cable or the worst cable they could find to produce an audible difference. Since it is a _marketing_ video, it would be foolish to believe its message 100 % without scepticism. At least I would need to hear a scientific reasoning for the better sound with their cables. That video didn't give one.
> 
> My theory is that fancy cables sell with their _look and brand_. Standard and professional cables often look dull, because they are manufactured to do their job, transmit the signal without unnecessary bells and whistles. These fancy cables however always look like jewelry! They are often sold in wooden boxes with silk lining! It is a mental trick. (Some if not most) people want fancy looking stuff and are willing to be mislead to believe whatever snake oil marketing to justify the investment, because buying fancy looking audio cables would be stupid, but luckily they sound BETTER so there is a reason to put tons of money into them. Except most of the time they don't sound better.
> 
> In my naive youth I did believe marketing a lot, but in my 20's I learned to understand the World much better. University studies teached me to be critical. I make irrational choises when I purchase stuff, but at least I know they are irrational. Why do irrational stuff? Because it can be FUN! However I will never put my money on fancy cables, because there are much better options to have fun in life!


I can for sure let you know that i used 2 cordial brand new (i have over 180 cables for my PA sound rental business) https://www.thomann.de/gr/cordial_cxi_3_pp.htm

vs https://www.thomann.de/gr/vovox_sonorus_protect_a350_klikli.htm

the sound difference i had in my ears was like the difference in the video and then i decided to test it not only in my guitar but in other instruments also like my bouzouki ( greek ethnik instrument ) my bass. I also tested it at my nord piano.. in every way i had more high end sound result..

then i took the decision to buy 1 microphone cable also from vovox and test it with my microphone i compared these 2

https://www.thomann.de/gr/cordial_csm_5_fm_gold_250.htm
vs https://www.thomann.de/gr/vovox_protect_s500_xlrxlr.htm

again the sound difference was enough noticeable at least for me when i sing and even when just speak


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> Soundstage is much more complex than that. Otherwise 60+ years old "ping-pong" stereo recordings would have excellent soundstage.


Ping pong stereo doesn’t have any soundstage because it isn’t mixed to have soundstage. Soundstage is mostly a function of the mix, not so much the equipment you play it back on… except of course in the case of headphones, which are not capable of true soundstage.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 4, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi bigshot,
> 
> Have you ever heard a well-tuned stereophonic (or multiphonic) system ?
> 
> Holography, 3d, total disappearance of the loudspeakers as acoustic emissing points...


Yes, cables have nothing to do with achieving that sound. It’s created by the mix and the effect of the room and seating position on the sound. That is true soundstage.

In my previous post, I was mentioning aspects of the playback system that might be responsible for degrading soundstage. I agree that aspects of the playback system don’t create soundstage.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 4, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> And about the resistance, you double the amount of wires, so...


So nothing, the resistance stays the same as half the number of wires of a thicker gauge.


DaveStarWalker said:


> Only one evidence is possible in this case :
> You come to my house, and listen by yourself = guaranteed effect.


Of course there’s not just “one evidence”, there’s several. There’s actual measurements of the cables’ performance, there’s a null test between the cables, there’s an ABX/DBT, these are ALL reliable types of evidence. Then we have unreliable evidence, anecdotal evidence and sighted tests for example. Provide some reliable evidence!


castleofargh said:


> For IEM cables, it's always the most extreme case and the one I keep bringing back …


There are nearly always some extreme cases. There are certain NOS DACs that break the rule of thumb of all DACs sounding the same. I’ve already mentioned certain conditions with EGuitars where guitar cables might make a difference. Even with speaker cables, if you have unusually low impedance speakers and need a long cable run, the difference between say 22Awg and 14Awg could be audible. BUT, how many audiophiles actually own 2 Ohm or 4 Ohm speakers and have 50ft long cables, extremely poorly designed IEMs and DACs or guitar setups with all sorts of dodgy impedance relationships? For sure there are some but very few, certainly far, far fewer than report audible differences with cables.


bfin3 said:


> A couple times I've bought slightly expensive cables. They usually sounded better than the free ones I had before.


Almost always, the freebie cables sound exactly the same as the slightly more expensive or vastly more expensive cables. The only real performance difference with freebie cables is their longevity but even that doesn’t typically make any difference unless you regularly plug/unplug them.


bfin3 said:


> The tube apps don't sound worse. Objectively they measure worse in every respect. Perhaps there's more to the enjoyment of sound than we are currently measuring.


We can’t objectively measure the enjoyment of sound, all we can measure are the actual properties of sound/audio. However, science does and has known for a long time that some people find certain types of distortion pleasant. It even has a name, “Euphonic” distortion. 


orion1973 said:


> why else would they have high res music that none of the headphones they sell can take advantage of?


There are always two obvious answers: 
1. Because they feel it gives them a marketing advantage over competitors, or
2. Other competitors do it and they don’t want to be at a marketing disadvantage.


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> the sound difference i had in my ears was like the difference in the video and then i decided to test it not only in my guitar but in other instruments also like my bouzouki ( greek ethnik instrument ) my bass.


You CANNOT keep claiming that, because you have no idea if there was a sound difference at your ears. Unless you do a reliable objective test (measurements, null test, DBT) you have absolutely no idea whether there’s any difference at all at your ears, let alone an audible difference. It’s far more likely the difference is just in your perception!


Dimitris Morfopoulos said:


> then i took the decision to buy 1 microphone cable also from vovox and test it with my microphone i compared these 2
> https://www.thomann.de/gr/cordial_csm_5_fm_gold_250.htm
> vs https://www.thomann.de/gr/vovox_protect_s500_xlrxlr.htm
> again the sound difference was enough noticeable at least for me when i sing and even when just speak


What sound difference? Again, you have NOT verified the difference you noticed wasn’t just a difference in your perception, you have no reliable evidence whatsoever there was an audible difference in the sound. Furthermore, the relatively huge differences you are reporting simply do not exist with mic cables unless one is broken/faulty, which you claim they are not and therefore the only rational explanation is a perceptual error on your part. And, the more you claim such significant audible differences, the more you support the obvious conclusion that it’s just a placebo effect.

What’s troubling is that you claim to be a professional in the field, yet clearly have no knowledge or understanding of ANY of the above (or you do but are lying)!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Yes, cables have nothing to do with achieving that sound. It’s created by the mix and the effect of the room and seating position on the sound. That is true soundstage.
> 
> In my previous post, I was mentioning aspects of the playback system that might be responsible for degrading soundstage. I agree that aspects of the playback system don’t create soundstage.


You are wrong.

I have got a dedicated room, very controlled acoustics. Very optimized placement. 

All other things being equal (please, it's very important) :

[he only thing I have optimized after acoustics and placement was the cables. All of them.

For many years. A lot of trials, test, abx, etc.

Nothing about prices, or fancy appearances, just performances.

Performances ? = balance, transparency, dynamics, 3d effet, etc.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 4, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> You are wrong.


Unless you have some reliable supporting evidence, then YOU are the one who is wrong.


DaveStarWalker said:


> The only thing I have optimized after acoustics and placement was the cables. All of them.


No it is NOT, you have also optimised the biases likely to produce a perceptual error/placebo effect! The only exception is objective measurements which are immune to human bias or controlled (DBT) listening tests which eliminate biases.


DaveStarWalker said:


> For many years. A lot of trials, test, abx, etc.


How did you do an ABX and what tests did you do? A lot of trials mean nothing unless they were fully controlled.


DaveStarWalker said:


> Nothing about prices, or fancy appearances, just performances.


What performance metrics did you measure or verify?


DaveStarWalker said:


> Performances ? = balance, transparency, dynamics, 3d effet, etc.


What do you mean by “balance”, presumably freq response? In which case you can demonstrate some objective difference in freq response.

Transparency = fidelity, which again is an objective measurement, as is dynamics. 3d effect is NOT a cable performance metric, it is purely a human perception. So again, provide some of this actual (reliable) evidence of performance or all you’re describing is your personal perceptual error/placebo effect!

G


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Ping pong stereo doesn’t have any soundstage because it isn’t mixed to have soundstage. Soundstage is mostly a function of the mix, not so much the equipment you play it back on… except of course in the case of headphones, which are not capable of true soundstage.


You said soundstage is _channel separation_. Ping pong stereo has maximum channel separation, but as you point out yourself they are not mixed to have soundstage. So, soundstage is something else than (just) channel separation. It is a combination on many things (including channel separation) in balance and that makes it complex as I wrote.

True soundstage with speakers is a good term in my opinion, while headphone soundstage could be called virtual soundstage.


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Even with speaker cables, if you have unusually low impedance speakers and need a long cable run, the difference between say 22Awg and 14Awg could be audible. BUT, how many audiophiles actually own 2 Ohm or 4 Ohm speakers and have 50ft long cables?
> 
> G


8 Ω speakers (nominal impedance) might be the most common passive speakers, but 4 Ω  (nominal impedance) speakers are not rare. Speaker impedance is a function of frequency and a nominally 4 Ω speaker can easily have minimum impedance of 2 Ω at some frequencies. Low load impedance is a real concern with speakers and sometimes cables are long (e.g. rear channel speakers). While it is difficult to totally ruin the sound using too long & thin cables, the thinking through what kind of cables are needed is a "malpractice" in sound reproductiom. Variations in frequency response is one thing, but speaker cables limit how much of the damping factor of the amplifier gets applied to the speakers. If the cable has the same resistance as your amp's speaker terminal output impedance, you are losing 50 % of the damping factor! If the cable has twice the resistance, you only have 33 % of the damping factor and so on. Speakers are different and require different amount of electric damping. If your speakers are very sensitive for their size, they can't have much mechanical/acoustic damping and rely on electric damping. In those cases using too long & thin speaker cables can significantly reduce the sound quality (accuracy). If your speakers "need" external damping factor of 20 and your amp has 60, you can lose 2/3 of it at most. Default speaker cable is so "cheap" that using 22 AWG cable instead of 14 AWG would be saving money in the wrong place! It is not just 50 ft cables. Every inch eats away damping. At what length does it matter depends on your amp and speakers.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> You said soundstage is _channel separation_. Ping pong stereo has maximum channel separation, but as you point out yourself they are not mixed to have soundstage. So, soundstage is something else than (just) channel separation. It is a combination on many things (including channel separation) in balance and that makes it complex as I wrote.
> 
> True soundstage with speakers is a good term in my opinion, while headphone soundstage could be called virtual soundstage.



Absolutely.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 4, 2022)

71 dB said:


> You said soundstage is _channel separation_. Ping pong stereo has maximum channel separation, but as you point out yourself they are not mixed to have soundstage. So, soundstage is something else than (just) channel separation. It is a combination on many things (including channel separation) in balance and that makes it complex as I wrote.
> 
> True soundstage with speakers is a good term in my opinion, while headphone soundstage could be called virtual soundstage.


Only one solution = rendez-vous in Paris.

Then, you'll know.

I do have only one goal = (musical) realism. And I am the best specialist of my system in the world. 

Other things are just bla, bla, bla. 😉


----------



## bigshot

Your acoustics and placement have a lot more to do with the sound of your room than the wires. I think you’re attributing the results of a good setup to the cables.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 4, 2022)

71 dB said:


> You said soundstage is _channel separation_.


Soundstage can be degraded by altering the channel separation. It’s dependent on accurate separation, more separation isn’t necessarily better. But less separation can compress soundstage.

Soundstage requires accurate sound object placement from left to right at a distance in front of the listener. That requires accurate channel separation.

Do you understand what I’m saying now?


----------



## orion1973

KeithPhantom said:


> How do you know that? How do you measure that?
> 
> This is a linear change. That means that it is equalizing; can you prove that this is the case by providing an FFT?


Bro… I’m actually Morbious IRL, your going to have to trust me…. Also what’s your blood type????


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Your acoustics and placement have a lot more to do with the sound of your room than the wires. I think you’re attributing the results of a good setup to the cables.


As I said, all other things being equal.... 😉


----------



## bigshot

All things are not equal. Some things matter, wires don’t really matter much.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Only one solution = rendez-vous in Paris.


You can’t just keep repeating the same falsehood, there are several solutions but you don’t want to do any of them!


DaveStarWalker said:


> As I said, all other things being equal....


You have said that, but what’s the point of keep saying that but not actually doing it? Other things are NOT equal, your perceptual biases for example!

G


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> Low load impedance is a real concern with speakers and sometimes cables are long (e.g. rear channel speakers).


How many people are using 4 Ohm speakers as rear speakers and if you are using such speakers and have a long cable run, 22Awg speaker cable is the wrong cable for the job. You should be using at least 16Awg and possibly even lower.

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> How many people are using 4 Ohm speakers as rear speakers and if you are using such speakers and have a long cable run, 22Awg speaker cable is the wrong cable for the job. You should be using at least 16Awg and possibly even lower.
> 
> G


It doesn't matter how many people are doing this or that. What matters is that people are using proper cables. 16 AWG is good for most real world situations. 

That said, people can have interesting choices for rear speakers. There are some benefits of using the same speakers for all channels and some people do that (me included, but my speakers are 8 Ω). There are speaker models and cabling situations where people are doing harm to the sound quality if they don't use at least 16 AWG cable. Those situations are perhaps rare, but they exist.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> All things are not equal. Some things matter, wires don’t really matter much.


Yep. Room acoustics and speaker/listener position matters the most. The come speakers and headphones. Then analog signal sources. That is the stuff that matters and spending money to improve them is justified.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> You can’t just keep repeating the same falsehood, there are several solutions but you don’t want to do any of them!
> 
> You have said that, but what’s the point of keep saying that but not actually doing it? Other things are NOT equal, your perceptual biases for example!
> 
> G


Bro, just try not to be deaf.

About the answers that doesn't fit you. 

I think, really, this your main problem.😔

And... try to be subtle. 😉


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Soundstage can be degraded by altering the channel separation.


Altering the channel separation can degrade or improve the soundstage depending on many other things.



bigshot said:


> It’s dependent on accurate separation, more separation isn’t necessarily better. But less separation can compress soundstage.


There are optimal _frequency dependent_ levels of separation based on human spatial hearing. Decreasing separation can improve soundstage or make it narrower (compressed) depending on what the initial separation is compared to optimal separation. Soundstage can improve in some ways and get worse on other aspects. Leaking the channels of a ping pong stereo recording to the opposite channels for example can make the soundstage narrower (worse?), but deeper (better?) and the sound isn't localised so strongly on the speakers.



bigshot said:


> Soundstage requires accurate sound object placement from left to right at a distance in front of the listener. That requires accurate channel separation.


Yes, of course. If you have those accurate parameters set on the recording, altering things will likely make things worse.



bigshot said:


> Do you understand what I’m saying now?


Better, thanks.


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> Bro, just try not to be deaf.


People who understand the effect of listener biases and placebo are not automatically deaf.

In my native language (Finnish) the words "*luulla*" (to suppose) and "*kuulla*" (to hear) are nicely similar having only different first letter.


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> I do have only one goal = (musical) realism. And I am the best specialist of my system in the world.


What is musical realism with Jean-Michel Jarre's _Equinoxe_? I don't know if my system (of which I am the best specialist in the world) gives me musical realism, but I can say I do enjoy what I hear. Enjoyment is my ultimate goal, but I recognise certain amount of "musical realism" helps a lot with that.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Bro, just try not to be deaf.
> 
> About the answers that doesn't fit you.
> 
> I think, really, this your main problem.😔


The answer does fit me. As you will not provide any reliable evidence to the contrary, the answer is clearly perceptual error/placebo. I think this obvious answer doesn’t fit you though and it’s clear this is YOUR main problem 


DaveStarWalker said:


> And... try to be subtle.


Telling me not to be deaf is your idea of subtle is it?

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> What is musical realism with Jean-Michel Jarre's _Equinoxe_? I don't know if my system (of which I am the best specialist in the world) gives me musical realism, but I can say I do enjoy what I hear. Enjoyment is my ultimate goal, but I recognise certain amount of "musical realism" helps a lot with that.


Exactly.

But try Ma Recordings, 2 mics recordings, for instance. 😉

No eq, 100% natural acoustics, no mix, no compression.... Direct to recorder Technics. 

Really, it's... spectacular with the right system. 👍


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> People who understand the effect of listener biases and placebo are not automatically deaf.
> 
> In my native language (Finnish) the words "*luulla*" (to suppose) and "*kuulla*" (to hear) are nicely similar having only different first letter.


But I totally understand these effects. At contrary. 😉

Just note that these cognitive biases can be summoned in the fact of hearing... 

... as in the fact of not hearing anything... 😅


----------



## orion1973

71 dB said:


> 8 Ω speakers (nominal impedance) might be the most common passive speakers, but 4 Ω  (nominal impedance) speakers are not rare. Speaker impedance is a function of frequency and a nominally 4 Ω speaker can easily have minimum impedance of 2 Ω at some frequencies. Low load impedance is a real concern with speakers and sometimes cables are long (e.g. rear channel speakers). While it is difficult to totally ruin the sound using too long & thin cables, the thinking through what kind of cables are needed is a "malpractice" in sound reproductiom. Variations in frequency response is one thing, but speaker cables limit how much of the damping factor of the amplifier gets applied to the speakers. If the cable has the same resistance as your amp's speaker terminal output impedance, you are losing 50 % of the damping factor! If the cable has twice the resistance, you only have 33 % of the damping factor and so on. Speakers are different and require different amount of electric damping. If your speakers are very sensitive for their size, they can't have much mechanical/acoustic damping and rely on electric damping. In those cases using too long & thin speaker cables can significantly reduce the sound quality (accuracy). If your speakers "need" external damping factor of 20 and your amp has 60, you can lose 2/3 of it at most. Default speaker cable is so "cheap" that using 22 AWG cable instead of 14 AWG would be saving money in the wrong place! It is not just 50 ft cables. Every inch eats away damping. At what length does it matter depends on your amp and speakers.


For some reason this post made me flashback to a day where I found myself doing math on a napkin in 100 degree heat in an effort not to blow up a PA system….


----------



## KeithPhantom (Sep 4, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Just note that these cognitive biases can be summoned in the fact of hearing...
> 
> ... as in the fact of not hearing anything... 😅


Not quite, we have studies that not just address how bad our ears are, but also how easy they are to fool with auditory masking. There is no bias here, unless you present new research that is peer-reviewed and the results are repeatable, the null hypothesis of ears not being able to detect meaningful differences at wire level (around 0.05-0.1 dB at worst) with even 'easier' tests (2) still stands.


----------



## bfreedma

KeithPhantom said:


> Not quite, we have studies that not just address how bad our ears are, but also how easy they are to fool with auditory masking. There is no bias here, unless you present new research that is peer-reviewed and the results are repeateable, the null hypothesis of ears not being able to detect meaningful differences with even 'easier' tests (2) still stands.



Thanks for the link to “Hearing”.  Adding that to the reading list.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

KeithPhantom said:


> Not quite, we have studies that not just address how bad our ears are, but also how easy they are to fool with auditory masking. There is no bias here, unless you present new research that is peer-reviewed and the results are repeatable, the null hypothesis of ears not being able to detect meaningful differences at wire level (around 0.05-0.1 dB at worst) with even 'easier' tests (2) still stands.


Of course, except we're not talking about that here.

I don't know how to measure better perceived transparency, for example.
I don't know how to measure a better perceived image depth for example.
I don't know how to measure a better perceived planes of the "virtual" soundstage, for example.
I don't know how to measure a better texture and weight of the tones. 
Etc. 

I don't know how to measure an hifist  restitution, and a realistic restitution (even if you are listening at low levels = homothetic effect). 

But in the field, during the reality of a listening session... It is easily observed. 👂

This is all what I said. 😉


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> I don't know how to measure better perceived transparency, for example.


We can measure transparency (fidelity) but we can’t measure your perception of transparency. Your perception obviously occurs in you brain, not in a cable. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> I don't know how to measure a better perceived image depth for example.


Again, we cannot measure your perception but we can measure the performance of a cable. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> I don't know how to measure a better perceived planes of the "virtual" soundstage, for example.


And again, we are NOT trying to measure your perception, we are measuring the audio performance of a cable. How you perceive that performance is a function of your brain. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> I don't know how to measure a better texture and weight of the tones.


If by texture and weight you mean frequency response and amplitude/level, then we can measure the performance of a cable in respect of these audio properties.

The above indicates that you don’t know what audio actually is, that you don’t know what perception is, and therefore you have no idea which is which. A cable and an audio system just reproduce sound according to what is in the audio signal, what you perceive when you hear that sound is a separate thing which depends on the performance of your ears and the interpretation (perception) of your brain. Do you not know this?

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 5, 2022)

bump


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> We can measure transparency (fidelity) but we can’t measure your perception of transparency. Your perception obviously occurs in you brain, not in a cable.
> 
> Again, we cannot measure your perception but we can measure the performance of a cable.
> 
> ...


This is your point, not mine.

And if you can make your case, in the end, without taking into account the human perception of what you manage to measure = well done.

In relation to what you cannot, or do not know how to measure, you choose to ignore it = that is your choice bro.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> This is your points, not mine.


No, they are NOT my points, they are the “points” proven by science many decades ago. It’s actually very basic science. Again, how do you not know what perception is?


DaveStarWalker said:


> In relation to what you cannot, or do not know how to measure, you choose to ignore


Of course I don’t ignore it, neither does science. Science has been studying the human perception of sound for about 130 years, although it started with Pythagoras over 2,000 years ago. But again, when we measure a cable, we are measuring the performance of the cable, we are not measuring the performance of your hearing or perception! How is that not obvious?


DaveStarWalker said:


> it = that is your choice bro.


It is your choice bro if you want to ignore ALL the basic facts and science but then why would you even come to a Sound Science subforum, let alone post here?

G


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> This is your point, not mine.
> 
> And if you can make your case, in the end, without taking into account the human perception of what you manage to measure = well done.
> 
> In relation to what you cannot, or do not know how to measure, you choose to ignore it = that is your choice bro.


And you ignore the human factor. Just because you perceive something, doesn't mean it exists. That's the whole point. That's what we are all getting at. You and most of the audiophile community are making up these false accusations and placebo effects that do not exist and are scientifically impossible.  You guys do not understand science yet you want the magical foolerly then continually claim that you hear it and that even though science can't explain it or measure it, it exists. And we are the fools and the deluded ones.

It's your brains and eyes that are making you hear a difference. If there were actually a sound difference you could measure it and explain it. Our measuring devices are far better and sensitive than your ears or brain. You refuse to do proper double blind tests or measurements because you can't back up any of your claims with any real facts or real evidence. This is the sound science forum where facts and science have to be backed up with evidence, testing, theory, proof, not audiophile myth and lore hearing is believing and just trust me Bro.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> Yep. Room acoustics and speaker/listener position matters the most. The come speakers and headphones. Then analog signal sources.


Two out of three ain't bad I guess.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> And you ignore the human factor. Just because you perceive something, doesn't mean it exists. That's the whole point. That's what we are all getting at. You and most of the audiophile community are making up these false accusations and placebo effects that do not exist and are scientifically impossible.  You guys do not understand science yet you want the magical foolerly then continually claim that you hear it and that even though science can't explain it or measure it, it exists. And we are the fools and the deluded ones.
> 
> It's your brains and eyes that are making you hear a difference. If there were actually a sound difference you could measure it and explain it. Our measuring devices are far better and sensitive than your ears or brain. You refuse to do proper double blind tests or measurements because you can't back up any of your claims with any real facts or real evidence. This is the sound science forum where facts and science have to be backed up with evidence, testing, theory, proof, not audiophile myth and lore hearing is believing and just trust me Bro.


No, this is you that ignore the human factor, not me ! You are reversing the situation...

We are giving to you (impersonal pronoun) some pragmatic elements, and you invariably reply "measures".

*The human factor is irreducible.*

Unless you are not a human being. Sorry. 

Circular discussion.


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> Altering the channel separation can degrade or improve the soundstage depending on many other things.


Soundstage is created in the mix and monitored on speakers. If you have a multitrack master to mix yourself, perhaps you can  improve the soundstage beyond what the original artists and engineers created. That happens with some remix/remasters. But if you are working with a  commercial recording that is in stereo, it is either accurate and true to the intent of the people who created and designed the soundstage because of high fidelity, or it isn't because your system has degraded the channel separation or introduced noise. You can add reverb or phase tricks yourself if you want, but that isn't fidelity to the source.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 5, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> ... as in the fact of not hearing anything... 😅


...or perhaps you aren't saying anything.

There is no such thing as "better" transparency. Transparency means that the fidelity of the sound exceeds the human ear's ability to hear it. It is audibly perfect fidelity. How can you possibly have something that sounds "better" than perfect?

The answer is to add your own coloration... noise, eq imbalances, distortion... All of that is perfectly OK if you like it. It may be "better" for you, but it isn't high fidelity. Whenever I talk about home audio, I'm talking about audible fidelity. Nothing else matters to the readers on the internet, because personal taste in coloration is pure solipsism. It doesn't apply to anyone else. Fidelity is for everyone.

You can come in this forum and discuss your personal impressions and tastes, but it is completely meaningless to us. Don't be surprised if we dismiss your tastes out of hand. We are focused on fidelity here.


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> No, this is you that ignore the human factor, not me ! You are reversing the situation...
> 
> We are giving to you (impersonal pronoun) some pragmatic elements, and you invariably reply "measures".
> 
> ...


You really don't get it. Your eyes, ears, and brain lie to you all the time. Many industries including the medical field, TV, movie, food,and music industry use this every day to alter the perception of the consumer. They fool the consumer both in advertising as well as in the industry for their primary uses. If it wasn't for the ability to fool the senses these industries would not be booming.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> No, this is you that ignore the human factor, not me !


That’s nonsense, don’t you realise that a cable doesn’t have a “human factor”? A cable is just a metal wire with some isolation/protection, there are not lots of little humans inside a cable. And, we are NOT ignoring the human factor, it’s your “human factor” (perception) which is causing you to perceive an audible difference where there isn’t one.


DaveStarWalker said:


> The human factor is irreducible.


Again, utter nonsense! Of course it’s reducible what do you think science has been studying for 130 years?


DaveStarWalker said:


> Unless you are not a human being. Sorry.


Exactly and you should be sorry! You are a human being aren’t you? If so, then you are subject to perceptual biases and errors the same as all other human beings.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> That’s nonsense, don’t you realise that a cable doesn’t have a “human factor”? A cable is just a metal wire with some isolation/protection, there are not lots of little humans inside a cable. And, we are NOT ignoring the human factor, it’s your “human factor” (perception) which is causing you to perceive an audible difference where there isn’t one.
> 
> Again, utter nonsense! Of course it’s reducible what do you think science has been studying for 130 years?
> 
> ...


Ok,

End of the discussion for me.

Circular non arguments. 

Just : two sitting intellectuals don't get as far as a walking idiot. 

Good continuation


----------



## bigshot

I like it when people have placebo devices listed in their sig file!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> You really don't get it. Your eyes, ears, and brain lie to you all the time. Many industries including the medical field, TV, movie, food,and music industry use this every day to alter the perception of the consumer. They fool the consumer both in advertising as well as in the industry for their primary uses. If it wasn't for the ability to fool the senses these industries would not be booming.


Are you a Buddhist? This is a real question.

Do you have children ?

If so, is your love real or fictional ?

If it's real, can you measure it ?

Prove me that you love your children, please ?

Do you understand the meaning of these questions ?

These are real questions, not rhetorical questions.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> I like it when people have placebo devices listed in their sig file!


Me too.


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 5, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Are you a Buddhist? This is a real question.
> 
> Do you have children ?
> 
> ...


Lmao this has nothing to do with this. Yes I have a daughter and I love her. My love is the willingness of putting her life above and beyond my life. it's always putting her life first. The willingness to lay my life down in the need of her life if need be to save and protect her life. that is what what true love is.  to ultimately put someone's else's life above and beyond your life no matter what even if that might include risking your life to save theirs. I am a combat veteran with multiple tours to combat. I have no issues with protecting my daughter or with my idea what true love is.

This has no relevance to cable science or your ridiculous ideas of what you are experiencing or lack of understanding of placebo or how to test cables.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Circular non arguments.


Again, exactly! So why are you making circular non arguments? There is no rational argument that humans have perceptual biases. You are ignoring this obvious, proven fact and making the false circular argument that if you perceive something it must be real. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Just : two sitting intellectuals don't get as far as a walking idiot.


Two “sitting intellectuals” get a great deal further than an idiot walking in the wrong direction!


DaveStarWalker said:


> [1] If so, is your love real or fictional ?
> [2] If it's real, can you measure it ?
> [3] Prove me that you love your children, please ?


1. Love is an emotion caused by a biochemical reaction in your brain. In that sense it’s real. 
2. Yes, we can measure a difference in brain activity, other biological responses and behaviour when interacting with those we love compared to strangers. 
3. Of course we can, our behaviour and biological responses are quite different towards our children than towards strangers. 

How on earth do you not know the above and how on earth do you not know that a cable does not have any of these human biological responses?


DaveStarWalker said:


> Do you understand the meaning of these questions ?


We do but you apparently don’t!

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 5, 2022)

For myself, I don't see a reason to answer posts that are profoundly pointless. It just draws attention to them... and the person who is parading around trying to draw attention to themselves. It just encourages the forum to become a fashion show of stupid. But I understand that some folks are compelled to answer each and every comment made.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> For myself, I don't see a reason to answer posts that are profoundly pointless.


Because it’s not profoundly pointless. In fact, the failure to understand the basic proven fact that the perception and the reality of sound are two different things is at the root of nearly every audiophile myth and false claim. On an audiophile website, it is therefore the opposite of “profoundly pointless”, it’s profoundly important!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> Lmao this has nothing to do with this. Yes I have a daughter and I live her. My love is the willingness of putting her life above and beyond my life. it's always putting her life first. The willingness to lay my life down in the need of her life if need be to save and protect her life. that is what what true love is.  to ultimately put someone's else's life above and beyond your life no matter what even if that might include risking your life to save theirs. I am a combat veteran with multiple tours to combat. I have no issues with protecting my daughter or with my idea what true love is.
> 
> This has no relevance to cable science or your ridiculous ideas of what you are experiencing or lack of understanding of placebo or how to test cables.



"Ridiculous". The term is yours. Just a note in passing. Invective is never an argument. 📝🙄

Thanks for your no answer. Clearly, you haven't understand the purpose of these issues. 😉

QED 👍


----------



## bigshot (Sep 5, 2022)

This discussion is INCREDIBLY pointless.

Maybe this stimulates discussion like that AES paper?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> "Ridiculous". The term is yours.


No it’s not, “ridiculous” is a widely used term defined by dictionaries and it’s an entirely appropriate term in this case because you are making a nonsense equivalence!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Invective is never an argument.


Then why have you used invective?


DaveStarWalker said:


> Thanks for your no answer.


You have been provided with an answer. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Clearly, you haven't understand the purpose of these issues.


The purpose is to deflect from the actual issue, the audio performance of cables, unless you are seriously claiming that cables have human perception/responses?

G


----------



## chef8489

gregorio said:


> No it’s not, “ridiculous” is a widely used term defined by dictionaries and it’s an entirely appropriate term in this case because you are making a nonsense equivalence!
> 
> Then why have you used invective?
> 
> ...


This is all they do just like on that other thread I posted in. Deflect with no answers and attack. I post answer and of course nothing but deflection. These discussions get so vapid and feeble.  I should expect nothing more. Happens every time.


----------



## bigshot

“Ridiculous, vapid and feeble!” - Gene Shallet


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Excellent film the Feebles


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Soundstage is created in the mix and monitored on speakers.


What would be the point of adjusting the channel separation of a recording that has its soundstage carefully created for speakers? Only one purpose comes to my mind: Adjusting the channel separation for headphones to get good virtual soundstage.



bigshot said:


> If you have a multitrack master to mix yourself, perhaps you can  improve the soundstage beyond what the original artists and engineers created.


Possibly...



bigshot said:


> That happens with some remix/remasters. But if you are working with a  commercial recording that is in stereo, it is either accurate and true to the intent of the people who created and designed the soundstage because of high fidelity, or it isn't because your system has degraded the channel separation or introduced noise. You can add reverb or phase tricks yourself if you want, but that isn't fidelity to the source.


My system doesn't degraded the channel separation or introduced noise audibly when I listen to speakers. When I listen to headphones, the channel separation is reduced with cross-feed to get better virtual soundstage except for about 2 % of my stereo recordings which have such soundstage created that it happens to give good virtual soundstage as it is.


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> How many people are using 4 Ohm speakers as rear speakers and if you are using such speakers and have a long cable run, 22Awg speaker cable is the wrong cable for the job. You should be using at least 16Awg and possibly even lower.
> 
> G


Can you give here some specific numbers: at which length, the switch from one gauge to another gauge needs to be done, and based on which components of the impedances of other circuit elements? 
Using your phrasing, "give some concrete evidence" instead of repeating that science knows this and that for hundred, etc. years.
The dichotomy of "proper" & "not proper" " for the job" does not cut here.

You seem to cling to science as  your imaginary ultimate weapon, akin of religion to inquisition. As evident with AES, you sorely miss that scientists are real people, as @71 dB correctly pointed out (and these AES publications are just the very top of the iceberg); and, more fundamentally, that most of the laws of science are formated based on multiple simplifying assumptions, so it is commonly much more instructive (and much harder) to understand the limitations of the laws evoking critical thinking rather than to succumb to "wisdom regurgitation".

Now, to the commonly promulgated here mantra of illusion/delusion of "transparency".

Surely, the cables can be transparent, and I hope you will demostrate us how not so simple the "simple numbers" can be.

Much further from this " simplicity" are the active circuit elements. For instance, commonly cited here is the fact that transducers are far from "perfect".
By the same token, detectors are far from perfect as well, for they are built based on the same scientific principles. So for the acoustic music, starting from Edison, there is only some semblance of recordings to real sound with different degrees of approaching the original in some aspects or other. After all, mostly two points of the 3-D wavefronts are sampled imperfectly: the very least, distortions on the microphone interfaces are inevitable and significant, especially at the highest frequencies/energies. 

So recordings are quite similar to canned fruits vs. real ones. The former can be very tasty and preserve some aspects of taste, often with different  taste enhancements and inevitable limitations. Delivering these canned fruits "perfect"/transparent does not make much practical sense, if to think about it.

With such limitations of recordings, limitations/distortions of dac, amps, transducers can be  naturally viewed as un-canning the sound, and ultimately it should just suit the tastes of end users.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Yes. Ultimate simplification. Totally agree. 

It has a name = reductionism.


----------



## SpeakerBox

I like Mr. Pass's assessment of the cable situation: https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil/

"The final judgement belongs to the user".


----------



## bigshot

Reducing separation degrades the soundstage built into the mix. Crossfeed for headphones is a form of coloration that is a personal preference. It isn’t fidelity.


----------



## 71 dB

PhonoPhi said:


> Can you give here some specific numbers: at which length, the switch from one gauge to another gauge needs to be done, and based on which components of the impedances of other circuit elements?


In SI units (I don't live in the backward parts of the World not using SI units)

*Min. impedance* 8 Ω    6 Ω   4 Ω    3 Ω    2 Ω    1 Ω*
2 x 0.75 mm²    10 m   8 m   5 m    4 m    2.5 m  1.3 m 
2 x 1.0 mm²     14 m   10 m  7 m    5 m    3.5 m  1.7 m 
2 x 1.5 mm²     21 m   16 m  10 m   8 m    5 m    2.6 m 
2 x 2.5 mm²     35 m   26 m  17 m   13 m   8.5 m  4.4 m
2 x 4 mm²       56 m   42 m  28 m   21 m   14 m   7 m

* If not known, 75 % of the nominal impedance


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Reducing separation degrades the soundstage built into the mix. Crossfeed for headphones is a form of coloration that is a personal preference. It isn’t fidelity.


Sorry, but excessive spatiality is NOT fidelity for me regardless of what the artists intended. I don't suffer that crap.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Can you give here some specific numbers: at which length, the switch from one gauge to another gauge needs to be done


http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 5, 2022)

71 dB said:


> In SI units (I don't live in the backward parts of the World not using SI units)
> 
> *Min. impedance* 8 Ω    6 Ω   4 Ω    3 Ω    2 Ω    1 Ω*
> 2 x 0.75 mm²    10 m   8 m   5 m    4 m    2.5 m  1.3 m
> ...


SI is great. For the powerful speakers, one can't ignore the indictance of speakers, and commonly the output limitation of the amps, which can be both current and voltage transients, and also linked to their capacitance, but not always.


gregorio said:


> http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#wiretable
> 
> G


https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil/

PhPh


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> PhPh


Or try Wikipedia.

G


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> Or try Wikipedia.
> 
> G


Specific points/numbers vs. general information & regurgitation.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Specific points/numbers vs. general information & regurgitation.


There are specific points and numbers, and in science we call “regurgitation” referencing. 

G


----------



## PhonoPhi

gregorio said:


> There are specific points and numbers, and in science we call “regurgitation” referencing.
> 
> G


References support the arguments and discussion in scientific papers. The practice of using references alone is weak and unacceptable - look at how scientific papers are written.


----------



## gregorio

You asked for the facts/figures, I provided you with reliable 2 sources, one of which was particularly detailed and now you’re bleating about it.

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 5, 2022)

gregorio said:


> You asked for the facts/figures, I provided you with reliable 2 sources, one of which was particularly detailed and now you’re bleating about it.
> 
> G


You've  only shown that you can find some potentially relevant references, not your understanding. Sorry, these are the clear facts, whatever your sentiments may be. After all, your personal sentiments are not scientific facts and are not able to compensate for the lack of the scientific rigor.


----------



## KeithPhantom

PhonoPhi said:


> References support the arguments and discussion in scientific papers. The practice of using references alone is weak and unacceptable


In that case, you are implying for him to produce new research. Defending a point does not producing need new scientific knowledge to be produced, referencing is enough as long as it is the null hypothesis.


PhonoPhi said:


> look at how scientific papers are written.


Scientific paper on the topic. 


PhonoPhi said:


> https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/speaker-cables-science-or-snake-oil/


The references in this article are shaky at best, there are many references to marketing materials and non-scientific magazines.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> After all, your personal sentiments are not scientific facts and are not able to compensate for the lack of the scientific rigor.


Wikipedia and the other source I provided are obviously not my personal sentiments. Please explain how/where both those sources are wrong, or stop bleating!

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 5, 2022)

Wow, the demands to explain what is "wrong" with sources instead of providing some specific numbers. Wrong is the lack of ability to discuss scientifically, while pretending to be a crusaider for science...
I will leave your guys to your common hobby of "tribal troll hunt". Bye.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Wow, the demands to explain what is "wrong" instead of providing some specific numbers.


Wow, the demands for providing specific numbers when you’ve ALREADY been provided with specific numbers in two separate sources, with measurements and references, and still you’re still bleating about it!


PhonoPhi said:


> I will leave your guys …


If you’re not even going to read what you yourself have asked for, then an apology or “leaving us guys” is the only logical course of action!

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 6, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Sorry, but excessive spatiality is NOT fidelity for me regardless of what the artists intended. I don't suffer that crap.


And I never said you couldn't alter or color your sound to your personal taste. But a recording is a recording, and you want a system to be able to present it properly. If soundstage is your priority, that is best done with speakers, Headphones aren't capable of properly presenting soundstage. They're fine for most other aspects of sound reproduction and they're more convenient. If those things are your priority, just put a band aid on the soundstage if you want and focus on what works.

I wish I had a nickel for every time phonophi left this forum for good. He's a good one to put on ignore. Nothing of any value there.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> And I never said you couldn't alter or color your sound to your personal taste.


My personal taste is that the spatiality is at least in the _ball park_ of human spatial hearing. That's when my spatial hearing is able to create some kind a virtual/miniature soundstage that makes sense from the spatial cues of the recording. 



bigshot said:


> But a recording is a recording, and you want a system to be able to present it properly.


A recording mixed for speakers is played back properly with speakers. If I use headphones, the recording doesn't play back properly for my ears except in rare cases when the recording happens to be headphone compatible unless a binaural type of transformation to the spatiality is done.

A multichannel recording is played back properly with a multichannel speaker system. If it is played on a stereo speaker system, it has to be down-mixed to stereo.

Technically digital audio makes it possible to have 100 % independent audio channels, but for human hearing 100 % independency doesn't make much sense. It is natural to have correlation between channels. Spatial information gets encoded into that correlation. In order to transfer maximal amount of spatial information to the listener spatial entropy must be maximized. Stereo mono (100 % channel correlation L = R) minimises spatial entropy. So does having totally unrelated signals on the channels (0 % correlation) Ping Pong stereo has got a tiny tiny bit of spatial information (is the sound on the left or on the right?) but that's it. 

To maximize spatial entropy for human ears in stereo sound the two audio channels must be correlated in ways that honour human spatial hearing. Speakers + room acoustics change the correlation while headphones don't change anything (apart from tiny bit of acoustic leaking which is quite insignificant). That's why maximizing spatial information for both speakers AND headphones is quite a challenge. Recordings are mostly created for speakers which means spatial entropy is near maximised if not maximised for speakers while not even close to maximised for headphones (channel correlation is too low).






In the middle where the red and blue curves intersect is the optimal compromise between speaker spatiality and headphone spatiality, but the spatial entropy isn't at it's maximum. However, the channel correlation axis is just the correlation, but it doesn't identify HOW the correlation was created! There are infinite ways to create the same amount of correlation! So, the red and blue curves are actually infinite-dimensional objects which intersect each other on a infinite minus one (still infinite) dimensional object. The question is: What is the maximum spatial entropy on that infinite dimensional intersection object and how big is it? This is a relevant question in exploring how well recordings could theoretically be optimised for both speakers and headphones in regards of spatiality.



bigshot said:


> If soundstage is your priority, that is best done with speakers,


Yes. While soundstage is high on the priority list, there are other things such as not disturbing neighbours. Speakers also have the tendency of forcing the listener to be on the listening sweet spot while even cabled headphones give the same sound even not matter where you are.



bigshot said:


> Headphones aren't capable of properly presenting soundstage.


Theoretically headphones are capable, but in practise it is VERY difficult. It requires perfect binaural sound with head tracking respecting ones HRTF. However, virtual/miniature soundstage, for my ears at least, require only cross-feed. So, the difference of speaker and headphone soundstage is that for the former it has been reality for decades whereas for the latter it is kind of a technological promise of the future that may or may not became reality (for all people. At the moment such solutions are very expensive).



bigshot said:


> They're fine for most other aspects of sound reproduction and they're more convenient. If those things are your priority, just put a band aid on the soundstage if you want and focus on what works.


Pretty much everything matters more or less so I can't take just one thing, say soundstage and give it 100 % priority over everything else. Early in the evening I tend to use loudspeakers, because I feel I am "allowed" to disturb my neighbours a little but at that time, but around 9 pm I move to headphones, because blasting out my speakers that late just feels wrong. Bass is the problem with sound insulation. Above 200 Hz or so the sound insulation is pretty good, but at bass it is not. I can clearly hear kick drum + bass line of trap tracks from a neighbour sometimes.



bigshot said:


> I wish I had a nickel for every time phonophi left this forum for good. He's a good one to put on ignore. Nothing of any value there.


Just leaving a forum is okay. Nobody has to be here, but to DECLARE it sounds childish.


----------



## bigshot

Neighbors aren’t on my priority list. They are distortion and noise that is best eliminated!


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Neighbors aren’t on my priority list. They are distortion and noise that is best eliminated!


Your neighbours must really love you!

In where I live people can be evicted for disturbing neighbours too much. I much rather suffer from less than optimal soundstage at nighttime than be evicted!


----------



## bigshot

When I lived in an apartment, I specifically searched for one that had only one shared wall and parking below. I could do pretty much anything I wanted to do. Now my theater in in the back end of the house with back yards all around. Not having neighbor problems has always been my priority!


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> When I lived in an apartment, I specifically searched for one that had only one shared wall and parking below. I could do pretty much anything I wanted to do. Now my theater in in the back end of the house with back yards all around. Not having neighbor problems has always been my priority!


That's nice for you. Most people have to search for roof above their head they can afford or is reasonably located in respect of other things.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Neighbors aren’t on my priority list. They are distortion and noise that is best eliminated!


Why I am not surprised ?! 😂😅🤣


----------



## orion1973

bigshot said:


> Neighbors aren’t on my priority list. They are distortion and noise that is best eliminated!


I took my 12 inch 3 way KLH floor standing speakers (can’t remember the model) and Technics SA (something or other number) stereo receiver to college with me back in the early 90s. My RA and campus police hated me…


----------



## castleofargh

Yet another proof that cables make a difference, from NASA discussing some of the wiring on the Parker probe:



> To solve this problem, the team grew sapphire crystal tubes to suspend the wiring, and made the wires from niobium.


Never mind what problem, what's important is that sapphire insulation and noobium wires solved it. Checkmate whomever claimed that cables didn't matter.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Lol 😂😅👉🤘


----------



## bigshot

All my cables are 99.99% pure unobtanium!


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> All my cables are 99.99% pure unobtanium!


Are you planning to upgrade to 99.995 % pure unobtanium?


----------



## BobG55

71 dB said:


> Are you planning to upgrade to 99.995 % pure unobtanium?


I did, from 99.99%.  Huge difference in sound, I couldn‘t believe it.  Details and soundstage is to die for.  All worth it & more. 😏


----------



## bigshot

71 dB said:


> Are you planning to upgrade to 99.995 % pure unobtanium?


Only if my pet bat asks me to.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 9, 2022)

bigshot said:


> All my cables are 99.99% pure unobtanium!


Me too, but it's not cheap !   

But... about the dielectric ?....


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Only if my pet bat asks me to.


So the_ real_ audiophile in your household is your pet bat?


----------



## 71 dB

BobG55 said:


> I did, from 99.99%.  Huge difference in sound, I couldn‘t believe it.  Details and soundstage is to die for.  All worth it & more. 😏


I bet you are waiting for the 99.997 % pure unobtanium to come out to the market!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> So the_ real_ audiophile in your household is your pet bat?


Normal.

Batman has a lot of money.   

And fancy cars, hifi, house... 

And knows real tech.


----------



## bigshot

My dog prefers sacds


----------



## DaveStarWalker

And Catwoman ?


----------



## Chris Kaoss

DaveStarWalker said:


> And Catwoman ?


Not taking part of the audiophilia.   
Almost as usual. ^^


----------



## BobG55

71 dB said:


> I bet you are waiting for the 99.997 % pure unobtanium to come out to the market!


You’re kidding ????   Is there really one out ???   Don’t toy with an audiofool now … 😏


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 9, 2022)

Real audiophiliac grades of unobtanium are 6N and 7N -  only those products are deservedly blessed to glorify your ears.*

*Monetary sacrifices may be duly required


----------



## 71 dB

BobG55 said:


> You’re kidding ????   Is there really one out ???   Don’t toy with an audiofool now … 😏


I heard rumours the engineers at Industrial Snakes And Oil have reached 99,996 % and expect to get to 99,997 % by 2025!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Oil = prices increase... 😒😬


----------



## arijitroy2

This thread is about debunking cable in this hobby, while the other thread one person claimed to have heard some improvements changing his sdcard, and 2-3 people followed suit buying them. What is happening! 😂


----------



## chef8489

arijitroy2 said:


> This thread is about debunking cable in this hobby, while the other thread one person claimed to have heard some improvements changing his sdcard, and 2-3 people followed suit buying them. What is happening! 😂


That's hilarious. The only reason to upgrade your sd card is for size or for transfer speeds. It has nothing to do with sound quality on a digital file.


----------



## Strat1117

In addition to bring ridiculously emotional about a distinctly unimportant ‘issue’ (seriously, who cares?), you gentlemen seem to be conflating the question of whether or not cables can make a difference (they absolutely can) with the question of whether or not high end cable prices are fair and reasonable (not so much). But they are two manifestly different and mostly unrelated questions, and until you separate one from the other, the whole discussion is intellectually dishonest and, perforce, utterly futile.

Worst thread on head-fi.


----------



## chef8489

Strat1117 said:


> In addition to bring ridiculously emotional about a distinctly unimportant ‘issue’ (seriously, who cares?), you gentlemen seem to be conflating the question of whether or not cables can make a difference (they absolutely can) with the question of whether or not high end cable prices are fair and reasonable (not so much). But they are two manifestly different and mostly unrelated questions, and until you separate one from the other, the whole discussion is intellectually dishonest and, perforce, utterly futile.
> 
> Worst thread on head-fi.


So explain how a digital usb cable can change the sound characteristics such as bass , treble, or soundstage of a song when so sound is traveling through it.


----------



## Strat1117 (Sep 10, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> So explain how a digital usb cable can change the sound characteristics such as bass , treble, or soundstage of a song when so sound is traveling through it.


That’s a foolish question, as it pertains to one type of wire only. Tell me, do you think cheap lamp cord sounds identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution two channel stereo system?


----------



## 71 dB

Strat1117 said:


> Tell me, do you think cheap lamp cord sounds identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution two channel stereo system?


Yes, a cheap lamp cord _can_ sound identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution system.


----------



## 71 dB

Strat1117 said:


> You gentlemen seem to be conflating the question of whether or not cables can make a difference (they absolutely can) with the question of whether or not high end cable prices are fair and reasonable (not so much). But they are two manifestly different and mostly unrelated questions, and until you separate one from the other, the whole discussion is intellectually dishonest and, perforce, utterly futile.
> 
> Worst thread on head-fi.


Cables can make a difference if you make them do that. If you use too thin or long cable with speakers for example, the cable can change the performance of whole system so much that it is audible, but typically this is not an issue for most people/speakers and cheap default speaker cable costing 1-2 dollars per meter will give audibly transparent sound.


----------



## Strat1117 (Sep 10, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Yes, a cheap lamp cord _can_ sound identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution system.


Yes, it _can_. But it _can_ also sound different. Thus, the point is made. Your thread is not about whether cables can or can’t make any substantive differences - you’ve just admitted that they can - it is about subjective value and, therefore, a useless waste of time, invested with far too much emotion (particularly by the ASSR types).

I repeat. WORST thread on head-fi.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Yes, a cheap lamp cord _can_ sound identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution system.


I have tried that... 

Sorry but no. 😞🙁


----------



## bigshot (Sep 10, 2022)

It's really simple. A cable that is the wrong wire for the job, or is defective by manufacture or design can degrade the sound. But a fancy cable can't improve the sound over an inexpensive cable that is properly working.

The rule of thumb is, don't buy an expensive cable, buy the right cable. Thankfully, almost all of the cables sold for home audio are decent. I have Chinese interconnects that sound just fine. The coat hanger test shows that even a coat hanger is audibly transparent.

Cables are not an issue worth worrying about. There are much more important issues.


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> I have tried that...
> 
> Sorry but no. 😞🙁


Did you do a proper blind listening test removing the effects of placebo? If not then your testimony means nothing.


----------



## 71 dB

Strat1117 said:


> you’ve just admitted that they can -


I try to be intellectually honest. It means I admit things when there is something to admit.

If a cheap lamp cord makes an audible difference the next step is to use double wiring to halve the impedance. This trick might reduce the difference to inaudible level and it is cheap because we are talking about cheap lamp cord.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> It's really simple. A cable that is the wrong wire for the job, or is defective by manufacture or design can degrade the sound. But a fancy cable can't improve the sound over an inexpensive cable that is properly working.
> 
> The rule of thumb is, don't buy an expensive cable, buy the right cable. Thankfully, almost all of the cables sold for home audio are decent. I have Chinese interconnects that sound just fine. The coat hanger test shows that even a coat hanger is audibly transparent.
> 
> Cables are not an issue worth worrying about. There are much more important issues.


I don't always agree with you 100 %, but You shine in posts like this.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Did you do a proper blind listening test removing the effects of placebo? If not then your testimony means nothing.


I have done several ABX tests.

Great waste of time. 😭⌚🙄

The only method that works: get your hearing used to a certain restitution, calibrate it over a period of time. Then change. Here the differences are clearly audible. 👍


----------



## bigshot

If an ABX test is a waste of time, you did it wrong.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

This is the best way to avoid seeing an elephant in a hallway...😭😞


----------



## bigshot

Whatever that means. I'm sure your comments have meaning for you. I don't understand half of them. I think it's because English isn't your native language.


----------



## toni2068

DaveStarWalker said:


> The only method that works: get your hearing used to a certain restitution, calibrate it over a period of time. Then change. Here the differences are clearly audible. 👍


wait, if it's the same sound either way then how could there be a clearly audible change?


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 10, 2022)

toni2068 said:


> wait, if it's the same sound either way then how could there be a clearly audible change?


Because it isn't. 95%😉

But if it's the same, then the cheapest gear is the best choice. 

I have already related in this topic this case, or sort of, about iem cables. The cheapest was the best among all the cables I have auditionned, for one of my iem's. 

Not only the cheapest, but the better. 

I am a 100% pragmatic guy. 

Simple, easy. 👍


----------



## PhonoPhi

DaveStarWalker said:


> Because it isn't. 95%😉
> 
> But if it's the same, then the cheapest gear is the best choice.
> 
> ...


The signicant limitation of this "pragmatic" approach is the lack of the objective definition of "pragmaticity".

Two similar jewelry pieces, one with diamond and another with cubic zirconia (CZ) can shine comparatively "better" depending on lighting, individual prefences for fire, dispersion, perceived value, etc. Choosing between two just based on the look/shine without knowing relevant physical parameters and proper valuations can be quite perilous.

"Perception" of IEM cables as currently discussed by "audiophiles" does not deal with any tangible physical parameters that can be measured, quantified and discussed.

To the contrary, any mentioning of "double blind tests" leads to immediate comments that it is against the rules, and usually personal attacks follow to get all these comments removed.

Then anyone can claim anything, well almost anything, that would be another story...

My (limited in terms of never buying any kilobuck cables, but having few tens of decent balanced cables based on their colour and weaving aesthetics, and also comparing and measuring quite a bit with several low-impedance multi-BA IEMs) experience is that with a good source (and portable sources are often limited), IEM cables hardly matter beyond some high-resistance stock cables.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 10, 2022)

Unfortunately, ears can't be calibrated. They are all over the place, adjusting for imbalances and volume changes. They can even adjust for how we feel. There's no one way ears hear, they're subject to the effects of bias perceptual error. That's why we calibrate with measurements and tests designed to eliminate bias and perceptual error, not subjective impressions.

Also, you can't be sure that the cable is responsible for a difference in sound without calibrating the rest of the chain to match. Volume differences can make a huge difference even with two cables that are identical.

You know all this I'm sure. You just don't want to admit it. On top of that, you're speaking for your own benefit without regard for your reader. When you do that, you waste everyone's time and make it unprofitable to communicate with you.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

PhonoPhi said:


> The signicant limitation of this "pragmatic" approach is the lack of the objective definition of "pragmaticity".
> 
> Two similar jewelry pieces, one with diamond and another with cubic zirconia (CZ) can shine comparatively "better" depending on lighting, individual prefences for fire, dispersion, perceived value, etc. Choosing between two just based on the look/shine without knowing relevant physical parameters and proper valuations can be quite perilous.
> 
> ...


You know,

There are only to manners to live :

Do things,
Don't do things.

That's all. 😉


----------



## bigshot

x


----------



## PhonoPhi

DaveStarWalker said:


> You know,
> 
> There are only to manners to live :
> 
> ...


Chacun voit midi à sa porte.


----------



## chef8489

Strat1117 said:


> That’s a foolish question, as it pertains to one type of wire only. Tell me, do you think cheap lamp cord sounds identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution two channel stereo system?


Then show the measurements and science why speaker cables would make a difference. Why interconnects would make a difference. You are coming to the sound science forums making claims so its time to back up those claims with  measurements and science.  Dont deflect like you just did. you provide data and actual scientific proof that contradicts the science that professional  studios,  audio engineers and sound engineers have been using for decades. Show me why home equipment magically is so different than pro studio and touring equipment that they need this audiophile equipment. Yet the stuff used to record the sound is usually cheap standard cables.


----------



## bigshot

A friend of mine does PA systems for live shows, everything from clubs up to outdoor amphitheaters. He was doing a show out of town at a community amphitheater, and when he got there, he realized his assistants had left one of his speaker cable bundles behind. There was no time to go back for it, so he sent his assistant to a Home Depot with his credit card and told him to buy a whole spindle of lamp cord- the stuff they roll off and sell by the foot. He rolled the big spindle out from his board to the stage and taped it down. He was expecting to have to do a lot of corrections to get the sides to match, but he found it was very close. He did the whole show and no one noticed.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> A friend of mine does PA systems for live shows, everything from clubs up to outdoor amphitheaters. He was doing a show out of town at a community amphitheater, and when he got there, he realized his assistants had left one of his speaker cable bundles behind. There was no time to go back for it, so he sent his assistant to a Home Depot with his credit card and told him to buy a whole spindle of lamp cord- the stuff they roll off and sell by the foot. He rolled the big spindle out from his board to the stage and taped it down. He was expecting to have to do a lot of corrections to get the sides to match, but he found it was very close. He did the whole show and no one noticed.


Should we say assistants make a bigger difference than cables?


----------



## bigshot

From then on, it was old cables and new assistant!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

PhonoPhi said:


> Chacun voit midi à sa porte.


Au delà de parler, le tout c'est de faire. 👌😎👍


----------



## bigshot

Mes tétons explosent de plaisir.


----------



## Chris Kaoss

bigshot said:


> Mes tétons explosent de plaisir.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Mes tétons explosent de plaisir.


Pics please? 😍


----------



## BobG55

DaveStarWalker said:


> Pics please? 😍


De grâce non !  Personnellement je peux m’en passer. 🤣


----------



## DaveStarWalker

BobG55 said:


> De grâce non !  Personnellement je peux m’en passer. 🤣


La pression est retombée. 😞😅😉


----------



## r343

Almost wanted to be cable believer until moment i plugged Amazons ~10$ cable to left cup, 200$ dollar custom cable to right cup of Hifiman Arya and plugged both to Violectric V200 amplifier which has 2 outputs working simultaneously with same specs and volume control, sound was exactly same with either of those cables or combined operation.


----------



## BobG55

r343 said:


> Almost wanted to be cable believer until moment i plugged Amazons ~10$ cable to left cup, 200$ dollar custom cable to right cup of Hifiman Arya and plugged both to Violectric V200 amplifier which has 2 outputs working simultaneously with same specs and volume control, sound was exactly same with either of those cables or combined operation.


I had a similar experience a couple of years ago.  Mine was with all copper, $300 CDN RCA cables and also the Amazon ones.  I bought the all copper cables years ago and was still using them until one of the connections fell off.  I had it fixed and the connector on the other wire fell off shortly afterwards.  By this time I had began reading/ perusing, the Sound Science Forum on Head-fi & had begun learning quite a few interesting facts mainly about cables and DACs.

I also ordered my present cables from Amazon and haven’t looked back since.  I don’t come close to understanding the objective measurements or technical jargon employed by some of the regular posters’ comments on this Forum (my brain doesn’t work that way and it’s even harder at my age now) but I know well enough to know well enough and understand basic common sense.  As I’ve posted before on this thread or on another in this Forum, thank God I discovered and perused, read & learned stuff from some of theses members.  It saved me an enormous amount of money.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

r343 said:


> Almost wanted to be cable believer until moment i plugged Amazons ~10$ cable to left cup, 200$ dollar custom cable to right cup of Hifiman Arya and plugged both to Violectric V200 amplifier which has 2 outputs working simultaneously with same specs and volume control, sound was exactly same with either of those cables or combined operation.


So it's easy.

Go with the cheapest cable, as I said.

Simple 👌😎👍


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> Go with the cheapest cable, as I said.


The cheapest may not be the best choice. Instead go with a cable that has been mass-manufactured to do its job well. It may not be the cheapest, but it's often cheap.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> The cheapest may not be the best choice. Instead go with a cable that has been mass-manufactured to do its job well. It may not be the cheapest, but it's often cheap.


Agreed,

But I was said that about r343 own experience, related here.

If he doesn't hear any different, then the cheapest cable is the best choice.


----------



## gregorio

Strat1117 said:


> you gentlemen seem to be conflating the question of whether or not cables can make a difference (they absolutely can) with the question of whether or not high end cable prices are fair and reasonable (not so much).


With absolutely no conditions, then of course cables make a difference: There’s obviously an audible difference between a properly functioning cable and a broken one, between say an optical cable and a speaker cable and typically between say a 1m cable and a 1km cable. Given conditions that should be obvious; that the cables are the right type/specification for the job, are of similar length and are not broken/faulty, then cables do NOT make an audible difference and therefore your two questions can be conflated.


Strat1117 said:


> That’s a foolish question, as it pertains to one type of wire only.


It’s a foolish question in the sense that it cannot be answered rationally but it’s NOT a foolish question here on head-fi because there are numerous threads on claiming exactly those differences with USB cables. Additionally, it does not “_pertain to one type of wire only_”, it pertains to pretty much all digital data cables; Ethernet, optical, etc.


Strat1117 said:


> Tell me, do you think cheap lamp cord sounds identical to high quality, purpose made speaker wire in a high resolution two channel stereo system?


What I or anyone else “thinks” is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that IS relevant are the facts/science demonstrated and explained with reliable evidence. These facts/science cannot rationally be contested due to the complete lack of reliable evidence that there are any audible differences, despite decades and considerable incentives to find some.


DaveStarWalker said:


> I have done several ABX tests.
> Great waste of time.


They are a great waste of time if you’re trying identify a difference due to some placebo effect/bias but then of course, the whole point of ABX tests is to eliminate such biases so that ONLY audible differences can be identified. It’s hard to believe you’ve “done several ABX tests” without realising this most obvious of facts!


DaveStarWalker said:


> The only method that works: get your hearing used to a certain restitution, calibrate it over a period of time.


That method might work if you spent your whole life locked in a single room and never experienced any other listening environment. Again, it should be obvious that situation never occurs! We frequently change listening environments and our hearing frequently re-calibrates itself.

Furthermore, considerable reliable evidence over many years demonstrates that our critical listening compensates for and acclimatises to a particular listening environment over time, rendering any sort of “hearing calibration” arbitrary. See the published works of Floyd Toole for example. 

Due to the above two points, your assertion is false. Unless stringent and atypical conditions are met, then your method doesn’t work at all, let alone is “_the only method that works_”!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

You have forgotten to quote my last message bro 😋😉


----------



## bigshot

Not the cheapest cable. Just get Amazon basics or monoprice. They work great at a reasonable price.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

The cheapest of the two cables which were listened to by r343.   

Pragmatic.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Looks like the thread has stayed the same!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Redcarmoose said:


> Looks like the thread has stayed the same!


Temporal loop...


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 14, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Temporal loop...


The other parts of the HeadFi are surely more entertaining
"Low distortion and dispersion" to the "trained ears of the connoisseurs" of course... As well as hearing the decisive difference betwee silver-plated and pure copper cables (the new twist, curiously entertaining that quite few copper cables are not plated).

Yet, acknowledging that no established criteria exist, the  profound advice is to take your risk and buy wildly 

P. S. Then if one "drops $1k" on a cable, it is hard, and perhaps even psychologically damaging not to totally believe it. So the simple circle here.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 14, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> The other parts of the HeadFi are surely more entertaining
> "Low distortion and dispersion" to the "trained ears of the connoisseurs" of course... As well as hearing the decisive difference betwee silver-plated and pure copper cables (the new twist, curiously entertaining that quite few copper cables are not plated).
> 
> Yet, acknowledging that no established criteria exist, the profound advice is to take your risk and buy wildly
> ...


Honestly? I find this topic by far the most entertaining of all Head-FI. 

Anyway, that's where it speaks the most...  

As far as prices are concerned, it's the other way round : the more expensive it is, the more ruthless I am. A real cow's skin...


----------



## Redcarmoose

What about under $50.00?


PhonoPhi said:


> The other parts of the HeadFi are surely more entertaining
> "Low distortion and dispersion" to the "trained ears of the connoisseurs" of course... As well as hearing the decisive difference betwee silver-plated and pure copper cables (the new twist, curiously entertaining that quite few copper cables are not plated).
> 
> Yet, acknowledging that no established criteria exist, the  profound advice is to take your risk and buy wildly
> ...


https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/penon-pac480-iem-cable.25228/reviews#review-28808


----------



## PhonoPhi

Redcarmoose said:


> What about under $50.00?
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/penon-pac480-iem-cable.25228/reviews#review-28808


Still great profit margins sustaining and being sustained by paid-in-kind promotions (?)

I have inquired with several major cable sellers, asking to explain the difference and parameters improved by their cables. I was ready to accept semi-scientific, even quarter-scientific evidence/arguments.
Yet, their main response was: "many hear the difference", so here we are - exactly like described in a good old tale.

P. S. I worked on my ability to imagine the difference, and my blue cables are decisively the best, right at the cost justified by ergonomics and materials.
No words can describe what and how I am able to hear, visualize and experience with those cables!


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 14, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> Still great profit margins sustaining and being sustained by paid-in-kind promotions (?)
> 
> I have inquired with several major cable sellers, asking to explain the difference and parameters improved by their cables. I was ready to accept semi-scientific, even quarter-scientific evidence/arguments.
> Yet, their main response was: "many hear the difference", so here we are - exactly like described in a good old tale.
> ...


Precisely, this does not have to be worked on. Either you hear differences or you don't.

If it's no = don't insist. Case closed.

If it's yes = then you have to work on it, to understand these differences, and determine which marriages are the bests.

Prices (depending on your budget, of course), esthetics, are not in balance. Just performances.

Performance = what's best fit your gears together.

Important though, essential even = ergonomics.


----------



## bigshot

If yes, make sure that expectation bias and perceptual error aren’t making you think you hear a difference that doesn’t exist. Don’t assume that your personal hearing is infallible and definitive.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 14, 2022)

bigshot said:


> If yes, make sure that expectation bias and perceptual error aren’t making you think you hear a difference that doesn’t exist. Don’t assume that your personal hearing is infallible and definitive.


Okay. But the opposite is also true.

And repeat, If you don't hear any differences = don't insist. Case closed.


----------



## bigshot

What opposite?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> What opposite?


Not wanting to hear anything because you are convinced that you will not hear anything is also a cognitive bias.

It also has a name: _self-fulfilling prophecy_.

This is true in both directions. 

"_Thinking against oneself_" can be a solution (Paul Feyerabend).


----------



## bigshot (Sep 14, 2022)

If you can’t hear a difference what does it matter why you can’t hear a difference? If they sound the same, for the purposes of listening to music in the home, they are the same.

If you go to the trouble of setting up a level matched, direct A/B switched blind test with multiple trials, and you make a sincere effort, the result is the result. Theoretical differences that don’t exist in practice are as important as teats on a bull hog.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 14, 2022)

bigshot said:


> If you can’t hear a difference what does it matter why you can’t hear a difference? If they sound the same, for the purposes of listening to music in the home, they are the same.
> 
> If you go to the trouble of setting up a level matched, direct A/B switched blind test with multiple trials, and you make a sincere effort, the result is the result. Theoretical differences that don’t exist in practice are as important as teats on a bull hog.



Has it was said, circular discussion...

And repeat bro :

*If you don't hear any differences = don't insist. Case closed*. 

I don't understand what you don't understand...


----------



## bigshot

If you think you can hear a difference take the time to make sure it isn’t expectation bias or perceptual error. If you think you hear a difference, and it turns out to be bias instead, don’t worry about it. It doesn’t matter. Don’t let lazy people who don’t make an effort to verify what they hear make you think there might be a difference. 50 million Frenchmen *CAN* be wrong!


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 14, 2022)

If that makes you happy, okay.  

But the exact contrary is true, too...


----------



## bigshot

You’re the one talking in circles by not acknowledging my points. But your. It’s is strong, and I guess you feel you need to buffalo the argument or you’ll lose your grip on it.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 14, 2022)

Indecidability

We are going in circles...
We are in agreement. At least.


----------



## PhonoPhi

DaveStarWalker said:


> Has it was said, circular discussion...
> 
> And repeat bro :
> 
> ...


Sure thing!
Some people see Earth round, some - flat. People are just different with their senses.
Case is closed, right? No one should insist on anything.

Or, perhaps, the science evolved exactly to provide proven material evidence beyond the limitations of human perception.

Why would I care though, I see Earth as a 16-dimensional entity, and my blue cables sound the best of all - pure bliss in all the dimensions.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

PhonoPhi said:


> Sure thing!
> Some people see Earth round, some - flat. People are just different with their senses.
> Case is closed, right? No one should insist on anything.
> 
> ...


That's a fallacy, not an argument lol. 

About the flat earth. Of course it's flat! 

About the multi-dimensions =  Superstring theory 

But this is bullsh*t, isnt't it


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Either you hear differences or you don't.


No, that’s false, you cannot hear differences. There are ONLY two options: Either you don’t hear differences or you perceive differences (which are inaudible and due to a perceptual error). There is no option that “you hear differences”!


DaveStarWalker said:


> If it's no = don't insist. Case closed.


This is either a typo or you somehow have it backwards! 
If it’s yes = don’t insist. The case is closed and has been for many decades. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> If it's yes = then you have to work on it, to understand these differences, and determine which marriages are the bests.


We/Science do understand the differences, they are psychological, effectively in the imagination. What doesn’t make sense is how one is supposed to work on one’s perceptual biases and determine which biases to “marry” that “are best”?!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Not wanting to hear anything because you are convinced that you will not hear anything is also a cognitive bias.


No, it’s not. “_A *cognitive bias* is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment._” (Wikipedia) - Being “_convinced that you will not_” hear a difference is entirely in line with a rational judgement because differences are well below audibility.

What you appear to be talking about is a perceptual bias and indeed such biases can cause us to perceive differences where there aren’t any and in rare cases, not hear a difference when there is one. This is the whole reason why science has strict protocols and rules when performing listening tests, to eliminate such biases from affecting the results!

While paraphrasing audiophile marketing as fact is encouraged and may even earn you Kudos in other subforums, in this subforum it has the opposite effect!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

gregorio said:


> No, that’s false, you cannot hear differences. There are ONLY two options: Either you don’t hear differences or you perceive differences (which are inaudible and due to a perceptual error). There is no option that “you hear differences”!
> 
> This is either a typo or you somehow have it backwards!
> If it’s yes = don’t insist. The case is closed and has been for many decades.
> ...


Has it was said, circular discussion...

And repeat bro :

*If you don't hear any differences = don't insist. Case closed*. 
Be happy with what you have. And don't envy what you don't have.


----------



## bigshot

If you don’t hear differences in cables after going to the trouble of research and testing yourself, you have the right to demand proof from people who claim they can who haven’t gone to that trouble.

This conversation is circular because one of the parties is talking out of his ass.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

This is circular because you're metaphorically deaf...   

So be it.


----------



## bigshot

Stating something that isn’t true isn’t using a metaphor.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Stating something that isn’t true isn’t using a metaphor.


Thinking that you are absolutely right does not make it true.

And some friendly advice : *do*. Thinking is good, doing is even better.


----------



## bigshot

Evidence mskes something true. There’s a mountain of solid evidence that you ignore while you continue to repeat opinions without any evidence. It’s going in circles because you’re blathering.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Has it was said, circular discussion...


Yes it is circular, so why are you using a circular argument? A circular argument is a fallacy and again, while that may earn you kudos in other subforums, it achieves the opposite in this one. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> And repeat bro :


And again, why? 1+1=3. 1+1=3. There, I’ve repeated it twice, does that mean 1+1 does equal 3, just because I’ve repeated it?


DaveStarWalker said:


> *If you don't hear any differences = don't insist. Case closed*.


Of course we must insist, because it’s a fact! Would you not insist that 1+1=2 or would you just accept that 1+1=3 and say case closed. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Be happy with what you have. And don't envy what you don't have.


Why on earth would I envy believing that a perceptual error is real? Would you envy someone who believed 1+1+3? I am happy believing in the facts, you can be happy believing 1+1=3, that the earth is flat or whatever you want but you can’t state it’s fact in this subforum without being challenged and refuted. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Evidence mskes something true. There’s a mountain of solid evidence that you ignore while you continue to repeat opinions without any evidence. It’s going in circles because you’re blathering.


OK. No cable measure the same. No cable.

Voilà. 👍😘


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Thinking that you are absolutely right does not make it true.


It does if your thinking is in agreement with the facts/science. If you have no facts, science or even any reliable evidence then it makes it false!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Thinking is good, doing is even better.


Thinking and doing are good, unless of course you’re basing that thinking and doing on lies or marketing nonsense, in which case your thinking and doing will also be nonsense!


DaveStarWalker said:


> OK. No cable measure the same. No cable.
> Voilà.


To what measurement limits? To the limits of human hearing (and beyond), yes they do. Voila! Again, just repeating nonsense doesn’t suddenly make it true!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Stop arguing. Just do it. Obviously, you are bringing up things you don't know, while invoking readings that I suspect you don't fully understand.

When you will have the experience of what you are criticizing, then we can really talk. Otherwise, yes, it's all talk. 🙄

And please, do not claim to be a scientist or sort of. Barroom talk, OK, but scientific approach, please don't.  🙏

A matter of respect and humility. 👍


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Stop arguing. Just do it. Obviously, you are bringing up things you don't know, while invoking readings that I suspect you don't fully understand. ….


Hypocrisy doesn’t work in this subforum either. This is the sound science subforum, not the marketing nonsense subforum, not the circular argument subforum and not the hypocrisy subforum. Again, you may get kudos for your completely false suspicions in other subforums but in this subforum you achieve the exact opposite. How do you not realise that?


DaveStarWalker said:


> When you will have the experience of what you are criticizing, then we can really talk.


Why? How would having your experience of audiophile marketing BS (and apparently no knowledge or experience of the actual facts/science) allow us to really talk, especially in an actual sound science forum?!

Your responses are just getting more and more obviously irrational and you are not doing yourself any favours!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

OK, repeat : no cable in this earth measure the same. No cable.

This is an absolute fact. 😱

So ? What is your conclusion ? 😂

My conclusion =

What irritates you is that I use exactly the same methods as you.

You have strictly no argument, except the argument of authority, about works and experiences that are not yours.

Pretty weak, eh... 😂😏

But... I have experience of what I am talking about. You don't. 😋


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK, repeat : no cable in this earth measure the same. No cable.
> 
> This is an absolute fact. 😱
> 
> ...


Again as stated cables do measure the same to human hearing. so your statement is false. Most if not all working cables will measure identical within the human hearing spectrum if we are talking analogue cables. It is not until you get way beond the human hearing that you get slight deviations in the measurements.

So this brings our question. Why cant these high end cable manufacturers produce measurements describing their claims? That's because they don't exist.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

"The ignorant asserts, the learned doubts, the wise reflects."

Aristotle

And I am one of those people who hear differences. That is my experience, and statement. No less, no more. 👍


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> "The ignorant asserts, the learned doubts, the wise reflects."
> 
> Aristotle
> 
> And I am one of those people who hear differences. That is my experience, and statement. No less, no more. 👍


You hear a difference because you want to.. You hear a difference because you demand you hear a difference, because you are so convinced you hear a difference and refuse to accept any other outcome. You refuse to do proper studies and proper scientific tests. I guarantee we could put you on a proper double blind study and you would fail it.

Set up a proper double blind test and video tape it. prove us that you hear a difference.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

A guy, here, after the CanJam :

"And honestly after going through and listening to all the IEMs I think I learned a lot more about my tastes and what I like/want in one day than reading impressions and graphs here for months and trying to imagine the sound signature."

Quod erat demonstrandum. 😉


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> You hear a difference because you want to.. You hear a difference because you demand you hear a difference, because you are so convinced you hear a difference and refuse to accept any other outcome. You refuse to do proper studies and proper scientific tests. I guarantee we could put you on a proper double blind study and you would fail it.


And you don't hear differences because you don't want to hear it 😉
And it exist no proper scientific studies about that, because it is not seriously studied.

Serious studies? Need time, and money. That's a fact.

And for who? You? The audiophile niche? It's a joke.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK, repeat : no cable in this earth measure the same. No cable.


OK, repeat: 1+1=3, the earth is flat, etc. Just repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true/correct. I’m not sure how that is so difficult for you to understand?


DaveStarWalker said:


> This is an absolute fact.


It is an absolute fact, an absolutely irrelevant fact! Because the measured differences are way below audibility. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> So ? What is your conclusion ?


My conclusion is irrelevant, this is the sound science forum, not my conclusions forum!


DaveStarWalker said:


> My conclusion =
> What irritates you is that I use exactly the same methods as you.


Your conclusion is also irrelevant for the same reason. And incidentally, you do NOT use the same methods as me. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> "The ignorant asserts, the learned doubts, the wise reflects."
> Aristotle


Science asserts so therefore science is ignorant? 


DaveStarWalker said:


> And I am one of those people who hear differences.


No you are not, there are no people who hear differences. Again, just repeating nonsense does not make it true. How is it possible you don’t know that? If you have reliable evidence then present it and in case you don’t realise; hypocrisy and paraphrasing audiophile BS is NOT reliable evidence. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> That is my experience, and statement. No less, no more.


That is not your experience. Your actual experience is of a perceptual error, NOT hearing a difference! 

G


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> And you don't hear differences because you don't want to hear it 😉
> And it exist no proper scientific studies about that, because it is not seriously studied.
> 
> Serious studies? Need time, and money. That's a fact.
> ...


There have been plenty of scientific studies. I was a believer in cables so no your assertion is wrong. You must have missed the part where Dbx testing was taught in sound Engineering degrees and other sound science degrees. You really dont belong in this sub as you refuse to acknowledge the science and belong on the rest of the forum where audiophile magic belongs and science doesn't as you really dont believe in science. You sure dont believe in the scientific method nor all the research and engineering in the industry.
 So how come a studio doesnt use high end cables? Why do cables not matter in a studio where it should matter most and in a home it seems to matter much more? Why do sound engineers and recording engineers not seem to know this stuff that you seem to know and all these audiophiles seem to know when they are the ones that are making the music? Why is it the small people trying to make money off a very small group of people seem to be the ones that make up all these problems and the smallest group of people are the ones that can hear these problems yet the real scientific and engineering community doesn't?


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> A guy, here, after the CanJam :
> 
> "And honestly after going through and listening to all the IEMs I think I learned a lot more about my tastes and what I like/want in one day than reading impressions and graphs here for months and trying to imagine the sound signature."
> 
> Quod erat demonstrandum. 😉


First of all that's a stupid comparison. You are comparing an In ear monitor to a cable. In ear monitors are all different. The iem has drivers in it and produces sound, the cable caries and electrical signal to the monitors.  Two completly different things and completly scientifically different. Iems have a measurable difference in the auditory spectrum. You can graph them and look at them and tell a difference. Then how you percieve them will be different depending on who you are and how you perceive sound and how your hearing is.

Cables carry the electrical signal and no sound. Once the signal is received by the drivers the drivers produce the sound.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Quod erat demonstrandum.


Again, hypocrisy doesn’t work here. You have not presented any reliable evidence, anecdotal evidence is the least reliable evidence and it’s not even relevant unreliable evidence! Being more and more irrational will earn you nothing in this subforum except scorn!


DaveStarWalker said:


> And it exist no proper scientific studies about that, because it is not seriously studied.


Making up complete falsehoods/nonsense obviously does NOT work in a sound science subforum. How is it possible you don’t know that?

There’s only two possible answers to that question! 

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK. No cable measure the same. No cable.


We’re talking about sound, not measurements. As long as a cable it fit for the purpose, it will sound the same as any other cable that is fit for the purpose.


----------



## castleofargh

If you can hear a music that other cannot, it could mean you're a cylon.
2/ You could be schizophrenic. 
3/ You don't have a clue how to setup a listening test and decided to instead becomes expert at listening with your eyes.
4/ Something is happening and there is an audible difference on that setup between those 2 cables. 

All those are non mutually exclusive possibilities with their own probabilities of happening:
I'd say the first one is unlikely because there aren't that many Cylons on the ships. We're gonna get ya, you nasty skinjob!
Second is also fairly unlikely if we trust medical statistics. 
Third one is almost a certainty. TBH the only reason why hearing with our eyes doesn't count as a pathology is that everybody does it to some extent.
Last one could happen sometimes with some gears and some cables as we have established several times.


About the third group... well, as the saying goes, "don't be mad at lazy people, they didn't do anything". There is no point in getting mad, and there is also no reason to trust in what they claim about hearing. As simple as that.


Personally I don't think there is a way to solve this situation because most of those in this section trust blind tests as the mean to demonstrate audible differences(as they should), while @DaveStarWalker thinks it's some dubious thing made to fail people.
 I can see a middle ground about cables(sometimes this, sometimes that depending on circumstances), I cannot see one about blind testing. We must demonstrate that we're not "hearing with our eyes", and we must demonstrate that we're actually hearing a difference. What beside a blind test can offer that?


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

A little game, for the big guys...

105mm F/1.4
50 mm F/1.2
200mm F/2
135 mm F/1.8

Which is which? 🤔😁

Totally different optics but... about photographic renderings... Difficult isn't it? 

However they are different = bokeh, compression, colors... 

You need to have a very good eye, be subtle, know what to look for. Maybe to be trained. As a photographer... 

Think about it, then about cables, materials, listening, etc. 😉


----------



## bigshot (Sep 19, 2022)

What the hell do lenses have to do with this discussion? A telephoto offers a different field of view than a wide angle. That’s self evident. Two different interconnects designed to connect audio components aren’t serving different purposes.

I think you knew you had nothing to back up your opinion long ago, but you love the sound of your own voice so much, you can’t stop saying dumb stuff.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> What the hell do lenses have to do with this discussion? A telephoto offers a different field of view than a wide angle. That’s self evident. Two different interconnects designed to connect audio components aren’t serving different purposes.
> 
> I think you knew you had nothing to back up your opinion long ago, but you love the sound of your own voice so much, you can’t stop saying dumb stuff.


LOL... 😉

Being caught out is never fun. No wonder the differences between the audio cables don't jump out at you. 😂

Think about it... 😇


----------



## bigshot

You’re the living embodiment of Dunning Kruger.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> A little game, for the big guys...


A little game with no relevance to audio cables whatsoever. Nonsense on top of nonsense, very impressive!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Being caught out is never fun.


Except for you apparently!

G


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> LOL... 😉
> 
> Being caught out is never fun. No wonder the differences between the audio cables don't jump out at you. 😂
> 
> Think about it... 😇


thats because it doesnt make an audible difference and is measured as such in the audible spectrum what dont you get about that.. Guess what. Those lenses can be measured in the visual ranges. so again your point is moot. The lenses make a differences just as the iems make a difference where cables dont as they are not measured different in the audible range as long as they are functional. You dont seem to grasp this yet you keep referencing things that have nothing to do with this. We keep going in circles because you cant provide any actual evidence.


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> A little game, for the big guys...
> 
> 105mm F/1.4
> 50 mm F/1.2
> ...


That's much easier than the stuff I helped my mother with for her "BEP de photo en ligne" that she got bored of doing midway through. 

I thought about it and I think the autofocus on those lenses have a different sound.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

We can play another game if you like.

Same gears (cables, amp, etc.), one song, but... 

... four different masters for instance.

Concretely différents... 🧐

Blind test... 😇


----------



## OneEyedHito

I have several High End Headphone cables I will be listing for sale in the classifieds soon, not because I don't hear a difference in them but because I do and I am not happy about it.  I wanted all of my cables to sound the same since that is how they measure.  Offers will not offend.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> thats because it doesnt make an audible difference and is measured as such in the audible spectrum what dont you get about that.. Guess what. Those lenses can be measured in the visual ranges. so again your point is moot. The lenses make a differences just as the iems make a difference where cables dont as they are not measured different in the audible range as long as they are functional. You dont seem to grasp this yet you keep referencing things that have nothing to do with this. We keep going in circles because you cant provide any actual evidence.



OK. Talk, talk, talk. 😪😴

So, photo one = which lense please ? 😉


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> We can play another game if you like.
> 
> Same gears (cables, amp, etc.), one song, but...
> 
> ...


No masters are recorded different. Again you are comparing different things. There are measurable differences between different masters in a lit if cases. Why do you keep making my point by giving examples of things that have measurable sonic differences then try to compare them to cables. Do you really not understand the science behind cables and everything you are trying to comparing them to? I truly take it you don't understand sound science and I think it is time a mod should step in as you are nothing more than a troll.


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK. Talk, talk, talk. 😪😴
> 
> So, photo one = which lense please ? 😉


That's not my expertise and I won't comment where I don't know and cables and sound science sure isn't yours so you should truly do the same as you are truly showing your lack of knowledge.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> We can play another game if you like.


You’re the only one playing games here and obviously that’s off topic. When I said “_Nonsense on top of nonsense, very impressive!_” Maybe you didn’t realise that wasn’t a compliment and certainly wasn’t an invitation for even more nonsense!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> That's not my expertise and I won't comment where I don't know and cables and sound science sure isn't yours so you should truly do the same as you are truly showing your lack of knowledge.


Listening carefully is my expertise you known.

This is the only serious key about audio cables... 🗝️😉

And about different mastering of a same song = recognize it, blind test. 

It is your expertise, or ?... 🤔


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> No masters are recorded different. Again you are comparing different things. There are measurable differences between different masters in a lit if cases. Why do you keep making my point by giving examples of things that have measurable sonic differences then try to compare them to cables. Do you really not understand the science behind cables and everything you are trying to comparing them to? I truly take it you don't understand sound science and I think it is time a mod should step in as you are nothing more than a troll.



Do you really think that the differences between the audio cables lie only in the inductance, capacitance and resistance aspects ?

And about the dielectric coefficient, any advice ?

And tribolelectric noise ? Relevant? 

About dampening technics (you known, electrovibrations propagation). Cotton or Kevlar ? 

And about sonic propagation groups? 

Hum, multi stranding or solid core. What the best? 🤔

Etc. 

Apparently, you are not able already, to recognize which lens to associate with which photo. Simple exercise.

So, blindly listening to the cables differencies... 👂🎶🙄


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> Listening carefully is my expertise you known.
> 
> This is the only serious key about audio cables... 🗝️😉
> 
> ...


No with mastering you can measure the differences in the audible range. We are challenging you to a dbx because there are no measurable differences in the audible ranges on working cables and you are claiming you hear a difference. This is called the scientific method to prove you hear a difference where science says you don't. You are responsible to prove science wrong. 

Scientifically we can prove a difference in recordings so it is moot. Whether someone can hear a difference comes down to the person's hearing and perception. Scientifically it can still be proven in the audible  range in the mastering thus it can be heard. Not all people can hear all frequencies  or cam hear at all, that doesn't mean it can't be heard, but it can be graphed and proven. Cables can't be proven in the audible range for a working cable to be different or measure different.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

You can just measure that you can just measure.

If you can measure the quality of a soundstage representation for instance, show me.

I will be very interested. 👍

Maybe the phase respect, and the impulsionnal response... What do you think? 😉

So about different masterings, you can't afford it too?


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 19, 2022)

Maybe more easy like this.  






Cable A, cable B, cable.. Er... Lense one, lense two,... 😉

The differences are not about the lenses, but the actual pictures presented here which are slightly different. And to be able to rely a randering to a lense. It will be far more difficult between a 135 f2 and a 135 F1 8 for instance... Yet real differences exist. And are measured. 

As we don't care about the cables themselves, but only about the different sound presentations...

About mastering, they are different... Because they are really different (dynamic range for instance). But this is our perception of these differences that matters...

More clear? 😉


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Listening carefully is my expertise you known.


No, obviously that is not true. If you knew anything beyond the basics about listening you would have conducted controlled listening tests. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> This is the only serious key about audio cables...


Audio cables carry an electrical signal the “_only serious key about audio cables_” is therefore their electrical properties. How can you possibly not know such a simple and obvious fact about audio, that even a child should know and then you call yourself an expert. That’s laughable!


DaveStarWalker said:


> And about different mastering of a same song = recognize it, blind test.


You’ve got to be joking? Of course different masters sound different. Why would a record label pay a mastering engineer thousands of dollars to create a new master that sounds identical to a master they’ve already paid for? The difference between masters are therefore in the range of several dB not the hundredths or thousandths of dB difference between cables. Again, how is it even vaguely possible you don’t know this even being a beginner, let alone an expert?


DaveStarWalker said:


> It is your expertise, or ?


Yes it is! It has been for several decades and even to the point of teaching it at a senior and postgraduate level in university. Not that it makes any difference because what you’re talking about is at the level of an amateur/beginner and nowhere near even a professional level, let alone expert. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Do you really think that the differences between the audio cables lie only in the inductance, capacitance and resistance aspects ?


Of course not, they’re also different colours, different price points, different brand names, etc. These are big differences, not the minuscule differences that exist between say the resistance of two cables appropriate for a given task. Again, this is school kid level stuff, not expert!


DaveStarWalker said:


> About dampening technics (you known, electrovibrations propagation). Cotton or Kevlar ?
> And about sonic propagation groups?
> Hum, multi stranding or solid core. What the best?


Again, you’ve got to be joking. Sonic propagation groups, what on earth are you talking about? Audio cables are not carrying sound, they’re carrying an electrical signal. 

It’s just all utter nonsense a child should know, let alone a rational adult and for a self professed expert it’s laughable! All you’ve provided is decades old audiophile cable BS that would have even a first year student rolling on the floor laughing!

G


----------



## TIEM

In other news, Moondrop posted this on their Insta page: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/xj3qf2/moondrop_u_ok_bruh/


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Coaxial structure. 😉


----------



## castleofargh

@DaveStarWalker 
This section of the forum is supposed to rely on fact based data and scientific methods. If I knew nothing at all about cables, until I got compelling demonstrations of audible differences between 2 cables, I would typically stand behind the null hypothesis(no difference). Nobody can convincingly prove there will be no audible difference ever between 2 of the cables in the world used with 2 of the rigs in existence. So it belongs to people to prove when they can hear some difference. Logical fallacies and rhetoric   aren't it. We're not having a philosophical debate, we're discussing the reality of some events and more importantly what caused them. Almost nobody here is doubting that you felt a sound difference. I even supported the objective possibility for it with IEMs(because I have data backing it, not because of wishful thinking). What we're always suspecting is that due to uncontrolled conditions, your impressions can also come from any amount of psychological bias instead of sound. That is ultimately what you or anybody claiming audible change will have to clear out for us. 
By default, I for one have no reason to think that real sound difference is more likely than made up impressions due to the brain failing to compartmentalize hearing and seeing. In fact I have plenty of reasons to suspect the latter is making up the majority(not all!) of claims about sound differences in cables. 

Also, as bigshot mentioned,I stand behind *What is freely asserted is freely dismissed.*
Empty claims are just that and we keep paying too much attention to them IMO.


Add to that how you reject blind testing as a demonstration of audibility, and we're in a tight deadlock. You refuse to trust the one tool made to prove what you claim to be happening. It's like joining a forum about space exploration just to reject the formulas predicting gravitational forces and saying they're flawed. Sooner or later, you either provide solid data to support your views and a more reliable alternative, or you end up treated as a troll.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

castleofargh said:


> @DaveStarWalker
> This section of the forum is supposed to rely on fact based data and scientific methods. If I knew nothing at all about cables, until I got compelling demonstrations of audible differences between 2 cables, I would typically stand behind the null hypothesis(no difference). Nobody can convincingly prove there will be no audible difference ever between 2 of the cables in the world used with 2 of the rigs in existence. So it belongs to people to prove when they can hear some difference. Logical fallacies and rhetoric   aren't it. We're not having a philosophical debate, we're discussing the reality of some events and more importantly what caused them. Almost nobody here is doubting that you felt a sound difference. I even supported the objective possibility for it with IEMs(because I have data backing it, not because of wishful thinking). What we're always suspecting is that due to uncontrolled conditions, your impressions can also come from any amount of psychological bias instead of sound. That is ultimately what you or anybody claiming audible change will have to clear out for us.
> By default, I for one have no reason to think that real sound difference is more likely than made up impressions due to the brain failing to compartmentalize hearing and seeing. In fact I have plenty of reasons to suspect the latter is making up the majority(not all!) of claims about sound differences in cables.
> 
> ...


Hi Coa,

We can talk about impedance, resistivity, crystal structure of metals, ductibility, purity, type of impurities, magnetism, vibratory modes, dielectrics, etc.

But as in any case :

1/ only listening is ultimately a judge of peace, personal.
2/ that a whole coterie of people here consider that it is useless.

End of any exchange, any discussion.

One can deplore it. That's the way it is.


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi Coa,
> 
> We can talk about impedance, resistivity, crystal structure of metals, ductibility, purity, type of impurities, magnetism, vibratory modes, dielectrics, etc.
> 
> ...


They don't consider listening to be useless. Everybody on earth says that we have to listen to tell if something is audible. 
 This section supports the very avant-garde idea that listening should be strictly about sound(crazy right!). You and really most audiophiles on the other hand mistake listening for the entire human experience you have with all the misdirection from non audio influences. 

I'm completely on board with the entire body experience being what provides the best enjoyment of ... the experience that includes music at the time. I also obviously accept it being described as listening to music in everyday life. But thinking that it is how you get the most accurate judgement about sound and hearing abilities is literally delusional. 
A popular delusion for sure, we spend the vast majority of our lives sure that our experience of things is the objective world around us, even though it never really is. But that's exactly why science and controlled experiments are so important when it comes to knowing a little more about reality and about ourselves.


Some quotes to try to look clever and make people think about stuff :


> An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria.


someone.



> This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.


Kahneman



> Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. It is wise to take admissions of uncertainty seriously, but declarations
> of high confidence mainly tell you that an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.


Kahneman



> Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.


Feynman


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 20, 2022)

"There is less from ignorance to Science than from false science to true science."

Ernest Psichari. 

"True science is an ignorance that is known. "

Montaigne. 

"We are knowledgeable only of the present science."

Same wiseman. 

"It is not the ideas of science that engender the passions, it is the passions that use science to support their cause."

François Jacob. 

To understand and meditate. 👍


----------



## bigshot

If you’re going to start judging people for incorrectly using science, you really should be committed to science yourself. Otherwise it just seems like a hypocritical argumentative tactic.


----------



## chef8489

How about an experiment between a high end cable and a coathanger.
https://www.soundguys.com/cable-myths-reviving-the-coathanger-test-23553/


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 21, 2022)

1. Ask 100 _adults_ on the street and hardly anyone is able to give you that Wikipedia definition. The smartest might get close. I doubt it you yourself could have been able to write that definition without copypasting it from Wikipedia. On the other hand the definition DaveStarWalker gave is the kind of definition you'd hear on the street from many. In that sense you are too harsh on him. You are perhaps a freak of nature who remembers rest of their lives everything they were teached in school. Most people do not. I don't remember if this was teached to me or not. Thanks to university degree I have a good understanding of what science is, but to write it out as eloquently as in Wikipedia, I would have to use some time. That Wikipedia definition is no doubt the result of edits by users to perfect it, a group effort if you will. The cold reality is a lot of adults don't know what science is. We have flat earthers, vaccine skeptics and snake oil believers. Children might be smarter in this sense thanks to just being teached what science is and not having forgotten it.

2. The mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 is, I believe, surprisingly complex and long, but yes, that is a proven truth. However, science deals with a lot of things that aren't proven. I think DaveStarWalker wasn't wrong. He just expressed his thoughts poorly giving you this opportunity of counter example.

3. Here the criticism of what DaveStarWalker wrote is justified. DaveStarWalker ignores the hierarchy:  Engineers can't build a perpetual motion machine because science says it is impossible.


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> 1. Ask 100 _adults_ on the street and hardly anyone is able to give you that Wikipedia definition.


You don’t need to have that Wikipedia definition but I would expect most of those 100 adults to know that science represents a body of knowledge and isn’t only a method. Of course some of those 100 probably don’t know what science is, but then how many of them would be stupid enough to argue about science in a forum actually called sound Science?


71 dB said:


> However, science deals with a lot of things that aren't proven. I think DaveStarWalker wasn't wrong.


But we’re not dealing with all of science, we’re just dealing signal transmission through a cable, which could hardly be more scientifically researched, demonstrated, proven or well established. So, yes, his statement was completely wrong. 

G


----------



## castleofargh

color for the super impressive modo message:

Guys, a lot of cleaning was done by a modo braver than me, I really don't want to see his efforts being wasted by more of the same irrelevant attacks for the sake of venting your frustration.
You don't want Dave to keep arguing, maybe stop arguing with him about everything and anything? I mean, we've now reached debating Wikipedia... Is that what you want to do with your free time?


----------



## bigshot

Exactly!


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> But we’re not dealing with all of science, we’re just dealing signal transmission through a cable, which could hardly be more scientifically researched, demonstrated, proven or well established. So, yes, his statement was completely wrong.
> 
> G


I can't disagree with that...


----------



## cirrus101

My oh my, _what _is going on in this thread. I'm lost in this battlefield, bullets flying everywhere!...  I don't even know which side each of you is fighting for... it seems to be just a long, long series of personal attacks/retorts but so little is spoken of cables. Ehh. So what is the end conclusion, do expensive cables matter or not??

Reading this (which was pointed out VERY early in this thread) was quite interesting http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm what other conclusions did we come to 200+ pages later?


----------



## bigshot

Ask us that again in a week. We’re on hiatus in this thread.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 21, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> My oh my, _what _is going on in this thread. I'm lost in this battlefield, bullets flying everywhere!...  I don't even know which side each of you is fighting for... it seems to be just a long, long series of personal attacks/retorts but so little is spoken of cables. Ehh. So what is the end conclusion, do expensive cables matter or not??
> 
> Reading this (which was pointed out VERY early in this thread) was quite interesting http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm what other conclusions did we come to 200+ pages later?


About this, this is not a price wise matter about cables.

They are overpriced, no problem about that. 🙄

The first question is :

1/ Is it matters or not ? My - personal - answer is "yes".

The second question is :

2/ How ? My - personal - answer is "this is a complexe and subtle question and matter".

Just that to begin. 👍

P. S. : this "Gregorio" is no longer an valid or legit interlocutor for me.


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> Reading this (which was pointed out VERY early in this thread) was quite interesting http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm what other conclusions did we come to 200+ pages later?


If you’re talking about rational conclusions then no one has come to any other conclusions than the ones in that article because it’s based on history and science. The reason we’ve got “200 pages later” is mainly because every so often someone comes along with irrational conclusions, based on perceptual error and/or false audiophile marketing. 

G


----------



## cirrus101

gregorio said:


> The reason we’ve got “200 pages later” is mainly because every so often someone comes along with irrational conclusions, based on perceptual error and/or false audiophile marketing.


Thanks for clearing it up for the newcomers!!!


----------



## cirrus101

Hi, I don't know you, as such I guess I can have a fresh start with you on this conversation. I sense you're mostly based on anecdotes/personal impressions. I will not discuss whether these are valid or not. *Instead*, I would like to know the following from you: _what _exactly do you perceive differently? and _why _do you think it is so? If you have not come to any conclusions you can say "I don't know", but just be honest with your answer.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

cirrus101 said:


> Hi, I don't know you, as such I guess I can have a fresh start with you on this conversation. I sense you're mostly based on anecdotes/personal impressions. I will not discuss whether these are valid or not. *Instead*, I would like to know the following from you: _what _exactly do you perceive differently? and _why _do you think it is so? If you have not come to any conclusions you can say "I don't know", but just be honest with your answer.


I cirrus101,

I don't know about you, but when I listen to music, I don't have an oscilloscope under my arm, or a digital ammeter, etc. I am listening to music.

Secondly, yes I come from a hard scientific background, which is called epistemology. 

So I don't listen to my stereo with a voltmeter, a spectrometer or whatever, but I do have a solid methodological basis.

Thirdly, I only talk about what I know. What I have experienced, personally. I do not use texts of dubious provenance, whose authors are unknown, whose approach is at best proto-scientific, but certainly not scientific.

If scientific texts, i.e. validated by reading committees, have been published about audio cables, then there is no need to worry about knowing their references.

To my knowledge, these texts do not exist...

I'm not talking about AES communications, where we don't even know exactly what protocols are used, what sample listeners are used, etc.

So, from my own experience, you have to be trained to do blind listening, especially with a material as subtle as audio cables. 

That's why at one point, I published here 4 pictures of an identical subject, taken with 4 different lenses, and therefore with 4 different renderings.

As a photographer myself, I know how to recognise a photo taken with a particular lens. But for the untrained eye, this is not possible. Because you don't know what to look for.

The same goes for audio cables : you can't improvise. Again, I'm talking about blind or even double-blind listening.

Personally, I don't have golden ears, and I'm not Superman.

Without proper training, it is highly unlikely that I will pass such complicated tests.

Here are some initial, simple considerations.

If you consider this to be trolling, so be it...


----------



## hartphoto (Sep 21, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> My oh my, _what _is going on in this thread. I'm lost in this battlefield, bullets flying everywhere!...  I don't even know which side each of you is fighting for... it seems to be just a long, long series of personal attacks/retorts but so little is spoken of cables. Ehh. So what is the end conclusion, do expensive cables matter or not??
> 
> Reading this (which was pointed out VERY early in this thread) was quite interesting http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm what other conclusions did we come to 200+ pages later?


The fun/nostalgic part of that link is that....in the mid/late 1980s when some of those articles were being written, I was at university working through completion of a Bachelor of Science in Electronic Engineering degree. In one of our classes, Signal Propagation Theory (4th year class), we duplicated a couple of these articles/experiments on various 'cables' using the proper measurement gear (which I still have). Signal Propagation Theory, at least during my term, was the study of moving a signal from point A to point B using various mediums (solid, liquid, gas) and materials (listed on the Periodic Table of Elements). Graduated 1987 with an overall 3.68 GPA. Not perfect, but not shabby either.

My conclusion back then (and still is)....there are 4 types of 'cables'.

1-Defective (won't/doesn't meet design spec)
2-Functional (meets design spec with minimal quality materials used)
3-Functional Plus (exceeds design spec with quality materials used, usually for product upgrades/longevity)
4-Marketing

My purchases over the years have been a mix of functional or functional plus (which in my case is almost always for longevity so I don't have to purchase again).


----------



## cirrus101

DaveStarWalker said:


> *Headphones: *Two oranges, cut in half, one on each side
> *DAC/AMP: *Potato (Organic Certified), connected via Converse All Star shoelaces (Pure Oxygen-free Cotton, braided), grounded on Mother Earth
> *Source: *Tomato sauce
> 
> Seems tasty bro.


Oui oui, it's delicious.  Hehe



DaveStarWalker said:


> I cirrus101,
> 
> I don't know about you, but (...) Here are some initial, simple considerations.


Right, right. But, dude. I made _two very specific questions_, and you haven't answered any of them. :/

By the way, I am a photographer too, so I get the lenses analogy.



hartphoto said:


> 2-Functional (meets design spec with minimal quality materials used)
> 3-Functional Plus (exceeds design spec with quality materials used, usually for product upgrades/longevity)


I am in overall agreement with your post. I think these two mentioned above are all that it takes. No need to settle for less nor spend above that. This is the ultimate conclusion of this thread!


----------



## gregorio (Sep 21, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Secondly, yes I come from a hard scientific background, which is called epistemology.


Firstly, epistemology is not “hard science” it’s a branch of philosophy. You also state “_I only talk about what I know. What I have experienced, personally._” If you really had a background in epistemology then you would know it is NOT a hard science AND that experience is a perception that can be fooled. Again, just more nonsense!


DaveStarWalker said:


> So I don't listen to my stereo with a voltmeter, a spectrometer or whatever, but I do have a solid methodological basis.


You are arguing about the performance of cables transferring an electrical signal but dismiss the use of anything that actually measures an electrical signal and then claim you have a “solid methodological basis”. It’s laughable, it couldn’t be any less of a solid methodological basis!


DaveStarWalker said:


> I do not use texts of dubious provenance, whose authors are unknown, whose approach is at best proto-scientific, but certainly not scientific.


It’s actually true that you don’t use texts of dubious provenance, nor do you use texts with good provenance or indeed any hint of anything even resembling reliable evidence. The ONLY thing you’ve used is the paraphrasing of audiophile marketing BS, complete nonsense you’ve just made up, hypocrisy and a range of fallacies. Presumably you’ve learned to do this due to your background in hard science called epistemology? That’s funny!

On this occasion I can’t be bothered to go through the rest of the nonsense in your post.

G


----------



## bigshot

hartphoto said:


> 3-Functional Plus (exceeds design spec with quality materials used, usually for product upgrades/longevity)


When you say "plus" I assume you mean build quality or aesthetics, because a wire can't improve sound, only conduct the signal faithfully or degrade it... and every functional cable can conduct signals faithfully.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> When you say "plus" I assume you mean build quality or aesthetics


I assumed he meant slightly over engineered compared to the free cables supplied or the ones you can buy from eBay for say <$10 which pass the signal with no audible degradation but look like they’ll disintegrate if you’re accidentally a bit rough with them. So spending say $25 instead of $8 on a cable for peace of mind/longevity. It was on this assumption that I “Liked” his post. 

G


----------



## bigshot

Yeah... I'm guessing "exceeding design spec" means build quality, not actual conductivity.


----------



## orion1973 (Sep 21, 2022)

Delete


----------



## hartphoto (Sep 21, 2022)

bigshot said:


> When you say "plus" I assume you mean build quality or aesthetics, because a wire can't improve sound, only conduct the signal faithfully or degrade it... and every functional cable can conduct signals faithfully.





gregorio said:


> I assumed he meant slightly over engineered compared to the free cables supplied or the ones you can buy from eBay for say <$10 which pass the signal with no audible degradation but look like they’ll disintegrate if you’re accidentally a bit rough with them. So spending say $25 instead of $8 on a cable for peace of mind/longevity. It was on this assumption that I “Liked” his post.
> 
> G





bigshot said:


> Yeah... I'm guessing "exceeding design spec" means build quality, not actual conductivity.


All of the above as a whole, yes, exactly my point of view/reference.

Functional Plus is not implying an improvement in conductivity. It implies, as mentioned, customer _*or*_ manufacturing product driven choices for perceived longevity and/or quality (i.e. over engineering) and/or aesthetics. It's borderline Marketing....but it's not Marketing in it's entirety.


----------



## cplus44

I used to not believe that cables made a difference until I switched from an Amazon basics RCA cable to a J&D RCA cable. Maybe the Amazon cable had issues I don’t know but it is a noticeable improvement. The kicker? The J&D RCA cable was $11 after tax, the Amazon RCA cable was $18 😂


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2022)

How did you compare them? Assuming there is a difference, how do you know the J&D one is the correct one? Maybe the Amazon is correct. Have you compared both of them to other similar cables?


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Firstly, epistemology is not “hard science” it’s a branch of philosophy. You also state “_I only talk about what I know. What I have experienced, personally._” If you really had a background in epistemology then you would know it is NOT a hard science AND that experience is a perception that can be fooled. Again, just more nonsense!


Philosophy (epistemology in this case) is exact science, but ironically DaveStarWalker doesn't realize the limits of his own expertise despite of being an expert on knowledge. Epistemology doesn't make anyone automatically an electric engineer for example. That's why we have separate universities for philosopher (humanistic sciences) and engineers (technical sciences). 



gregorio said:


> You are arguing about the performance of cables transferring an electrical signal but dismiss the use of anything that actually measures an electrical signal and then claim you have a “solid methodological basis”. It’s laughable, it couldn’t be any less of a solid methodological basis!


Yeah, this is what happens when humanistic sciences are applied to technical problems.



gregorio said:


> It’s actually true that you don’t use texts of dubious provenance, nor do you use texts with good provenance or indeed any hint of anything even resembling reliable evidence. The ONLY thing you’ve used is the paraphrasing of audiophile marketing BS, complete nonsense you’ve just made up, hypocrisy and a range of fallacies. Presumably you’ve learned to do this due to your background in hard science called epistemology? That’s funny!


The irony here is, the studies of epistemology should give a person good immunity against marketing BS. DaveStarWalker must have misunderstood something really badly.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 22, 2022)

cplus44 said:


> I used to not believe that cables made a difference until I switched from an Amazon basics RCA cable to a J&D RCA cable. Maybe the Amazon cable had issues I don’t know but it is a noticeable improvement. The kicker? The J&D RCA cable was $11 after tax, the Amazon RCA cable was $18 😂


What kind of noticeable improvement? How did the sound improve? Better bass? Better soundstage? Smoother treble?

Anything under $20 is _reasonable_ for a RCA cable assuming the cable does what it is supposed to do (transfer the signal audibly transparently) and has some durability.

Sometimes RCA connectors are a bit "loose". This might affect the connection especially over time. Sometimes I use pliers gently to flatten the connector just a little bit oval in order to make the connection tighter. Often the cable itself does nothing and it is the connectors at the ends that are the trouble makers.


----------



## cplus44

bigshot said:


> How did you compare them? Assuming there is a difference, how do you know the J&D one is the correct one? Maybe the Amazon is correct. Have you compared both of them to other similar cables?


I’ve been listening to the Amazon one for a couple of years and when I got the J&D one I plugged it in and noticed right away that it was clearer the person below said it might be the connectors though so that might be it. I don’t have other RCAs unfortunately.



71 dB said:


> What kind of noticeable improvement? How did the sound improve? Better bass? Better soundstage? Smoother treble?
> 
> Anything under $20 is _reasonable_ for a RCA cable assuming the cable does what it is supposed to do (transfer the signal audibly transparently) and has some durability.
> 
> Sometimes RCA connectors are a bit "loose". This might affect the connection especially over time. Sometimes I use pliers gently to flatten the connector just a little bit oval in order to make the connection tighter. Often the cable itself does nothing and it is the connectors at the ends that are the trouble makers.


It was just clearer. Some people on the reviews were complaining about the connectors so that might be it. If it just fixed the connection that’s fine it was only $11 and I wouldn’t pay more than $20 for a cable anyway.


----------



## bigshot

I’m afraid that you didn’t compare them in a way that would eliminate bias or perceptual error. And your description of the difference sounds a lot like expectation bias.

Based on the way interconnects work, there’s no reason that two proper cables would sound different. My guess is that if one of them was shorting out, it would be due to a defective wire, but if it just sounds “clearer”, it’s most likely bias. In a controlled comparison, the difference would go away.

But you’ve only spent $11 more than you needed to, it isn’t a big deal.


----------



## cplus44

bigshot said:


> I’m afraid that you didn’t compare them in a way that would eliminate bias or perceptual error. And your description of the difference sounds a lot like expectation bias.
> 
> Based on the way interconnects work, there’s no reason that two proper cables would sound different. My guess is that if one of them was shorting out, it would be due to a defective wire, but if it just sounds “clearer”, it’s most likely bias. In a controlled comparison, the difference would go away.
> 
> But you’ve only spent $11 more than you needed to, it isn’t a big deal.



Well at least I have two pairs of RCAs just in case I ever need another pair I got em so That was worth the $11 😆


----------



## bigshot

Yup!


----------



## 71 dB

cplus44 said:


> I’ve been listening to the Amazon one for a couple of years and when I got the J&D one I plugged it in and noticed right away that it was clearer the person below said it might be the connectors though so that might be it. I don’t have other RCAs unfortunately.
> ------
> It was just clearer. Some people on the reviews were complaining about the connectors so that might be it. If it just fixed the connection that’s fine it was only $11 and I wouldn’t pay more than $20 for a cable anyway.


If your Amazon cable has been plugged for years without being touched, it is even possible the connector contact has oxidised weakening the contact. I tend to move connectors/tighten connections once a year or so to keep them "fresh".

You could try going back to the Amazon cable to see if fresh connection makes a difference.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 22, 2022)

cplus44 said:


> Well at least I have two pairs of RCAs just in case I ever need another pair I got em so That was worth the $11 😆


Doesn't hurt to have another one in case your cat/dog/fox/parrot/rat/capybara/whatever monster you keep as a pet eats your cable broken.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 22, 2022)

Oxidized contacts wouldn't make a cable sound less clear. It's pretty obvious that the difference here was due to lack of controls on the comparison. If the cable sounded "crackly" or if it cut out occasionally, that would be a problem with the connection. If it sounded muffled, it might be the wrong cable for the job. (Which clearly wasn't the case here.) But when it comes to cables, "wider soundstage", "clearer" and "a veil has been lifted" are all common descriptions of bias.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 22, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Oxidized contacts wouldn't make a cable sound less clear. It's pretty obvious that the difference here was due to lack of controls on the comparison. If the cable sounded "crackly" or if it cut out occasionally, that would be a problem with the connection. If it sounded muffled, it might be the wrong cable for the job. (Which clearly wasn't the case here.) But when it comes to cables, "wider soundstage", "clearer" and "a veil has been lifted" are all common descriptions of bias.


Oxidized contacts can easily make the sound less clear based on well-known science (vs. unsupported forum statements).

The science in a nut shell is that oxidized metals, Cu specifically, can be both insulators and semiconductors, with the signal attenuation and all types of non-linear behavior, e.g  from metal-semiconductor junctions to make the signal less clear.

A bit more of the related practically relevant story: the best are gold-plated contacts in both parts of the junction.
Even if rhodium plating is superior in many aspects, using rhodium-plated contact with the other gold plated contact will get you a metal-metal junction with the temperature-dependent potential to add noise and will wear softer gold plating prematurely.

P. S. Did you perform double blind tests to prove that my wine analogy may not work?!
If not - the theory prevails over the unsupported forum opinions


----------



## bigshot (Sep 23, 2022)

Oxidation doesn't cause a "veil". It's not that consistent. As wires move, the contact would become broken up. Twisting the plug would reveal this clearly.

I've had oxidized connectors before on older stereo equipment from the 70s stored in a garage. I haven't had any problem with it on current equipment. I doubt it's very common unless you live at the beach or something. A little rubbing alcohol and a Q tip can fix it.

We're talking about two $12 cables. All that stuff about rhodium vs gold plating is BS justification for high end cables. You don't need either to have a functional, audibly transparent cable. The inexpensive cables with gold plated connectors are very pretty though.

It's absurd to try to turn something as simple as oxidation into rocket science.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 23, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Oxidation doesn't cause a "veil". It's not that consistent. As wires move, the contact would become broken up. Twisting the plug would reveal this clearly.
> 
> I've had oxidized connectors before on older stereo equipment from the 70s stored in a garage. I haven't had any problem with it on current equipment. I doubt it's very common unless you live at the beach or something. A little rubbing alcohol and a Q tip can fix it.
> 
> ...


If it is not clear,  rhodium plating is another example illustrating the point that heterogeneous junctions are a problem, even without oxidation.

Getting back to your incorrect statement, it is clearly the case where your personal experience, believes, arguments, innuendos are irrelevant given the simple underlying science.

Oxidation creates a highly heterogeneous junction metal--oxide (or other compounds  depending on a specific metal) -- metal, which attenuates the signal dramatically, as a resistive element or a metal-semiconductor junction.

The cost of the cables are irrelevant, but gold-plated connectors are the best to prevent or minimize these types of problems.
Pure copper in air always has an oxidation layer on its surface, so the contact problem is there to start with. It may be undetectable for thin layers, but inevitably becomes more a problem upon further oxidation, which is thermodynamically favourable for copper, and independent of even infinitely outcrying opinions if to allude to Einstein's simple wisdom one more time.


----------



## bigshot

Have you ever had a cable that oxidized or are you copy/pasting all this from some high end cable manufacturer's web site? If you've had oxidized contacts, you know what they are like. Copper connector surfaces work fine and are easy to clean with rubbing alcohol if they gum up. It isn't generally an issue, and it's easy to fix without buying new cables if it is a problem.

I'm guessing that both of the cables being discussed had gold plated connectors- most do nowadays; so oxidation in this case is extremely unlikely... as well as not fitting the description of the perceived difference between the cables. Your attempt at scientific one-upmanship is completely pointless. This is a situation that is amply covered by simple hifi basics.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 23, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Have you ever had a cable that oxidized or are you copy/pasting all this from some high end cable manufacturer's web site? If you've had oxidized contacts, you know what they are like. Copper connector surfaces work fine and are easy to clean with rubbing alcohol if they gum up. It isn't generally an issue, and it's easy to fix without buying new cables if it is a problem.
> 
> I'm guessing that both of the cables being discussed had gold plated connectors- most do nowadays; so oxidation in this case is extremely unlikely... as well as not fitting the description of the perceived difference between the cables. Your attempt at scientific one-upmanship is completely pointless. This is a situation that is amply covered by simple hifi basics.



In one post, you’ve stated that oxidation is:

Not a problem
An unlikely problem
An easy to fix problem
Goalposts are on the move…

2 and 3 are actually correct, no exotic science required.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 23, 2022)

It’s not a problem because it’s unlikely and easy to fix!


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> It’s not a problem because it’s unlikely and easy to fix!



There go the goalposts.

You’ve gone from it not being a problem and some form of exotic science to any easy to fix problem clearly covered by basic metallurgy.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> It’s not a problem because it’s unlikely and easy to fix!


Problems that are easy to fix are still problems. You could say they are not _problematic_ problems which are not easy to fix.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 23, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Have you ever had a cable that oxidized or are you copy/pasting all this from some high end cable manufacturer's web site? If you've had oxidized contacts, you know what they are like. Copper connector surfaces work fine and are easy to clean with rubbing alcohol if they gum up. It isn't generally an issue, and it's easy to fix without buying new cables if it is a problem.
> 
> I'm guessing that both of the cables being discussed had gold plated connectors- most do nowadays; so oxidation in this case is extremely unlikely... as well as not fitting the description of the perceived difference between the cables. Your attempt at scientific one-upmanship is completely pointless. This is a situation that is amply covered by simple hifi basics.


Oh boy....
It is the science forum, right?
and personal attacks....

What I am REALLY surprised is about the ignorance on gold plating.
I had to use this type of connectors on cables for multiple scientific measurements to minimize the noise from the cable junction.

To try to make it simpler: you can look up on a thermocouple - a junction of two different metals creates an electric potential in tens of mV. It is temperature dependent to add an easily detectable (and unbearable for some measurements) noise.
This noise is at the level easily detectable with IEMs. Differently oxidized metals are distinct materials to create all types of heterogeneous contacts.

Finally to refute your last futile claim of "not a problem" and "easy to fix", here is an IEM cable degraded to the point that the soldered junction started to cut off the signal (wildly variable resistance), sadly unreparable since the soldering junction is embedded into plastic:




Let''s end up the discussion here, unless you have some scientific arguments to bring.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 23, 2022)

I have RCA cables with regular copper connections and they work fine too.

Oxidation isn't likely.
It is easy to fix.
It clearly doesn't cause the effect described by the original poster.
Your IEM cable isn't an Amazon Basics interconnect like the ones we're discussing.

It's absurd to go to such lengths to argue over something that's so basic. Silly.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Oxidized contacts wouldn't make a cable sound less clear.


This assertion is false. Oxidisation commonly causes “crackling” but it can cause a wide range of issues, including noise and loss of freq ranges which can indeed make the sound less clear. 


bigshot said:


> It's pretty obvious that the difference here was due to lack of controls on the comparison.


Lack of controls when testing is probably at the top of the list but an oxidised contact is a realistic possibility. 


bigshot said:


> It's absurd to try to turn something as simple as oxidation into rocket science.


No one is trying to turn it into a rocket science, what they are doing is effectively discussing Metallurgy, which is a part of Materials Science. Discussing metallurgy when applied to sound/audio products is therefore entirely appropriate in this subforum. This is true regardless of the fact that you personally don’t seem to know anything about it or even the difference between metallurgy and rocket science!


PhonoPhi said:


> The cost of the cables are irrelevant, but gold-plated connectors are the best to prevent or minimize these types of problems.


Maybe in theory and possibly in some cases but commercial studios virtually never use gold-plated connectors. Standard Neutrik connectors are by far the most commonly used, with Nickel alloy shells and connectors made of some type of Silver alloy (not sure what exactly). This is far more durable than gold plate, takes a long time to oxidise, needs to be quite heavily oxidised to affect the signal and is quite easy to clean.

That’s the only quibble I’ve got with what you’ve stated about metallurgy in the last few posts though. 

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 23, 2022)

I think the connectors I've used that aren't gold plated are nickel plated copper and inside where the contact is made is copper.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think typical frequency response loss is for oxidized cables. -3dB? More? I've had cables that were very oxidized, and I never noticed any audible change in response- just crackling and complete loss of connection. How much of a difference have you encountered?


----------



## The Jester

The shiny gold plated RCA plugs usually are nickel plate over brass with a very thin layer of gold plate, doesn't do a whole lot over more standard nickel plate over brass apart from look pretty and the extra $$ would be better spent on a good contact enhancer/protector, more expensive plugs made from gold plated solid copper use a thicker (and again more expensive) layer of gold plating as too thin a layer can be porous and allow eventual oxidation of the copper underneath, looking at the RCA sockets, up to a certain price point the sockets are PCB mount poking through the rear panel, with more expensive components there can be discrete sockets individually mounted on the rear panel, as with the plugs material can vary from nickel plated brass to heavy gold plated copper, the most obvious advantage is that the PCB mount type sockets have their inner contacts exposed to the inside of the component allowing oxidisation from the oxygen and moisture in the air, assuming the case has some sort of ventilation,
With the discrete sockets once a plug is inserted it’s more sealed from the air,
So even if with no measured or audible difference when new, better quality plugs and sockets can maintain a better connection over time.


----------



## bigshot

For a portable kit where I'm plugging and unplugging a lot, I might go for something a little more durable. But on my home rig, I pull wires so infrequently, just about any interconnect works. I don't see much point having a fancier connector than the plug I'm connecting it to, and I doubt if most home audio manufacturers put fancy female jacks in their equipment.

I really don't think wires are worth worrying about. There are other things that make much more difference. But I understand that audiophiles lay awake at night thinking about optimizing tiny details of their rig. If they enjoy diddling with stuff like that, it's fine with me. I'll just listen to music with regular old Amazon Basics cables.


----------



## BobG55 (Sep 24, 2022)

Top photo, cables connected to CD player / middle photo, Lokius EQ / bottom photo, Burson HA160


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 23, 2022)

gregorio said:


> This assertion is false. Oxidisation commonly causes “crackling” but it can cause a wide range of issues, including noise and loss of freq ranges which can indeed make the sound less clear.
> 
> Lack of controls when testing is probably at the top of the list but an oxidised contact is a realistic possibility.
> 
> ...


I would not argue about professional audio cables - I have none.
Proper silver alloys are more expensive than gold plating. Many professional cables  (that I looked briefly) and most Amazon basics ones are gold plated. It is just easier and not expensive, since there are just few milligrams of gold needed.

I had several problems with "nickel" both in scientific measurements and audio hobby, not with oxidation, but the fact that different companies may use different nickel plating alloys.
If the cables and connectors are from the same company using the same coating and good tolerances - it can work fine.


----------



## The Jester (Sep 23, 2022)

3rd photo in BobG55’s post they seem to have done ….


----------



## BobG55

The Jester said:


> 3rd photo in BobG55’s post they seem to have done ….


What do you mean ?


----------



## The Jester

BobG55 said:


> What do you mean ?


Reference to Bigshot:
“ and I doubt if most home audio manufacturers put fancy female jacks in their equipment “?.


----------



## Peti

3602 said:


> On another forum, I believe that I am fed up with all the people saying 'this cable does it, that cable goes together only with that gear', etc.
> I believe we are clear on the point that audio cables, whether interconnects, headphone cables or power cables, DO NOT change anything (unless, of course, very poor shielding or extremely high resistance). The whole thing is that a lot of people over 'there' are quite convinced that they, indeed, do.


How do I convince you that you shouldn't waste time and energy to convince others that you're right?


----------



## gregorio (Sep 24, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I think the connectors I've used that aren't gold plated are nickel plated copper and inside where the contact is made is copper.


If you mean the shell of the connectors is nickel plated copper, I’m not sure that’s the case. Copper is a pretty soft metal, not well suited to structural applications, even with nickel plating. Far more likely it’s just solid nickel, although I know that black chromium is used quite commonly. Also, I doubt if nickel or nickel plate is used for the actual contacts, as nickel is a relatively poor conductor, less than half the conductivity of aluminium and about 20% of the conductivity of copper. Presumably why nickel/silver alloy is used.

Caveat: Apart from the conductivity figures and the use of black chrome for the shells, all my assertions above are personal conjecture!


bigshot said:


> I'd be interested in hearing what you think typical frequency response loss is for oxidized cables. -3dB? More?


I have no idea if there even is a “typical frequency response loss”, my guess is that there isn’t, that it depends on the exact composition of the actual connections, the nature of the oxidisation and it’s coverage and depth. On the couple of occasions where I’ve had freq loss due to oxidisation I didn’t actually measure the loss. On one occasion it wasn’t hugely noticeable, so probably only about 2dB or so, on the other occasion it was much more obvious, probably closer to 6dB.


bigshot said:


> I've had cables that were very oxidized, and I never noticed any audible change in response- just crackling and complete loss of connection.


I’ve had crackling several times due to oxidisation (more often than freq loss/noise), I don’t recall having complete loss of signal due to oxidisation though, due to broken cables or solder joints sure but not oxidisation.


PhonoPhi said:


> Proper silver alloys are more expensive than gold plating.


No idea, so I’ve got no grounds to disagree. I’m not sure it makes much of a difference in practice though, a Neutrik XLR with silver alloy connectors is around €3, so not exactly audiophile prices.


PhonoPhi said:


> Many professional cables (that I looked briefly) and most Amazon basics ones are gold plated.


Yes, they do make professional cables with gold plated connectors, I’ve just never seen a commercial studio that uses them. I’ve seen guitarists use gold plated connectors quite commonly but many/most guitarists are just as subject to audiophile cable myths as audiophiles. There are numerous “audiophile” guitar cables in the several hundred dollar range and they go up to about $6k.

It’s perhaps worth noting that the RCA connectors discussed/pictured above are purely consumer connectors. In studios/pro-audio equipment we pretty much never use RCA connectors, the connection is quite insecure and the connectors too easily damaged. XLR and 1/4” jacks are the most common connection types, BNC are used for certain signal types and D-Sub (DB25 or DD50) connectors are common for equipment with 8-16 channel connections where there isn’t physical space for loads of individual connections.


PhonoPhi said:


> I had several problems with "nickel" both in scientific measurements and audio hobby, not with oxidation, but the fact that different companies may use different nickel plating alloys.


I have no idea about that but I wouldn’t be surprised. It would have been interesting to know the conductivity of the silver/nickel alloys used for connectors, I assume it’s probably somewhere between gold and copper depending on the silver content? Although I realise that a high silver content may not necessarily result in high conductivity and more importantly, none of this appears to make even the slightest audible difference. According to the IACS standard, silver has about 105% conductivity, while gold has only about 70% but this seemingly significant difference appears to make no difference whatsoever at audible levels within the audible freq spectrum.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Devil is in the DETAILS. 😈👻😇


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Devil is in the DETAILS.


Obviously not if they’re outside of audibility!

G


----------



## The Jester

The better XLR connectors are nickel shell and silver contacts,
With the 6.3mm phono plugs normally nickel or gold plate over brass similar to most RCA connectors,
Brass is usually 40% Zinc 60% copper and when perfectly clean is about the same conductivity as Nickel so the thin Nickel plating layer has little effect on conductivity whilst preventing oxidation,
Silver contacts oxidise too but silver oxide is still a relatively good conductor, so for just about all contacts using some form of contact cleaner/enhancer will delay oxidation and provide a slight lubricant to minimise wear on contact surfaces that are regularly plugged and unplugged.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Sep 24, 2022)

gregorio said:


> If you mean the shell of the connectors is nickel plated copper, I’m not sure that’s the case. Copper is a pretty soft metal, not well suited to structural applications, even with nickel plating. Far more likely it’s just solid nickel, although I know that black chromium is used quite commonly. Also, I doubt if nickel or nickel plate is used for the actual contacts, as nickel is a relatively poor conductor, less than half the conductivity of aluminium and about 20% of the conductivity of copper. Presumably why nickel/silver alloy is used.
> 
> Caveat: Apart from the conductivity figures and the use of black chrome for the shells, all my assertions above are personal conjecture!
> 
> ...


Gold plating is quite common, and it does not cost much more (if at all), so it does not command much "premium" compared to other connectors. So no extra profit - not much of "audiophile myths",  as simple as that. Audiophile myths are in gold-silver or gold-palladium alloys, graphene, litz, 5N, 7N that can be sold to acutely perceptional audiophiles, like Dave, at 10+ time manufacturing costs. So those people selling the cables or "unbiased reviewers of free samples" (or highly perceptional audiophiles that can feel the difference and buy $50+ cables) defend their livelihood/ego by derailing any discussions of cable measurements. Sadly amazing...

Now, alloy conductivities are much higher compared to pure compounds. One can think of a cobblestone pavement analogy: a mix of different atoms is very detrimental for electron propagation, even for quite similar metal atoms, as gold and silver.
Here is a good comprehensive story.

So alloys, like brass, are used only for the cheapest connectors.
Plating is thin, so it does not affect overall conductivity much. The very best is gold-plated silver. Silver-plated copper with gold-plated connectors is the most cost-effective solution.
Copper is soft but it can be strengthened by small amounts of beryllium largely retaining good conductivity.
Most demanding connectors, like MMCX (which I personally do not understand, why they still exist) use beryllium copper (beryllium is toxic, but alloyed in small amounts to copper, concerns to consumers are minimal).


----------



## cirrus101

gregorio said:


> Obviously not if they’re outside of audibility!
> 
> G



Indeed.
I find that if you fiddle with the room acoustics just a little, you get massive improvements. Add a cushion, treat the walls, add curtains, etc; proper positioning of where you are in the listening environment compared to the sound source, etc. etc. All of these things gives you an instant perceptible change compared to... some micro atom-sized almost-placebo like effect that 'audiophile cables' _may _have (but which could all very well be in your mind). Heck, even your mood, if you're feeling upset about something, or whether its cloudy and raining heavily, or a blazing hot sunny day, will change how you appreciate the music A LOT more in a given moment. There are so many other variables in life which directly affects audibility and how what you did hear is actually, actually processed in your brain; rather than going mental over premium overindulgences.


----------



## gregorio

PhonoPhi said:


> Gold plating is quite common, and it does not cost much more (if at all), so it does not command much "premium" compared to other connectors.


I’m not 100% sure exactly why commercial audio applications don’t use gold plated connectors but they don’t and I was warned off them by several different engineers when I was starting out. I assumed it was probably because the gold plating could wear off with multiple duty cycles of plugging/unplugging. And price isn’t really the issue, it’s just performance; signal integrity and durability. There are no audiophile cables in the pro-audio/commercial music world, despite what some cable manufacturers state/imply because the engineers know too much about engineering to fall for the audiophile marketing BS. However, there are some incredibly expensive pro-audio cables, in fact more expensive than even the silliest audiophile cables. The most expensive I’ve seen/used were in OB (outside broadcast) applications; the cables connecting to the OB trucks are multi-core (up to 64 audio channels), commonly half a kilometre in length, have to operate close to powerful satellite/radio transmitters and power lines for 50kW+ lighting rigs and are subject to quite a bit of physical abuse, so they’re heavily shielded/protected and typically 1-2 inches in diameter. $20k+ is not uncommon for a single multi-core and well over $100k total spend on cables, so a “premium” for say gold plated connectors is not the issue.


cirrus101 said:


> I find that if you fiddle with the room acoustics just a little, you get massive improvements. Add a cushion, treat the walls, add curtains, etc; proper positioning of where you are in the listening environment compared to the sound source, etc. etc.


That is what’s so bizarre about the audiophile world. They’ll spend $20k or more on speakers, thousands on DACS, amps, turntables, etc, thousands more on cables and other silly audiophile products that have no audible effect at all but often completely ignore something like acoustic design and treatment which has a huge audible effect. I’ve seen $100k audiophile systems with far poorer performance than you’d expect from even a cheap $5k “edit suite” system (with proper acoustic treatment). Look at the advertising photos for expensive audiophile speakers and almost always they’re in some expensive looking but acoustically dreadful listening room. And even when audiophiles do consider acoustic treatment, they’ll often just buy some expensive pre-made acoustic panels with no idea of whether they’re the appropriate treatment for their particular listening room. They can quote chapter and verse on skin effect, silver and copper cables, differences between digital filters and all sorts of other irrelevant nonsense but barely the first thing about acoustics and often not even the first thing about aural perception. It’s truly amazing what audiophile marketing has achieved over the last 40 years or so! 

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> That is what’s so bizarre about the audiophile world. They’ll spend $20k or more on speakers, thousands on DACS, amps, turntables, etc, thousands more on cables and other silly audiophile products that have no audible effect at all but often completely ignore something like acoustic design and treatment which has a huge audible effect. I’ve seen $100k audiophile systems with far poorer performance than you’d expect from even a cheap $5k “edit suite” system (with proper acoustic treatment). Look at the advertising photos for expensive audiophile speakers and almost always they’re in some expensive looking but acoustically dreadful listening room. And even when audiophiles do consider acoustic treatment, they’ll often just buy some expensive pre-made acoustic panels with no idea of whether they’re the appropriate treatment for their particular listening room. They can quote chapter and verse on skin effect, silver and copper cables, differences between digital filters and all sorts of other irrelevant nonsense but barely the first thing about acoustics and often not even the first thing about aural perception. It’s truly amazing what audiophile marketing has achieved over the last 40 years or so!
> 
> G


Acoustic treatment is the "messy" part of audio. It is not some nice looking devices connected to each other with fancy cables. It is ugly panels all over the place. Wife might be okay with your large speakers and heavy amps, but acoustic treatment is a step too far even if you yourself are ready to take it... No wonder snake oil cables sell better...

...people want to deny the acoustics as an _inconvenient truth_ and want to think it is all about those fancy devices and cables.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 25, 2022)

The Jester said:


> The better XLR connectors are nickel shell and silver contacts,
> With the 6.3mm phono plugs normally nickel or gold plate over brass similar to most RCA connectors,
> Brass is usually 40% Zinc 60% copper and when perfectly clean is about the same conductivity as Nickel so the thin Nickel plating layer has little effect on conductivity whilst preventing oxidation,
> Silver contacts oxidise too but silver oxide is still a relatively good conductor, so for just about all contacts using some form of contact cleaner/enhancer will delay oxidation and provide a slight lubricant to minimise wear on contact surfaces that are regularly plugged and unplugged.



In my experience, best XLR connectors so far = pure solid tellurium copper, gold plated. Cryo treated. 

Or pure solid silver connector. Cryo treated. 

Best of the best, if possible = no solder at all, just high pressure crimping.

The less metallic and weighty the plug is, the best it is. 

For instance (rca, but this is only a exemple), bullet RCA Eichmann, pure silver = by far as I thing, the best rca connectors of the market, any prices... 

Royal way = no plugs at all, only direct connections. 👑

Just a testimony. Dozens of essays... 🤔😉


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> best XLR connectors so far = pure solid tellurium copper, gold plated. Cryo treated.


“Best” in what sense? “Best” because some audiophiles think they’re better, because some audiophiles think they look better or because they actually perform audibly better? If it’s the latter, then; No, they aren’t!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Just a testimony.


Then you’re again in the wrong forum! The Cables subforum is the place for testimonies, this is the sound Science forum and unsurprisingly is the place for science/reliable evidence, NOT testimony. Is it really so hard to grasp this simple concept?

G


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> It is ugly panels all over the place.


Maybe in some home/private studios but it doesn’t have to be. Most commercial studios have the acoustic treatments covered with floor to ceiling material and can therefore look like there’s no acoustic treatment. 


71 dB said:


> Wife might be okay with your large speakers and heavy amps, but acoustic treatment is a step too far even if you yourself are ready to take it... No wonder snake oil cables sell better...


If you can spent tens of thousands on audiophile equipment, much of which makes no audible difference, then you can spend $5k-$10k on proper acoustic treatment, making it look pretty or hiding it and which will make a huge difference.

Snake oil cables sell better because there’s massive profit margins. You just need some silly marketing, someone posting about them on sites like this one, no more than a few people to specify/source the cables, stick them in bags and mail them to audiophiles. You don’t need teams of people to go to audiophiles’ homes, measure the room response and specify, source and install the acoustic treatment. 


71 dB said:


> ..people want to deny the acoustics as an _inconvenient truth_ and want to think it is all about those fancy devices and cables.


Again, IMHO that’s because of all the marketing of those fancy devices and cables with huge profit margins. How often do you see audiophile marketing for acoustic treatment installers? It’s not so much that audiophiles deliberately ignore/deny acoustics but simply they don’t consider it much because there’s little mention of it in most of the audiophile world. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

At Gregorio = sorry, you are in my ignored person list. 😓

But you are in, alone.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> At Gregorio = sorry, you are in my ignored person list.


Don’t be sorry, as far as I’m concerned that’s a good thing but why are you still responding to me, why can’t you stop posting nonsense and why can’t you understand even the name of this subforum?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Maybe in some home/private studios but it doesn’t have to be. Most commercial studios have the acoustic treatments covered with floor to ceiling material and can therefore look like there’s no acoustic treatment.


Commercial studios without proper acoustic treatment wouldn't make much sense and they know how to allocate money properly. Private homes are the problem and I was talking about them. Landlords may not be happy if their tenants turn the flats into studios with floor to ceiling acoustic materials!



gregorio said:


> If you can spent tens of thousands on audiophile equipment, much of which makes no audible difference, then you can spend $5k-$10k on proper acoustic treatment, making it look pretty or hiding it and which will make a huge difference.


I know that, but I don't have the money. Well, I have the money, but the money isn't allocated to audio. It is pension savings. Audio isn't the only thing that costs money. It isn't even a necessity like food or roof over head. That's why I allocate hundreds on euros to audio rather than thousands of euros not to mention tens of thousands. Luckily audio technology has come so long way, that such limited budget allows decent systems with enjoyable good sound. It helps that the acoustics of my listening room is at least decent. I use the type of furnitures that are good for the acoustics (e.g. high large bookshelf full of CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays and books) so I don't even need acoustic panels. I have simply optimiced the speaker placement for the already decent acoustics I have. Doing this I may have money for food and roof over head when I retire. Maybe I even can afford all the medicine I will need at old age, whatever that will be...



gregorio said:


> Snake oil cables sell better because there’s massive profit margins.


That doesn't make sense. Lowering the profit margin would lower the price increasing the sale. I must mean there are lots of snake oil seller, because it is a way to get rich thanks to massive profit margins.



gregorio said:


> You just need some silly marketing, someone posting about them on sites like this one, no more than a few people to specify/source the cables, stick them in bags and mail them to audiophiles. You don’t need teams of people to go to audiophiles’ homes, measure the room response and specify, source and install the acoustic treatment.


Yeah. Doing acoustic treatment is a lot of work.



gregorio said:


> Again, IMHO that’s because of all the marketing of those fancy devices and cables with huge profit margins. How often do you see audiophile marketing for acoustic treatment installers? It’s not so much that audiophiles deliberately ignore/deny acoustics but simply they don’t consider it much because there’s little mention of it in most of the audiophile world.
> 
> G


It is no different from health. Wonder pills ("easy looking solution") sell, when real heath comes from healthy habits in life ("harder looking solution").


----------



## DaveStarWalker

My main sedentary system is situed in a didecated room, fully acoustically treated (passive treatment).

My rt60 is about 0.2-0.3s averaged, all bandwidth. 😎 

Mid field listening position. 

The entire bandwidth response of my two loudspeakers stands in 2 dB. About 50 hz to 20 kHz. Measurement in third octave. 

In French (Google trad is your friend 👌) 

About rt60 :

http://www.acouphile.fr/absorbtion-reverberation.html

About a cable listening protocol :

https://www.petoindominique.fr/php/cableessai.php


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> My main sedentary system is situed in a didecated room, fully acoustically treated (passive treatment).
> 
> My rt60 is about 0.2-0.3s averaged, all bandwidth. 😎
> 
> ...


The second link brings up the issue of delays and memory, which is good because it does matter a great deal. But he doesn't seem to push for blind test, just a rapid switch. That's not great. Better than nothing, but still obviously open to biases.
Then the testing idea if I got it right is to send the same signal to both speakers and listen to them one at a time(so the switching is easy between speakers) That's also a bad idea because 2 speakers are so very unlikely to sound exactly the same. I guess if they're physically very close, that can do the job to get a sighted experience about the speakers themselves, But to test cables when the testing apparatus has more sound differences than the cables we're supposed to listen to, it doesn't make sense.

One good point is that for listening test with speakers, it's well accepted that using only 1 speaker makes details easier to notice. Obviously that's true only until we're trying to notice stereo effects ^_^.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

castleofargh said:


> The second link brings up the issue of delays and memory, which is good because it does matter a great deal. But he doesn't seem to push for blind test, just a rapid switch. That's not great. Better than nothing, but still obviously open to biases.
> Then the testing idea if I got it right is to send the same signal to both speakers and listen to them one at a time(so the switching is easy between speakers) That's also a bad idea because 2 speakers are so very unlikely to sound exactly the same. I guess if they're physically very close, that can do the job to get a sighted experience about the speakers themselves, But to test cables when the testing apparatus has more sound differences than the cables we're supposed to listen to, it doesn't make sense.
> 
> One good point is that for listening test with speakers, it's well accepted that using only 1 speaker makes details easier to notice. Obviously that's true only until we're trying to notice stereo effects ^_^.



It is interesting if, like me, you are in a very (very...) controlled acoustic.

I should point out that I have never had the experience he describes.


----------



## bigshot

The best way to detect small differences is line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparisons with averaged multiple trials.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 25, 2022)

bigshot said:


> The best way to detect small differences is line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparisons with averaged multiple trials.


Yes, but you must be trained.

I insist. 

If differences are small, subtle rather = it too complicated, unless you have natural golden ears or big bags full of luck.

Supernatural powers are a very good option too. 

Modalities between a lucid listening and a blind listening are completely different.


----------



## bigshot

If you have to be trained to detect noise or imbalances, then just don’t train yourself and they won’t interfere with listening to music in the home.

When you get down to slicing the gnat hairs that fine, it just doesn’t matter.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> If you have to be trained to detect noise or imbalances, then just don’t train yourself and they won’t interfere with listening to music in the home.
> 
> When you get down to slicing the gnat hairs that fine, it just doesn’t matter.


No, this is not about gnat hairs at all.

Just it is very (very, very) difficult. 

Even more so with (long = if we want a statistic relevance) listening series. Blind or not, by the way. Both attention and hearing become tired very quickly. Unless you are used to this type of exercise. I also add a big stress when you are not used to it. 

It is an important bias. These are some important biases. 

Like recognize two wines or more. Blind or not, and the describe them = very difficult. 🤔

Like... 4 pictures of the same woman, with 4 differente lenses... If you don't know how to spot = impossible to know. 😉

Is you are not trained (how to taste, how to see, how to listen... ) = impossible to succeed, even if the differencies are real... 🤔

Believe me. This is not at all a gimmick.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

Most people have self esteem based on things they have accomplished. Passive listening is an odd thing to invest pride in. Especially when your super power dissolves under blind testing.

Blind testing is designed *specifically* to minimize bias. If you have to strain and go to a great deal of effort to hear noise or distortion, you're better off not even going to the effort. But I think all the effort is just to convince yourself that your hearing is better than everyone else's when it really is normal human hearing. Investing your ego in that is dumb.

Listening to a record isn't the same as drinking wine, and it has no relationship to Rolls Royces or Leicas, except as being a status symbol. If you need an object to give you status, then again you're investing your self esteem in all the wrong things.

All a home stereo is supposed to do is present commercially recorded music with a high degree of fidelity. If it serves its function efficiently, you've achieved the goal. No need to go further. Audiophools spend more time worrying about inaudible theoretical problems than they do audible real ones.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Most people have self esteem based on things they have accomplished. Passive listening is an odd thing to invest pride in. Especially when your super power dissolves under blind testing.
> 
> Blind testing is designed *specifically* to minimize bias. If you have to strain and go to a great deal of effort to hear noise or distortion, you're better off not even going to the effort. But I think all the effort is just to convince yourself that your hearing is better than everyone else's when it really is normal human hearing. Investing your ego in that is dumb.
> 
> ...


So be it...

Once again.

Beware = "commercially recorded music". They are a lot of crap. Dynamically wise, lots of compression :

https://dr.loudness-war.info/

A very good trial :

https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=Rush&album=power+windows

It is done to be listened to with all types of systems, including poor quality systems, or in a noisy environments (cars for example). Therefore, the signal is dynamically compressed, to artificially boost low level signals. But at the expense of high level signals.

This is one of the reasons why I said that *a good ear training*, _all things being equal_, consists in recognising different masters for the same song. For example 4 different masters.
You'll see how easy it is, even in a "no blind listening" situation.  

Good luck.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Yes, but you must be trained.


Test subject training to recognise the specific threshold or just noticeable artefact/effect being investigated is standard procedure with DBTs. So with jitter thresholds for example, an artificially high amount of jitter is added to the test materials that it easily audible and then gradually reduced. Yet even with training we have no reliable evidence anyone can hear the differences between cables (assuming cables of the appropriate specs of course). 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Both attention and hearing become tired very quickly.


That depends on what you mean by “very quickly”. It could become an issue with some DBTs/DBX tests but that’s why DBX tests allow as long as you need, so the test subjects can take breaks. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> It is an important bias. These are some important biases.


No, it’s not an important bias because firstly it’s quite easily avoidable and secondly there are far more important biases anyway, expectation or confirmation biases for example. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Is you are not trained (how to taste, how to see, how to listen... ) = impossible to succeed, even if the differencies are real...


Of course that depends on what is being tested. It’s easily possible to succeed in telling differences between certain wines or certain audio effects/artefacts. Ultimately though, it’s impossible to hear differences with cables (given the obvious conditions), regardless of the amount of training because the differences are not just barely noticeable, they’re well below audibility.

Again, for the umpteenth time your post is just paraphrased audiophile marketing/myths, invented nearly 40 years ago when highly respected/influential audiophile reviewers could not detect differences under controlled test conditions and then invented nonsense to discredit DBTs in order to save their reputations/livelihoods.

Two simple facts remain: 
1. Measured differences are well below the threshold of audibility and 
2. Audiophile cables have been around for more than 40 years and despite countless attempts over all these intervening years, there is still NO evidence under controlled conditions the differences can be heard by anyone and that’s despite the incentive of huge profits for audiophile cable manufacturers and a $1m prize for any individual who could detect a difference!

G


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Once again.


Absolutely, “Once again” complete nonsense/BS!

Again, of course different masters sound different, that’s the whole point of different masters! Why on earth would a record company spend thousands of dollars for a mastering engineer to create a different master that sounds identical to a master they’ve already paid for?

And what has this got to do with cables anyway? You’re not seriously claiming that audiophile cables magically apply dynamic range compression or somehow create different masters are you?

G


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> Absolutely, “Once again” complete nonsense/BS!
> 
> G


Yes, complete nonsense that makes this thread utterly tiresome for me. The cold fact is people who have decided to believe cables make a difference won't be convinced to believe otherwise.


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> Test subject training to recognise the specific threshold or just noticeable artefact/effect being investigated is standard procedure with DBTs. So with jitter thresholds for example, an artificially high amount of jitter is added to the test materials that it easily audible and then gradually reduced. Yet even with training we have no reliable evidence anyone can hear the differences between cables (assuming cables of the appropriate specs of course).
> 
> That depends on what you mean by “very quickly”. It could become an issue with some DBTs/DBX tests but that’s why DBX tests allow as long as you need, so the test subjects can take breaks.
> 
> ...


Google “$1 million audio cable challenge”,
If that’s the one you’re referring to it degrades rather than reinforces your usually accurate responses …


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Hi, I don't know you, as such I guess I can have a fresh start with you on this conversation. I sense you're mostly based on anecdotes/personal impressions. I will not discuss whether these are valid or not. *Instead*, I would like to know the following from you: _what _exactly do you perceive differently? and _why _do you think it is so? If you have not come to any conclusions you can say "I don't know", but just be honest with your answer.


Hi Cirrus101,

As promised in PM.

So...

I do have a lot of experience with this issue. More than 20 years.

I should mention that I was not specifically a cable believer, and there are a lot of false claims and totally **** prices in this business. But one experience in  changed my mind, in 1998. I opened Pandora's box.

The loudspeakers were Mission 754 freedom. These are dual-cable speakers, with a double terminal block (high and low bandwidth...). On one side (right or left, I don't remember), the original straps have been kept (a kind of "golden plate", solid. Fabric ??? crap as I think. It was usually at this time). On the other side, a Monster m1 cable has been read between the terminals (a great classic this HP cable...).

I was shocked to hear a different sound coming out on the right and left. This is how my odyssey began.

Since then, I have literally tested miles of cables at all prices (from free to very expensive), all technologies (materials, braids technics, flat conductors, hollow ovoid conductors, "classic" conductors, litz, non litz conductors, different litz types - 2, 4, 5, 6... - solid core - different diameters -, multi-strands - the same -, shielded, unshielded cables, active, passive, etc.). Too many things to mention...)....

Otherwise, I would like to point out three important things:

1/ I do not subscribe to "arguments from authority". This is a well-known and useless sophist bias.
2/ I bear witness here. Nothing more but nothing less. I have been reading the exchanges carefully for the last few days, and I have not read anything else.
3/ We want a real scientific approach ? That's fine. But then, prepare the money (a lot), the adequate equipment, a lot of time (a lot), reading committees that validate the works, and above all a scientific community interested in this question... According to all these basic conditions, I have strictly never read any scientific work conducted about audio cables...

So, about your question.

I am the best specialist in the world of *MY* system. Here are my listening conditions :

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how...ke-a-difference.481385/page-212#post-17162232

Which are exceptionnal. Little tiny differences, if they exist and all things beeing equal, are audible.

All things beeing equal ? Just some changements with the cables...

From this point of view, my system was completed several years ago. Cables, as well as stationary hardware, are no longer an issue for me. Only music, all musics.

My goal has never deviated : to believe in what I hear but without making any particular effort (intellectual or otherwise) to believe it (the result is self-evident), sound and musical realism, all criteria, a feeling of total holography, of palpability (textures, tones). Loudspeakers totally disappearing as acoustic emissive points.

*So... what exactly do I perceive differently?*

- Transparency and more specifically total immediacy. It's not even a question of"definition" or "resolution" (purely audiophile notions = no interest at all), but of "purity", of "limpidity". The absence of colourations, but above all not by falling into a sterile or artificial reproduction. Quite the contrary.

- Compared to the audio registers, the bass is controlled but powerful, descends very low, and rumbles when necessary. Above all, it is agile and articulate. It must also be tense... but the "roundness" is also part of the sound reality. It is especially on this point that I perceived differences.

- The medium must be realistic. Simply put, it has to be realistic. The voices must be human. Not reproductions of human voices.

- The treble must be energetic but under control, whiz, be refined, be naturally sparkling but not have a metallic coloring except if it is necessary to have a metallic coloring.

- The restitution should not be systematic or colored.

- The soundstage (if the musical material allow it) should be presented in a 3D manner. Without any effort.

- Dynamics should be as nuanced and open as possible. Transients should be as nuanced, but also as fast and violent as possible.

-The tones must be harmonically rich, with texture, weight, palpability....

Voilà.  

I do not know how to measure all these elements. If you know how to do it, let me know. I am very interested.

And so, it is perceived by comparisons. In the same way that I understand much more easily 2 drunk whiskeys in the same tasting, than just one : by contrasts, differences. So this is my system. That I know perfectly, what's more in a very controlled environment (all criteria).

I know exactly where I come from, and where I ended up after all these years :

I have the same amps since 2005, the same speakers since 2010 and the same source since 2012. I am listening in an acoustically treated room (absorbing behind the speakers, diffusing behind the listener - polarized acoustics - bass traps in the corners of the parts, diffusers on the sides walls...), with products placement at mm.

*The only thing I've worked on since have been the cables (all cables = electric powering, HP, interconnects, internal wiring), and the fuses (another incredible thing as I know = mindblowing).*

I hope to have answered and I have nothing more to add here...


----------



## gregorio

71 dB said:


> The cold fact is people who have decided to believe cables make a difference won't be convinced to believe otherwise.


That’s not always the case. Certainly the trolls, shills and audiophile cable manufacturers/marketers themselves obviously cannot be convinced to admit no audible differences and certainly there are hardcore/deluded audiophiles who cannot but I’ve come across several people who once believed audiophile cables made an audible difference but were convinced otherwise. 


The Jester said:


> Google “$1 million audio cable challenge”,
> If that’s the one you’re referring to it degrades rather than reinforces your usually accurate responses …


I was referring to the James Randi Prize, not sure how that degrades the argument?

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dave, every time you reply, you change the subject again. What does the quality of recordings have to do with cables and your ability to discern differences between them by training yourself? Apples and oranges.

I don't think you *can* train yourself to hear differences between cables in a controlled test no matter how hard you try, because I don't think there is any audible difference between functional cables used for the purpose they were intended.

You can refuse to acknowledge the authority of a hundred years of testing and research, but it's a lot easier for me to just dismiss your unsupported claims. You're prevaricating  because you know you're wrong about this, but your self admiration won't let you admit it.

By the way, I'd be interested in seeing photos of your installation in your listening room.


----------



## chef8489

Here is how you test. You have a recording chamber set up with your speaker. Multiple microphones surround the speaker. You record a song then swap the cable then record another song. You then analyze the recordings and do a null test. If the cable changed any dynamics of the music software can analyze the tracks and determine if there is any difference.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

Assuming the room tone is constant... I think if a neighbor flushes the toilet it might be enough to register as a false positive! Unless by chamber, you mean a sound proof booth of some sort.


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> That’s not always the case. Certainly the trolls, shills and audiophile cable manufacturers/marketers themselves obviously cannot be convinced to admit no audible differences and certainly there are hardcore/deluded audiophiles who cannot but I’ve come across several people who once believed audiophile cables made an audible difference but were convinced otherwise.
> 
> I was referring to the James Randi Prize, not sure how that degrades the argument?
> 
> G


James Randi prize was offered for anyone demonstrating Physic or paranormal ability ?
Only one audio cable challenge discussed and remained unresolved until the challenge was abandoned.


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Assuming the room tone is constant...


It would be a treated sound chamber. That's the whole point.. the speaker placement is constant, sound level constant and matched, only thing changes is the cable. This even removes the human factor and limitations of dbx.

Since @DaveStarWalker didn't know how to test that's how.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

The cable challenge continued after the first snake oil salesman backed out I believe.

That should work then, Chef. Now all we need is a sound proof room... but I think it really doesn't cry out for proving what is generally accepted and there's no evidence to doubt.


----------



## The Jester

bigshot said:


> The cable challenge continued after the first snake oil salesman backed out I believe.
> 
> That should work then, Chef. Now all we need is a sound proof room... but I think it really doesn't cry out for proving what is generally accepted and there's no evidence to doubt.


Do some more reading, it wasn’t open to any individual and from what I’ve read the test conditions couldn’t be agreed upon,
Whatever, apart from a select few who obviously failed to prove any paranormal ability the whole $1 million challenge isn’t up to the normal scientific references G normally uses, so why refer to it ?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Dave, every time you reply, you change the subject again. What does the quality of recordings have to do with cables and your ability to discern differences between them by training yourself? Apples and oranges.
> 
> I don't think you *can* train yourself to hear differences between cables in a controlled test no matter how hard you try, because I don't think there is any audible difference between functional cables used for the purpose they were intended.
> 
> ...


Hi Bigshot
Try to read me please.... while I was answering a question here. Just try, a little.  

You absolutely refuse to hear the experiments which do not go in the direction of *your* convictions. Also, I would be very interested in having a link to the "hundreds of studies" you mention. Scientific studies (reading committees)? I had absolutely no knowledge of it.

This is not about functional or not functional cables. If this is your only point of view, indeed, all discussion is useless. I also tried completely free cables. They were functional.

I am not prevaricating here, I testify as all the persons here (just read them...), I share my experience. First hand. Not readings of other persons. No more, but no less.

And I know I am right, with my own history. Sorry. You are welcomed in France. Paris. 

*About my listening room, ok but exclusively in MP.* Old pics however. *Strictly personal*_. _*Do not diffuse it*.
I'm serious. 

However, I find your actual tone very disagreeable......... It's not exactly the best way to have cordial exchanges. Mind your words...


----------



## bigshot

The test conditions couldn’t be agreed upon because the snake oil guy wouldn’t agree to scientific controls on the test.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> I do not subscribe to "arguments from authority". This is a well-known and useless sophist bias.


It is a well known fallacy but it’s a lie that you do not subscribe to “arguments from authority” because that’s exactly what you have done numerous times, even in the same post! Just one example: “_I do have a lot of experience with this issue. More than 20 years._”


DaveStarWalker said:


> All things beeing equal ? Just some changements with the cables...


Exactly, you have NOT ensure all things are equal! There is not “_just some changements with the cables_”, there is also some “changements” in your biases/perception because you have not used a testing protocol that eliminates them.


DaveStarWalker said:


> Here are my listening conditions :
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how...ke-a-difference.481385/page-212#post-17162232
> Which are exceptionnal.


Firstly, that’s an appeal to authority and therefore HYPOCRISY! And secondly, 2dB accuracy of your speaker setup is “exceptional” but differences between cables are just a tiny fraction of a dB, orders of magnitude smaller than your 2dB. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> My goal has never deviated : to believe in what I hear but without making any particular effort …


That is a contradiction! Unless you make the “_particular effort_” to separate what you actually hear from what you just imagine you’re hearing (perceptual errors) then you obviously have no idea if you are believing in what you hear. In other words: Your goal has never deviated from not knowing what you’re actually hearing! That’s funny!


DaveStarWalker said:


> I do not know how to measure these elements. If you know how to do it, let me know. I am very interested.


You’re joking? More than 20 years experience and you’ve never heard of an oscilloscope, a measurement device such as the AP555, a null test, a spectrogram, phase scope, a voltmeter or pretty much any other audio measurement device, all of which can measure either amplitude/dynamic variations, harmonic content, the audio properties that cause the perception of soundstage or all of them! That is literally not believable! And if it were true, what an astonishing level of ignorance. 

So yet again, not a shred of reliable evidence, just hypocrisy, fallacies and BS. Thanks for proving my point!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

Stop it please...  

Try not to insult your interlocutors, those who disagree with you, and take them for fools. Please. Please, Please.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

Dave, please link to that controlled blind listening test.

I refer you to Bell Labs in the 1920s.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Dave, please link to that controlled blind listening test.


What is it ? I didn't understand. What link?

Otherwise I did several ABXs, double blind listening already... It was years ago from now = it's very, very, very (very) complicated about audio cables. Hence my comments.

I had made a summary of several pages on the French audio forum HCFR. But that is really dated.


----------



## bigshot

You said I ignored tests that didn’t agree with my position. I’m asking what specific test you’re referring to.


----------



## The Jester

bigshot said:


> The test conditions couldn’t be agreed upon because the snake oil guy wouldn’t agree to scientific controls on the test.


Not my intention to derail this thread with mixed reports on a single supposed event,
All I said was it’s not up to the usual reference standard expected in this sound science forum ?
I’ll leave it there.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Hence my answer.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

Well! There’s two replies in a row that prevaricate!

I’d like to see an answer that derails this thread more than it already is. That would be a doozy!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

The Jester said:


> Not my intention to derail this thread with mixed reports on a single supposed event,
> All I said was it’s not up to the usual reference standard expected in this sound science forum ?
> I’ll leave it there.


Real science is about real methodologies.

But it exists a lot of valid methods.

Blind tests and others ABX are just a method among others... I'm just saying that these modalities are very specific methods that require practice.

I think that's understandable, right?


----------



## bigshot

I don’t think you understand it at all.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Well! There’s two replies in a row that prevaricate!
> 
> I’d like to see an answer that derails this thread more than it already is. That would be a doozy!


I'm giving up with you.   

Sorry pal.


----------



## bigshot

If it’s possible, you’re just the man to do it!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> I don’t think you understand it at all.


Ze same....


----------



## bigshot

At least I can point to tests you ignore because they don’t support your theory.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

Ok................
My *practice*, you mean. Not my theory(ies). 

And about your theory(ies), do you have any practice to share ?


----------



## bigshot

You mean theories that have nothing to do with cables, so I can derail the thread?

Nope. Not right now.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> You mean theories that have nothing to do with cables, so I can derail the thread?
> 
> Nope. Not right now.


Not "theories".

Practices. Please.

Words have meaning. ^^

Not _your _meaning (maybe it is the main problem here...).

So *practices*. Please. Thanks.

So, about your own... practice(s) : anything to share here pal ?


----------



## gregorio (Sep 26, 2022)

The Jester said:


> James Randi prize was offered for anyone demonstrating Physic or paranormal ability ?


Yes, but applied to audiophile cables on this basis:
“_Several readers alerted us to yet another hilarious and preposterous situation in the “audiophile” business, which we have referred to frequently simply because if some of their claims were true, they would be paranormal._” - JREF (James Randi Education Foundation), 28.09.2007.


The Jester said:


> Only one audio cable challenge discussed and remained unresolved until the challenge was abandoned.


Only one challenge (with Micheal Fremer) was widely reported because it caused such a controversy but as far as I’m aware the challenge was open to anyone, remained open for many years and Randi specifically challenged several other well known reviewers:
“_Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these “no-compromise” cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables. While Pear rattles on about “capacitance,” “inductance,” “skin effect,” “mechanical integrity” and “radio frequency interface,” – all real qualities and concerns, and adored by the hi-fi nut-cases – we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation. That said, we offer the JREF million-dollar prize to – for example – Dave Clark, Editor of the audio review publication Positive Feedback Online, who provided the above rave review. If Mr. Clark should choose to apply for the prize, he would be unlike John Atkinson of Stereophile Magazine – see randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11 – who made great noises about being ready to snap up the million, then got distracted by things such as gullible readers who accepted his claimed abilities, and backed out. But we’ll see…_” - From the same JREF post as the previous quote titled, “MORE CABLE NONSENSE”.

G


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> Yes, but applied to audiophile cables on this basis:
> “_Several readers alerted us to yet another hilarious and preposterous situation in the “audiophile” business, which we have referred to frequently simply because if some of their claims were true, they would be paranormal._” - JREF (James Randi Education Foundation), 28.09.2097.
> 
> Only one challenge (with Micheal Fremer) was widely reported because it caused such a controversy but as far as I’m aware the challenge was open to anyone, remained open for many years and Randi specifically challenged several other well known reviewers:
> ...


From what I read initially the “paranormal ability” challenge was open to those with a certain public presence or recognition, fair enough, otherwise there’d have been a long queue of crackpots at the door, 
Regardless, any arguing back and forth of who said what and when, the fact that the $1 million prize regarding audio cables was never actually undertaken during its availability for whatever reason is hardly the same as a reference to a peer reviewed scientific test.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> Try not to insult your interlocutors, those who disagree with you, and take them for fools. Please. Please, Please.


Ah good, more hypocrisy! You insult your interlocutors and then tell others to try not to do what you’re doing!

And, if someone comes to a sound science forum, foolishly contradicts science with no reliable evidence, foolishly thinks sharing their experience counts as reliable evidence, foolishly uses hypocrisy, fallacies, regurgitated marketing or other BS tactics to support their argument and then foolishly just repeats the same BS tactics when challenged, what else should we take them for, other than fools?


DaveStarWalker said:


> Otherwise I did several ABXs, double blind listening already... It was years ago from now = it's very, very, very (very) complicated about audio cables.


Again, just more BS. Of all the things we ABX/DBT, audio cables would be one of the easiest. So pretty much the exact opposite of what you falsely claim! Not that it matters in your case, as you don’t appear to know what a DBT/ABX test is actually for. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

Try it 😉👍

If you feel it capable to succeed, try it. Feel free. It certainly worth the efforts. 

I'm happy with what I already have, so it's fine. 

Good luck. 🍀


----------



## castleofargh (Sep 26, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Yes, but you must be trained.
> 
> I insist.
> 
> ...


And with small differences, sighted impressions are even less reliable because all the psychological biases and non audio senses usually don't go down with the sound differences being smaller. Only the role of sound is small in such an experience, leading to an even bigger likelihood of being fooled by all the non audio differences.


> This suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes.


Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.



You warn against blind testing difficulties and weaknesses, but blind testing is like democracy. Yes it's flawed, yes anything can go wrong and often does. But it's also clear that it's better than the alternatives.
Even music competitions have learned to admit that watching the candidates perform would greatly influence the judges. There is even one paper where the subjects guessed the winners with more accuracy when only presented with the soundless video of the candidates, than when  they only had sound. Suggesting that the judges in those events had also ranked based on the visual show.

Of course the brain has a part for sound and one much bigger and very distinct for vision, but then the all mess is mixed with internal criteria and priorities to create our experience. With so much that's included without our conscious knowledge, and so much that is discarded more or less actively also without our knowledge. From the "holes" in our vision that we don’t notice unless we test it a certain way, or how we don't usually notice our nose while looking at things, to much more involved tricks like how we don't notice the clear delay between image and sound IRL unless it’s at such a distance that we just can’t make up for the sound lag with our brain.
The role of vision in our understanding and interpretation of other senses is major. And as we grow up, the more we find correlation between events involving several senses, the more crossovers will happen in our brain when we later try to interpret events. It is known to influence our senses as well as our deductive reasoning. Once we get some cues that usually come with others, we’re fast to assume the latter is also present. Like how seeing or hearing a mosquito(or just someone tell you there is on in the room), makes most people soon feel itchy all over to a degree that’s almost paranoid. we constantly use one sensory stimulus to interpret what's going on with another sense, and beside newborns that have crappy vision, kids grow up learning that vision is the most reliable and informative of senses, to the point where we rely on what we see to define what we hear(with confirmation by looking at the source and learning that a certain delay and ILD mean that direction we just confirmed with our eyes.

From some publication about rats:


> Sensory information, like vision or touch, use separate pathways. Later when the signals reach the brain they are combined. This process, called multisensory integration, helps the nervous system to better understand what is happening around you. For example, you will better understand a person if you see and hear them rather than if you only see them or just hear them talking.


And that’s what you so consistently misinterpret as better hearing and why blind test give worst result. It gives worse result because you’re only testing hearing instead of constantly cheating with other senses to ”hear” different.
What you consider evidence that casual listening allows for better discrimination of subtle sound differences, the entire scientific corpus has judged to be biases from other senses and personal preconceptions.
We're humans, not machines. If you want to know about sound, you measure it or you test your hearing under conditions that make sure you’re not looking at differences or being told what you’re listening to so you don't apply all your beliefs to the interpretation.

What’s so frustrating is that you have no evidence supporting your position. It’s all gut feeling and misinterpretation. I can understand why you’d think you know better than random guys on the web, but I don’t understand how you can seriously think you have more accurate methods to notice sound differences than blind testing when only pseudo science disciplines reject blind tests to establish subjective ability for discrimination. It’s good enough for dangerous drug trials, but not good enough for audiophiles? 

I’ve tried to explain this several times now, but you just won’t put your made up methods under the same scrutiny you readily apply to criticize blind testing. You are biased even about how to test your biases.


edit for angrish.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> And with small differences, sighted impressions are even less reliable because all the psychological biases and non audio senses usually don't go down with the sound differences being smaller. Only the role of sound is small in such an experience, leading to an even bigger likelihood of being fooled by all the non audio differences.
> 
> Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
> 
> ...


The only "evidence" I have for you is a visit in my appartement.

Are you living in Paris ?

We are two Frenchmen, so ? 😉

As I said, it's my experience, my experimentations, my practices and my own conclusions, but... this is completely empirical.

And for me, the superhuman beings are those who can success a cable ABX for instance, without any special training.

Bravo. 👏👏👏


----------



## bigshot

It’s my practice to buy Amazon Basics cables.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> It’s my practice to buy Amazon Basics cables.


Yeah, because you don't live in Paris. 🥐


----------



## gregorio

The Jester said:


> the fact that the $1 million prize regarding audio cables was never actually undertaken during its availability for whatever reason is hardly the same as a reference to a peer reviewed scientific test.


True but even if it were only “open to those with a certain public presence or recognition” it’s very telling that not a single one of them (who wax lyrical about audiophile cables), for a whole decade or so, claimed or AFAIK even attempted to claim the $1m.

Obviously this is not absolute proof of no audible differences and neither is the fact that reliable evidence of audible differences would significantly financially benefit the manufacturers and retailers of audiophile cables but taken together, along with the other facts (that there is no reliable evidence of audible differences and objective measurements indicate differences are well below audibility) and we have overwhelming evidence that it’s all just snake oil for placebophiles. And this is as good as it gets, science cannot prove a negative.

G


----------



## gregorio (Sep 26, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> As I said, it's my experience, my experimentations, my practices and my own conclusions,


Exactly it’s your own conclusions, which can’t help being wrong because they’re based on your experience of your highly flawed experiments and practices!


DaveStarWalker said:


> but... this is completely empirical.


Yes it is but a “completely empirical” what? A completely empirical hearing observation or a completely empirical observation of placebo/perceptual error? As you have zero reliable evidence that it’s the former and the wealth of reliable evidence indicates the latter, what’s the ONLY rational conclusion?


DaveStarWalker said:


> And for me, the superhuman beings are those who can success a cable ABX for instance, without any special training.


You cannot train a human being to hear something which is below the threshold of human audibility. As cable differences are well below the threshold of audibility, by definition someone who could hear those differences would have to be superhuman, with or without training!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> It’s my practice to buy Amazon Basics cables.


If it's fits you, it is real good.
No discussion at all.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> If it's fits you, it is real good.


As it “fits” all human beings’ hearing thresholds then it’s “real good” for all human beings. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> No discussion at all.


Exactly, yet here you are in a sound science forum still trying and without any reliable evidence. How is that not foolish?

G


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 26, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi Cirrus101,
> 
> As promised in PM.
> 
> ...



Hello Dave,
Thanks for writing this answer down. I now see you in a different light. I take you more seriously now, because this time you have genuinely put an effort into describing things which cannot be described in words.

You have gone beyond the "I am right, you are wrong" type of discussion, and the "I know so much more than you" attitude, and merely bared witness to whatever you have experienced, which, as human beings as we are, is legitimate as can be. We are all dust in the wind in the end. So, thank you for that.

Concerning your comments. Man, the way you speak of it, I'd like to listen to music in your room and hear these differences for myself! Regardless of the cables issue we are discussing, it seems you have curated your listening environment very carefully and that's always something to appreciate. Sounds like a good time to spend.

Now. If we look back into our not-so-distant-past, it is amazing _in itself_ that we can get to such a high degree of audio quality. Not long ago, little more than a century ago, the very idea of holding forever on Earth a sound form that breathed in the air flows, with its qualities hidden in its mysterious passages, seemed impossible, almost like magic. Now that this is a palpable and commonplace reality, we take it for granted that it should deliver "a real sound as real as real life". *But could it really be so?* Maybe. And while cables are definitely not the end solution to this question, I am open to new discoveries! Who's to say whether there might be a missing aspect of audio signal transmission that was lost in translation in the electrical vocabulary? If Georg Simon Ohm had not discovered the *Ohms*, if Alessandro Volta had not come up with *Volts *and James Watt with *Watts *— all of them at different times, from different approaches, and different objectives — how would we be so sure of those specifications and the known relations between them today? Surely, someone else would discover those things eventually, but the point here is that at some point those notions _didn't exist_, and it was altogether _*incomplete*_. Maybe there's a factor missing that applies specifically for audio transmission in cables??? I mean, unlike normal electricity that is basically a + or - pulse, audio _does _carry an entire spectrum from >20hz-20khz of information with a huge array of different dBs amplitudes for each of them an all this info is delivered simultaneously in real-time sync: so God knows how electricity can do that without garbling and mashing all this info together like play dough. In light, if you add all colors you get white. With ink, adding all colors results in black. But in sound, if you add all frequencies, you do get all frequencies as it were. Which always amazes me.

I have two more questions which will add more interest to your statements and interest to this discussion:

- Which cable, in your opinion, is the BEST? And, more importantly: what do you think is the reason (physical components) that makes it so?
- You have mentioned fuses. Do you think fuses - say, in an amplifier - are also affecting sound behaviour?

And, feel free to answer _when _you'd like and _what _you'd like, only.
This is a place to share knowledge, not the Spanish inquisition.
Cheers!


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

Here are mine :









These are custom cables only made to measure.
No active filtering or something like that about the boxes. No resistance, etc. Competly something else = kill the mechanic vibrations, tribolelectric currents... 

Interconnects are made in pure silver, 5n occ quality (Furutech product for the raw material). Hp cables in pure 102 occ copper ("102" because they are rated at 102 instead of 100 in the conductivity board ; Oyaide product for the raw material).

Plug are in pur copper (hp cables, no solder and ac plugs, no solder too : custom made) and pure gold plated copper (XLR interconnections, Neo tech products).

I do have a dedicated ac line.

Voilà. 😉


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Hello Dave,
> Thanks for writing this answer down. I now see you in a different light. I take you more seriously now, because this time you have genuinely put an effort into describing things which cannot be described in words.
> 
> You have gone beyond the "I am right, you are wrong" type of discussion, and the "I know so much more than you" attitude, and merely bared witness to whatever you have experienced, which, as human beings as we are, is legitimate as can be. We are all dust in the wind in the end. So, thank you for that.
> ...



I am working now (too much time in this forum, it's bad lol 😂⌚😅) , but I will read carefully your message and try to respond it extensively, point by point. 👍

It's just that, as I understand it, conductivity is only one of many electrical elements, and not necessarily the main one (sound wise only). It's completely counterintuitive...

But I need time to develop.

And I repeat, *this only is my pragmatic and empirical experience*. No more, but no less too.
I am not equiped with a full lab (some of my friends do), and I am not a fighting monk, here as elsewhere.


----------



## bigshot

If I lived in Paris, it would be my practice to own a poodle and take it out to go oui oui.

I’m glad Dave has a friend now. He really was desperate for attention and citrus is very patient with him.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 26, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> I will read carefully your message and try to respond it extensively, point by point.



Take your time.



DaveStarWalker said:


> I am not equiped with a full lab (some of my friends do), and *I am not a fighting monk*, here as elsewhere.


Oh and... don't get me wrong I am not against you or your ideas. When I said "This is a place to share knowledge, not the Spanish inquisition." I have meant that the general feeling here is that others are ganging up on you, frantically refuting everything you have to say, meaning, they are doing the inquisition _on you_. Not the other way around! Hahaha


----------



## DaveStarWalker

cirrus101 said:


> Take your time.
> 
> 
> Oh and... don't get me wrong I am not against you or your ideas. When I said "This is a place to share knowledge, not the Spanish inquisition." I have meant that the general feeling here is that others are ganging up on you, frantically refuting everything you have to say, meaning, they are doing the inquisition _on you_. Not the other way around! Hahaha


Yes, I know, 

My line of humour was not intended for you.


----------



## bigshot

Is that little metal tube a Synergestic Research placebo device?


----------



## The Jester

gregorio said:


> True but even if it were only “open to those with a certain public presence or recognition” it’s very telling that not a single one of them (who wax lyrical about audiophile cables), for a whole decade or so, claimed or AFAIK even attempted to claim the $1m.
> 
> Obviously this is not absolute proof of no audible differences and neither is the fact that reliable evidence of audible differences would significantly financially benefit the manufacturers and retailers of audiophile cables but taken together, along with the other facts (that there is no reliable evidence of audible differences and objective measurements indicate differences are well below audibility) and we have overwhelming evidence that it’s all just snake oil for placebophiles. And this is as good as it gets, science cannot prove a negative.
> 
> G


From what I read about the most publicised case, there was a standoff due to test conditions that could be changed and any results becoming the testers intellectual property ?
If that was indeed the case it was hardly a “level playing field”.
Just seemed a little “off” to me that it’d be used in any definitive scientific discussion, but that again is up to you to decide,
In your post I commented on, you’d already made a concise reply that didn’t need the addition of the whole “$1 million challenge” saga.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

bigshot said:


> If I lived in Paris, it would be my practice to own a poodle and take it out to go oui oui.
> 
> I’m glad Dave has a friend now. He really was desperate for attention and citrus is very patient with him.


Ignored bro. 

This is like an autistic behaviour...

I am fed up with all your nasty remarks. While you bring nothing but tension here.


----------



## cirrus101

bigshot said:


> I’m glad Dave has a friend now. He really was desperate for attention and citrus is very patient with him.


Haha, it is just that I find it more interesting to use this discussion as a mean to bring new fresh ideas to the plate; for instance, how I had injected the idea of room acoustics being far more prevalent to discern audio and that spawed some pretty nice comments afterwards, and now in my latest post I spark the idea of how there could be more to it than ohms, volts and watts to audio measurement interrelations. I find it tiresome to debate "eye for an eye" over the internet, instead, I hijack it into something that might become a more interesting discussion to everyone.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

cirrus101 said:


> Indeed.
> I find that if you fiddle with the room acoustics just a little, you get massive improvements. Add a cushion, treat the walls, add curtains, etc; proper positioning of where you are in the listening environment compared to the sound source, etc. etc. All of these things gives you an instant perceptible change compared to... some micro atom-sized almost-placebo like effect that 'audiophile cables' _may _have (but which could all very well be in your mind). Heck, even your mood, if you're feeling upset about something, or whether its cloudy and raining heavily, or a blazing hot sunny day, will change how you appreciate the music A LOT more in a given moment. There are so many other variables in life which directly affects audibility and how what you did hear is actually, actually processed in your brain; rather than going mental over premium overindulgences.


Absolutely.


----------



## bfreedma

In every other subforum on Head-Fi, trolls get moderated in order to avoid the 10 pages of BS seen in this thread.  Would be nice to see that happening here.

Since PMs on this topic have not been responded to, it’s time to ask publicly.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> *But could it really be so?* Maybe.


There’s no “maybe” about it, the answer is a definite “yes” and we’ve known that for about 75 years, when Claude Shannon published his famous “Mathematical theory of communication” paper, proved it mathematically and initiated “The digital age”. Of course we can’t “deliver a real sound as real as real life” because we are limited by microphones and HPs/Speakers but as far as recording what microphones or any other audio device outputs, Shannon proved it’s possible to capture 100% of that information perfectly. Of course, it took some time for technology to apply that science.


cirrus101 said:


> Who's to say whether there might be a missing aspect of audio signal transmission that was lost in translation in the electrical vocabulary?


About 130 years of extremely extensive research. And I really do mean extremely extensive, few things have been researched more extensively because we’re not talking about just a niche audiophile market but global audio telecommunications, national security, life and death and trillions of dollars in one of the C20th most influential and lucrative industries.

However, this is somewhat irrelevant because even if we had somehow missed some fundamental aspect of analogue or digital audio, it wouldn’t affect today’s audio recording or reproduction systems. It would require some new technology that doesn’t yet exist. We have to remember that digital audio is effectively just a single measurement, the measurement of amplitude over time. If there is something we can’t currently measure then it can’t be recorded with digital audio technology and of course consumers can’t reproduce what hasn’t been recorded. And also, of course HPs and speakers are only designed to respond and transduce those electrical properties we know about.

The above eliminates anything in an audio signal for any current audio technology that we can’t measure. In the case of something different in the electrical/analogue signal, we have a very old, very reliable and very accurate test called a Null Test, which allows us to compare any two audio signals and provides a null (no) result if they’re identical or a difference signal if they’re not identical. So we can take the input signal to a cable and the signal output from a cable, perform a null test and instantly see if anything has been added or if anything is missing.

G


----------



## gregorio (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Haha, it is just that I find it more interesting to use this discussion as a mean to bring new fresh ideas to the plate; for instance, how I had injected the idea of room acoustics being far more prevalent to discern audio and that spawed some pretty nice comments afterwards, and now in my latest post I spark the idea of how there could be more to it than ohms, volts and watts to audio measurement interrelations.


There’s no correlation between the two ideas. “_The idea of room acoustics …_”, isn’t a “fresh idea”, it’s a very old idea that’s well established, scientifically researched, demonstrated in practice and what you stated did not disagree with the science/facts. Your latest idea (of something we’re missing) is a fresh idea, and it’s fresh because there’s no reliable evidence that even hints of that possibility and it does contradict the existing science/facts.

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

I’ll take that as a yes!

I took one of those synergistic research dongles apart. Inside it had two wires, a pinch of sand and some aluminum foil.

Complete snake oil. Does this make a significant difference like wires do?


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 26, 2022)

Hi Gregorio, thanks for the answer and the lecture. It has widened this topic's scope and depth, and that's a good thing. A few points:



gregorio said:


> There’s no “maybe” about it, the answer is a definite “yes” and we’ve known that for about 75 years


Known it for 75 years, sure, but took like half of that time to actually apply it, innit. And even to this day we don't have a "one, safe-proof answer" to achieving the perfect audio reproduction, do we?

Do we have one set of gear that is *The* absolute best choice*? Something that is perfect in every way and its unanimously agreed upon? What we have so far are many approaches; attempts to apply theories, and as far as approaches go, it might take more 75 years to develop those even further. So, it _is_ a maybe, in the sense we are not, quite, there yet.

*Pro tip: it won't be the most expensive one



gregorio said:


> About 130 years of extremely extensive research. And I really do mean extremely extensive, few things have been researched more extensively because we’re not talking about just a niche audiophile market but global audio telecommunications, national security, life and death and trillions of dollars in one of the C20th most influential and lucrative industries.


_Exactly:_ lucrative industries. Humans driven by profit. To achieve specific goals, paid to achieve certain results...

*sigh* Regardless, I am talking of something larger here; I was talking of things that may be the science of a hundred, a thousand years from now. What will be the common base knowledge in the year 3022? It's very possible they might have a grasp of electricity more deeply than we do.

We sure know a gazillion things more than what our ancestors knew. In the space of only a couple hundred years. That is nothing, a speck of time in all our history. I leave the door open for possibilities. For instance; lots of people speak of Tesla, how he invented wireless transmission, free energy harnessed from the atmosphere, among other things we do not quite see today (supressed inventions? lobbying?). I am not claiming there's any conspiracy regarding audio, not at all. But I suppose we cannot state that _"everything _about electrics and audio is known - *the end*". What if someone like Tesla comes up and shows that music can be transfered wirelessly?* What do we make of our cables then? (I've seen videos of that, although one could say it's fake).

* Am not talking of bluetooth, obviously



gregorio said:


> of course consumers can’t reproduce what hasn’t been recorded


In the days of the gramophone and early music-players, people really thought those devices were reproducing all there was in those analog recordings in either wax cylinder or shellac discs. Nowadays, we can listen back to those same recordings with _a_ _lot more_ insight, going through digital spectrometers to visually see what they contain, as well as listening to their playback in infinitely more quality than any music-player at the time could even dream of.

*Point being:* Even if the recording equipment is primitive, the future will always be able to scratch far beneath the surface of its original capabilities and exceed in its reproduction accuracy. I do not doubt that our digital recordings of today will be, in a distant future, seen/heard/analysed/quantified/reproduced in ways we cannot even imagine.



gregorio said:


> “_The idea of room acoustics …_”, isn’t a “fresh idea”, it’s a very old idea that’s well established


Oh, yes. What I meant is that its fresh in a topic where people are frantically obsessing over cable specs. Just a friendly reminder of the bigger picture, that was all. It's good to put things into context when you get insanely macro onto something.


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> Hi Gregorio, thanks for the answer and the lecture. It has widened this topic's scope and depth, and that's a good thing. A few points:
> 
> 
> Known it for 75 years, sure, but took like half of that time to actually apply it, innit. And even to this day we don't have a "one, safe-proof answer" to achieving the perfect audio reproduction, do we?
> ...



Unless we expect human hearing to evolve significantly over the next 1000 years, advances in audio electronics/cables involved in home audio reproduction won’t have much impact.  We’re already well past established thresholds of human hearing.

In the unlikely event that something audibly significant has been missed, obviously, baseline audiology will need to be reassessed.  I’ll begin to consider those elements once that discovery occurs.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 26, 2022)

I think the question is not about the human threshold audition which is what it is, but about how reproduced musics and sounds can sound enough realistically.

These are where progress, if they exist and are possible, must be focused.

This is all the difference between a good hi-fi system, and a really great system, that disappears for the exclusive benefit of musical realism.

It's about sound, yes, but physical sensations too.


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> The only "evidence" I have for you is a visit in my appartement.
> 
> Are you living in Paris ?
> 
> ...


Je suis à Cabris(au dessus de Grasse), donc si on se voit ce ne sera pas tout de suite. 
I'm not discussing your cables here. What really happens does happen. It's the convincing others that requires more work.
My first very obvious IEM cables sounding different was in a Tellement Nomade meet BTW. The IEM was 90% of what made it so obvious with at the time, one of the most extreme impedance swing I had ever seen.
But my last post was strictly about the human brain and the need for controlled experiments to lower the possible causes of fooling ourselves. There is also the matter of demonstration that cannot be neglected.
Failed ABX= meh.
Passed ABX with solid number of trials= that guy really is able to tell the samples apart by ear. It could still be a sound difference caused by the test itself, but the positive result would confirm something different was heard. That and being luckier than a lottery winner are the only possible explanations for a passed ABX without cheating with visual cues.
Failed sighted impression= passed sighted impression= that guy has an opinion about sound differences that may or may not be correct and may or may not be about sound. 

When it comes to try and define what is factual for small differences, casual listening is mostly useless.


It's well accepted by good educators and people researching how to improve teaching, that we stay fully focused for about 15mn to 20mn. With training some go up to half an hour or something. After that it would be more productive to take a break, make some jokes, look at some very silly television for a short while, and then go back to being fully focused for 15 more mn. Obviously that's the ideal theoretical solution, not what's easy to implement at school. 
But with ABX you can do exactly that! You have nothing forcing you to do 30 trials in one go. You can stop whenever, go make some coffee, come back do 3 runs of abx, go read a book, come back to do a few more, etc. You can try it in the morning, try at night, maybe find out that you're clearly more discerning in one instance, or maybe not. There is also no time limit and no limit to the number of trials beside what you must decide before starting(otherwise you change the odds and reality itself collapses or something).
What stresses us with ABX is us. We want to win. We want to have great listening skills. and most of all, we usually really want to get done with it. It's expected, but it's also all on us and we can do something about it. I do agree that to some extent, training or at least getting used to doing it does help relax a little and can help pick up very subtle cues if we learned exactly what they sound like with tests at higher magnitudes like Greg suggested. Few things in life comes with us being the best at it the very first time we tried. Maybe there are some people who can never relax in a blind test, the same way some artists puke or almost crap themselves before any concert, even after decades of career. My experience has been that after fooling around for 2 days, I was already way more relaxed doing ABX on foobar about lossy encoders. for blind testing about gear or cables, I had to call for help and what was by far the most stressful was my fear of my helper running out on me at any moment because of how annoying he thought the all thing was ^_^.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 26, 2022)

gregorio said:


> About 130 years of extremely extensive research. And I really do mean extremely extensive, few things have been researched more extensively because we’re not talking about just a niche audiophile market but global audio telecommunications, national security, life and death and trillions of dollars in one of the C20th most influential and lucrative industries.





bfreedma said:


> Unless we expect human hearing to evolve significantly over the next 1000 years, advances in audio electronics/cables involved in home audio reproduction won’t have much impact.  We’re already well past established thresholds of human hearing.


If you've read this excellent article by the creator of Mojo Audio, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

I'll quote:


> *To sum things up, the recorded music industry has made decision after decision to maximize profits and mass consumer appeal at the expense of the audio purist. History lesson over. *



In short, he goes on showing throughout history, in all of our recording and playback evolution since 1857, it was not a linear evolution from "worst" to "best", most of the efforts were made for profits and distribution, and not exactly focusing on the musical qualities per se; or the audio intricacies that would come in trying to achieve such qualities. There were efforts to make these things work so that 8 billion people can listen to music during their daily lifes, making listening to music the most banal thing ever for the modern man, which IS a good thing! But not for achieving "a real sound as real as real life".



DaveStarWalker said:


> I think the question is not about the human threshold audition which is what it is, but about how reproduced musics and sounds can sound enough realistically.
> 
> These are where progress, if they exist and are possible, must be focused.


Exactly.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> If you've read this excellent article by the creator of Mojo Audio, you'll understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/
> 
> ...



An owner/creator of a product, with a profit motive, believes in mysterious indescribable, unmeasurable audio elements that he claims his product will help with.  Well, I'm on board with zero apprehension...

From your link:  
_"Hear It for Yourself:_​_Are you curious about the potential of digital-to-analog conversion?

Mojo Audio’s Mystique EVO DAC has the purest digital conversion possible"_

I've not seen anyone suggest that electronics won't improve.  That said, improvements in areas already orders of magnitude beyond current human audibility are irrelevant unless the manufacturer can show actual audibility.  I think I'll wait for that proof."\

Bottom line, our own hearing is already the weakest link in the chain.  Strengthening other links (other than transducers and room acoustics) won't change/impact that.


----------



## bfreedma

DaveStarWalker said:


> I think the question is not about the human threshold audition which is what it is, but about how reproduced musics and sounds can sound enough realistically.
> 
> These are where progress, if they exist and are possible, must be focused.
> 
> ...



Yes, transducers and room treatments can certainly improve.  Cables, electronics, and various other audiophile McGuffins already have performance that far exceeds human hearing.

You can navel gaze all you want.  Until hard facts are presented, that's all your posting amounts to.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Known it for 75 years, sure, but took like half of that time to actually apply it, innit.


Is 5 years half of 75 years? The first commercial application of digital audio was by AT&T in the early 1950’s, around 5 years or so after Shannon’s paper was published. In the late 1960’s the BBC was transferring its radio broadcasts from broadcasting house to its radio transmitters using digital audio. By the mid 1970’s the first commercial digital audio recording devices hit the market, though companies like Denon and others had working prototypes a decade earlier. CD hit the consumer market in 1984, more than 30 years after digital audio was first commercially implemented.


cirrus101 said:


> And even to this day we don't have a "one, safe-proof answer" to achieving the perfect audio reproduction, do we?


True, we don’t have ONE safe-proof answer, we have numerous safe proof answers, assuming we’re talking about recording and reproducing an audio signal. When it comes to creating an audio signal, for example transducing sound pressure waves into an audio signal (using microphones) and transducing and audio signal back into sound waves (HPs and speakers) then no, we don’t even have one safe-proof answer to that yet. Transducers are certainly an area where significant (audible) gains could in theory be made but their basic principles of operation haven’t changed in around 90 years, although they have been tweaked and refined considerably in that time.


cirrus101 said:


> What we have so far are many approaches; attempts to apply theories, and as far as approaches go, it might take more 75 years to develop those even further. So, it _is_ a maybe, in the sense we are not, quite, there yet.


Yes, as implied above, we have many approaches that attempt to apply the Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theorem and as far as human hearing is concerned, perfection was achieved around 30 years ago. Since then there has been further developments of course, that level of perfection can now be achieved at a ridiculously low price and the direction of development has been towards ever better numerical specifications which are massively beyond human hearing. For example, a bandwidth nearly 5 times beyond our 20kHz frequency hearing limit is now standard even with cheap DAC chips.


cirrus101 said:


> But I suppose we cannot state that _"everything _about electrics and audio is known - *the end*".


I’m sure we can’t say we know everything that can be known about electrics and audio. What we can say and have been able to say for several decades is that we know enough to easily exceed the capabilities of human hearing. There are very active areas of continuing research but only for marketing purposes (you can charge more for higher specs even though they’re inaudible) or specialised areas of perception, say HRTF application in headphones for virtual reality or multi-channel formats for “immersive” audio.


cirrus101 said:


> In the days of the gramophone and early music-players, people really thought those devices were reproducing all there was in those analog recordings in either wax cylinder or shellac discs.


I’m not sure what the average “man in the street” thought but science certainly did NOT think that! The concept of digital audio and its potential for theoretical perfection was first published in 1927 by Harry Nyquist, although not mathematically proven until about 20 years later by Shannon (and others). There was huge R&D from around 1900 to the 1950’s precisely because science, governments/the military and the telecoms and entertainment industries recognised the limitations of the audio technology of the day and it’s future potential.


cirrus101 said:


> If you've read this excellent article by the creator of Mojo Audio, you'll understand where I'm coming from.
> https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/


I have read that article and while it does bust quite a few popular audiophile myths and is good for that reason, it is VERY far from “excellent”! There are numerous mistakes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods, some of which appear to be obvious, deliberate and ridiculous falsehoods. The author can’t even get the documented history right! The “_Sony PCM 7030 One of the earliest studio PCM recorders_” (pictured)- is actually closer to one of the last studio PCM recorders, it’s a DAT recorder released around the early 1990’s if I remember correctly, not so long before the industry moved away from hardware recorders to hard disk recording. An actual early example of a studio PCM recorder would be the SoundStream from 1976! And, do you really believe that wax cylinders were the height of audio fidelity and it’s been downhill ever since, have you ever heard one? It’s just nonsense!

If you think that article is excellent, it does indeed give some understanding of where you’re coming from! You really would be better off in this subforum to post in the form of questions if you don’t know or aren’t sure of something. Making assertions that contradict the actual facts/science/history without some supporting reliable evidence is frowned on here and repeatedly doing so will result in more and more hostile responses. That should be obvious but is a lesson that @DaveStarWalker seems incapable of learning. You so far appear much more reasonable.

Incidentally, quoting manufacturer articles doesn’t typically constitute reliable evidence. There are some/many audio equipment manufacturers who do publish accurate articles but almost never within the audiophile manufacturers. It’s typically at least partial BS and sometimes just wall to wall BS. Benchmark and Lavry are two very rare exceptions off the top of my head but they’re not exclusively audiophile manufacturers.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

If you like to think like that, that's your right.

My audio quest is over and so is my system. Cables are no longer a subject for me. Gears too. 

My money goes exclusively into buying records. Only masters that I select. A lot of japanese and historical masters (try Steve Hoffman music forum 😉). 

No need to worry about me = perfectly happy pal. 👏😎👍


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

"Realistic Sound" is not the goal of commercially recorded music. Optimized sound is. Sound is mixed to establish a comfortable balance to be heard by human ears. It isn't designed to capture the sound of a live presentation (except with binaural recordings, which account for a tiny fraction of all recordings.) Because the sound is crafted in the mix, the most truthful way that it can sound is with complete fidelity to the way it sounded during the mix. That means playback should be on speakers in an acoustically treated room calibrated to a balanced response curve.

Wires won't make sound more realistic. They can conduct everything we can hear. A digital recorder and DAC can reproduce everything a human ear can hear too. Upgrading sound there will only improve it for bats and dogs, not people.

There is one aspect of sound that isn't fully addressed with current home audio... sound placement in space. When we sit in a concert hall hearing live musicians play, the sound isn't just coming from the instruments on the stage in front of us. It's reflecting off surfaces all around us. The sound is even affected by our body- our shoulders, the shape of our ears and our ear canals. "Realistic Sound" depends on all of this directionality and time delay to create a coherent sound field. You won't get realistic sound without a coherent sound field.

Stereo has soundstage. It can place a sound object on a stage in front of the listener, but it can't place it behind or above or below. 5.1 and 7.1 can place sound behind and to the sides with much more precision, but placing sound objects in the middle of the room is difficult. Atmos comes a little closer by filling the center of the room with down firing speakers and mixes based on sound objects, not audio channels. All of this has brought us much closer to "Realistic Sound", but we aren't there yet. In order to achieve that, we need to be able to accurately reproduce and synthesize space... That means creating sound fields that match our personal HRTF and the way sound objects are perceived in various kinds of three dimensional spaces. An orchestra sounds different in a smaller studio like NBC's 8H than it does in the Los Angeles Concert Hall or the Hollywood Bowl. It's the same orchestra playing the same music, but it sounds different because of the space around the orchestra.

"Purity of signal" has been the goal of audiophiles since the era of wind up gramophones. We strove to reduce noise and distortion and balance response and chipped away at it until high fidelity sound was established in the 50s. It took a while for consumer playback equipment to catch up, and at this point even the cheapest CD player can reproduce sound better than our ears can hear it. Reducing noise floors to -120dB or balancing response to +/- .001dB or reducing distortion to vanishingly small degrees or correcting timing error below a picosecond won't make sound any more realistic. Human ears won't hear the difference, no matter how much training they have because human hearing has definite limits that have been established and defined over the past century of study of acoustics and physiology. At this point, continuing to chase down the numbers on a piece of paper and attempt to improve upon perfection won't do jack squat to make sound more realistic.

Yes there are things that we are still learning about sound reproduction, but it doesn't have anything to do with jitter, silver wires or placebo boxes with sand and tin foil in them. That crap is snake oil designed to fool people who don't know anything about how digital audio really works. On top of that is heaped the "analog is better than digital” bull crap. And all this snake oil is defended by feeding customers anti-intellectual superstition about the ineffectiveness of science and controlled testing. That stuff is a lie and Sound Science is the forum where we get to call it a lie. But still people come in here saying stupid stuff like "We can't know anything because we don't know everything." and "Science doesn't know everything about sound reproduction." We know what we know. Digital audio is perfect for reproducing stereo commercial music. It can't get any better and still be stereo commercial music.

If you want to achieve more realistic sound, you need to look beyond the specs and technology we had in the stereo era to the new sorts of technology we are developing... multichannel sound, synthetic sound fields, object based mixing, DSPs. If you keep doubling down on improving stuff that is already perfect, you're wasting your time, effort and money. Feel free to do that if you want, but don't justify it as an improvement and definitely don't say it's more realistic, because it flat out isn't.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> In the days of the gramophone and early music-players, people really thought those devices were reproducing all there was in those analog recordings in either wax cylinder or shellac discs.


I'm a collector of antique phonographs and recordings and I can tell you that your are 100% wrong there. And your quote claiming that progress in home audio has only been in profitability is laughable. The only way someone could think that is to only know the history of the past ten or twenty years. It goes back a lot further than that.

In the acoustic era, they knew that the response was so band limited that it only really suited the human voice, and the speed fluctuation was so great that pianos didn't record well. They chose music that suited the technology. When electrical recording was introduced, they achieved a wider response, but they knew that distortion and noise floors were far from optimal. Phono nuts would use bamboo needles to try to attenuate all that noise, but it wasn't terribly effective. When records began being pressed on long playing vinyl and with full frequency range, it took another step forward. But you still had inner groove distortion and surface noise to contend with. With the introduction of stereo and magnetic tape, recordings finally met or exceeded our ability to hear. The CD brought the perfect sound of the recording studio into the home thirty years after that.

Each one of these steps wasn't a surprise to listeners. All along, everyone knew what they were aiming at. Edison had long playing records and Bell Labs made a stereo recordings in the 1920s. They knew the specs required to surpass human hearing back then and they were working to bring the technology up to that level of spec bit by bit. They were working on it. They weren't just hoping for some revelation of an unknown factor that would make sound more realistic. They scientifically defined audible transparency in the 1920s and worked to make recording and playback exceed that threshold. In 1925, they were aiming at creating sound as accurate as CD sound. It took 60 years, not just the last ten or twenty years.

If we want to improve sound beyond their goal, we need to set new goals. That means defining what makes sound more realistic. That isn't wires or higher bit rates or lower noise floors any more. You need to look beyond normal audiophile fetishes to signal processing and sound fields.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 26, 2022)

... I woke up the kraken ... 

Some replies were friendly, some borderlined hostile (boo to you). I am thankful for those who had things to teach, some things that were said were eye openers (in particular, thanks Gregorio on Mojo's biased article), while other parts were plain condescendence that could've been scraped. Oh well, the sad human nature of things.

I'll look away from those who couldn't take some ideas just as that - _ideas_. Things that spark your mind and makes you think. Anyway. While I did read everything, it's impossible to reply to it all, therefore I'll help this discussion by narrowing it down to the main relevant counterpoints only:



gregorio said:


> In the case of something different in the electrical/analogue signal, we have a very old, very reliable and very accurate test called a Null Test, which allows us to compare any two audio signals and provides a null (no) result if they’re identical or a difference signal if they’re not identical. So we can take the input signal to a cable and the signal output from a cable, perform a null test and instantly see if anything has been added or if anything is missing.


Shouldn't this Null Test put an end to cable arguments once and for all?



bfreedma said:


> Unless we expect human hearing to evolve significantly over the next 1000 years, advances in audio electronics/cables involved in home audio reproduction won’t have much impact.  We’re already well past established thresholds of human hearing.





bfreedma said:


> Bottom line, our own hearing is already the weakest link in the chain.  Strengthening other links (other than transducers and room acoustics) won't change/impact that.





bigshot said:


> Reducing noise floors to -120dB or balancing response to +/- .001dB or reducing distortion to vanishingly small degrees or correcting timing error below a picosecond won't make sound any more realistic. Human ears won't hear the difference, no matter how much training they have because human hearing has definite limits that have been established and defined over the past century of study of acoustics and physiology. At this point, continuing to chase down the numbers on a piece of paper and attempt to improve upon perfection won't do jack squat to make sound more realistic.





bigshot said:


> Digital audio is perfect for reproducing stereo commercial music. It can't get any better and still be stereo commercial music.
> (...)
> If you keep doubling down on improving stuff that is already perfect, you're wasting your time, effort and money.





bigshot said:


> The CD brought the perfect sound of the recording studio into the home thirty years after that.


Right. You all seem to be hitting the same note over and over: "We've reached perfection, there's nothing else to do, anything else is beyond human hearing". So I have a question: Why are most of you in this forum? Debating gear, debating which is better than the other, debating how one or the other sounds different, and spending any more cash than the average man should spend in music listening? For, y'know .............................................................................. something that was already perfect since the invention of the CD?

Arguably it's because there _is_ always room for improvement (in every part of the audio chain), therefore, why are you hitting this key? Isn't all the fancy gear you own steps forward towards some concept of realism (whichever that means for you)? No? If not, then sell all your stuff and just buy an iPod and use the earphones that come with it. If your fancy gear makes the sound better, then you can grasp that all I am talking about here is one similar goal: better, more realistic sound, ie: more enveloping, more lively, et al. I am aware of the existence of Atmos, surround technologies and so on. But that's beyond this scope, because most music isn't available like that. We were talking of good old stereo. And how this "real sound" could be achieved. And IF it could be achieved at all... to the point where it's equal to real life sounds, where it doesn't feel like it's coming from the speakers anymore. Arguably, different combinations of gear (among many things: source > dac > amp > cables >speakers> room > your ears) will shift you either farther or closer to this illusion. Yes, digital audio is perfect in its theory and its essence, but your brain isn't digital. You still need the waves to flow in the air to reach you. We're talking of things that affect that. You don't need to lecture me how live music is different from recordings, that is obvious in its very premise. My point was so simple..



gregorio said:


> I’m not sure what the average “man in the street” thought but science certainly did NOT think that! The concept of digital audio and its potential for theoretical perfection was first published in 1927 by Harry Nyquist, although not mathematically proven until about 20 years later by Shannon (and others). There was huge R&D from around 1900 to the 1950’s precisely because science, governments/the military and the telecoms and entertainment industries recognised the limitations of the audio technology of the day and it’s future potential.
> 
> I have read that article and while it does bust quite a few popular audiophile myths and is good for that reason, it is VERY far from “excellent”! There are numerous mistakes, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods, some of which appear to be obvious, deliberate and ridiculous falsehoods. The author can’t even get the documented history right! The “_Sony PCM 7030 One of the earliest studio PCM recorders_” (pictured)- is actually closer to one of the last studio PCM recorders, it’s a DAT recorder released around the early 1990’s if I remember correctly, not so long before the industry moved away from hardware recorders to hard disk recording. An actual early example of a studio PCM recorder would be the SoundStream from 1976! And, do you really believe that wax cylinders were the height of audio fidelity and it’s been downhill ever since, have you ever heard one? It’s just nonsense!
> 
> If you think that article is excellent, it does indeed give some understanding of where you’re coming from! You really would be better off in this subforum to post in the form of questions if you don’t know or aren’t sure of something. Making assertions that contradict the actual facts/science/history without some supporting reliable evidence is frowned on here and repeatedly doing so will result in more and more hostile responses.


Thanks for these clarifying facts. However, in my defence, those were not assertions - just rhetoric questions, like I said, I like inputting fresh ideas. _Could it be that in 1000 years we'll find out new things about electricity?_ It's an open question, food for thought. I am not from the future. Don't need to put my name on the line for it. As for historical data, I was basing myself off that Mojo's article and similar things I've read online. Not because I buy into everything I read, but because that guy made a 15k dollars DAC and all reviews I've found were overwhelmingly positive. In fact, I believe many here in this community owns the fancy expensive thing. Does it really make the sound better? I don't know. But the fact that noone seemed to be straight up outraged like I was when I saw this price tag for a mere bloody DAC possibly implied some credibility of its author, credibility of which you have now beautifully dispelled, so thank you for that.


----------



## old tech

cirrus101 said:


> Known it for 75 years, sure, but took like half of that time to actually apply it, innit. And even to this day we don't have a "one, safe-proof answer" to achieving the perfect audio reproduction, do we?


A good AES paper on the history of digital audio may be of interest to you.

https://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Why are most of you in this forum? Debating gear, debating which is better than the other, debating how one or the other sounds different, and spending any more cash than the average man should spend in music listening?


I’m here for two reasons…

1. To help audio nuts understand the basics of how digital audio works so they can make smart decisions about the equipment they buy. There are too many people urging consumers to spend big money on things that don’t make any difference, while ignoring the things that do. I’m all about efficiency for a purpose. I’m not a scientist. I want to help regular people to use science to put together kickass systems without spending too much or succumbing to complete fantasy/delusions.

2. I’m here to learn how to improve my own system and find out about new technology and features. In particular, I’m interested in DSPs and all kinds of signal processing and room acoustics, because I see these things as being the next wave of sound reproduction improvements. I’m interested in multichannel sound, synthetic sound fields, recording techniques and theories, and practical application of processing and treatment to tame room acoustics.

When Gregorio is allowed to just share knowledge without being baited into circular arguments, I always learn something. We had other great contributors in the past, but they were chased off by the deluge of stupid we have to put up with on a daily basis. Sound science has had a target painted on its back since the forum was created. We’re bad for business and we make insecure idiots feel even more insecure, so everyone’s out to take us down a peg.

I’ve been told in PMs that my posts have been helpful to people and that makes me happy. I know that the majority of people who read this forum never post. And it’s a small minority of people who post over and over again, clogging threads like a backed up toilet. I encourage people who don’t believe science is useful to go elsewhere. There are over a dozen forums in head-Fi for people who don’t believe in blind tests, and just one for us. We don’t have to suffer fools gladly. I’m happy to tell them to get lost. That may seem rude, but I’ve seen too many good contributors to this forum be driven away.

Going to the mat arguing about wires is profoundly stupid. Even the most cursory google search will tell you what you need to know, and pinned to the top of this forum is a post with dead to rights proof. If you’re here arguing that wires have a sound over and over for day after day, you’re either willfully ignorant or a troll. Or perhaps both.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 26, 2022)

Bigshot, you seem to have vast knowledge, but your ways of passing this knowledge is inefective.
Taking out these bits would make it an enjoyable read:



bigshot said:


> Upgrading sound there will only improve it for bats and dogs, not people.
> (...)
> placebo boxes with sand and tin foil in them. That crap is snake oil designed to fool people who don't know anything about how digital audio really works. On top of that is heaped the "analog is better than digital” bull crap. And all this snake oil is defended by feeding customers anti-intellectual superstition about the ineffectiveness of science and controlled testing.
> (...)
> ...





bigshot said:


> I can tell you that your are 100% wrong there. And your quote claiming that progress in home audio has only been in profitability is laughable.
> (...)
> Each one of these steps wasn't a surprise to listeners. All along, everyone knew what they were aiming at.
> (...)
> ...


They are snarky comments which degrade the quality of the response. The remaining are actually valuable bits of history I was not aware of. Thank you.



old tech said:


> A good AES paper on the history of digital audio may be of interest to you.
> 
> https://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf


Thanks. Saved.

---

One thing seems clear though, from all the responses:

I think you all have misunderstood what I said, we're talking of different things: I was talking of perfection in reproducing, ie: how to spill out the most perfect air waves from a hardware unit to reach your beautiful organic ears. Not about recording, preserving or storing the music data in digital format. Yes, digital is bit perfect. Yes, digital has more resolution than our ears can perceive. Gotcha. But my drift was on how to get that perfection into sound waves in our physical touchable reality as real as possible?

Yes, I did mention the gramophones and wax cylinders, shellac discs, early recording days and the profit in this industry that made some poor decisions. But only to show that since the dawn of audio, we have been trying to reach perfection in reproduction of music, with each decade thinking they were having it "better than before", and even to this day we didn't come to a consensus on what is the best music reproduction equipment. What was 70's hi-fi is today's mid-fi. As defective humans as we are living in the present, we always like to think we're at the peak of mankind, but that's the same "we're having it better than before" mindset which could be a trap. In a decade new gear will roll out with new materials, tinier chips, smarter implementation etc., that could sound better than what we have. Not long ago smartphones were hardly an option to listen music with. Nowadays we have USB-C dongles à la carte. That was all. I am not arguing that digital audio is forsaken and we need something better than digital audio itself. I am saying transporting this digital audio into reality will always come with compromise.


----------



## cirrus101

bigshot said:


> I’m here for two reasons…
> 
> (...)
> 
> I’ve been told in PMs that my posts have been helpful to people and that makes me happy. I know that the majority of people who read this forum never post. And it’s a small minority of people who post over and over again, clogging threads like a backed up toilet. I encourage people who don’t believe science is useful to go elsewhere. There are over a dozen forums in head-Fi for people who don’t believe in blind tests, and just one for us. We don’t have to suffer fools gladly. I’m happy to tell them to get lost. That may seem rude, but I’ve seen too many good contributors to this forum be driven away.


Fair enough. Keep at it!


----------



## bigshot (Sep 26, 2022)

By the way, I listen to stereo up mixed to 5.1. Multichannel sound and DSPs allow for all sorts of signal processing that makes recordings more pleasant to listen to.

70s hifi pales next to the sound that comes out of my phone. Today mid priced electronics sounds as good as high priced if you know what you’re doing. We are living in a golden age of sound reproduction right now. Even $35 Chinese Walmart DVD players put out perfect sound. The only thing money buys you is features and build quality. Sound quality is perfect whatever you buy.

If you want the nice me, don’t look for it in the middle of a dog fight. Do it in another thread. Start a polite thread and I’m polite. But I’m not that way in a troll thread, and you’ve been calling out and encouraging the troll. He should be encouraged to leave. He doesn’t want anything we have here. He belongs elsewhere.


----------



## cirrus101

bigshot said:


> By the way, I listen to stereo up mixed to 5.1. Multichannel sound and DSPs allow for all sorts of signal processing that makes recordings more pleasant to listen to.
> 
> If you want the nice me, don’t look for it in the middle of a dog fight. Do it in another thread. Start a polite thread and I’m polite. But I’m not that way in a troll thread, and you’ve been calling out and encouraging the troll. He should be encouraged to leave. He doesn’t want anything we have here. He belongs elsewhere.


Well, it's sad it has come to this point. I don't really like labelling anybody a troll, I haven't followed 100% of the discussion but it just seemed mean for a fellow audio enthusiast. I get it he may have slipped out of the 'strictly science' conversation rules, but he seemed happy to give his contributions ... I guess in another subforum would be fine.


----------



## bigshot

You don't go to a forum on Bavarian chocolate and talk about your allergy to chocolate and how it makes you sick. You don't go to sound science and demand that people accept your unverified subjective opinion that contradicts every study on the subject that's been done before. If it was an honest mistake and you just didn't realize it was wrong the first time you did it, you quietly exit. You don't repeat the error fifty times until the whole thread is crapped up.


----------



## cplus44 (Sep 27, 2022)

I tried a different headphone cable, a new one I bought and for some reason it sounds less lively than my Sundara stock cable. Could say it’s placebo but I didn’t buy it and try it with the mindset of “oh boy this cable is going to be worse than the stock cable that came with my Sundara I’m happy to be wasting $30 for this worse cable” I had high hopes it would do a better job was even planning on throwing out the stock cable but it doesn’t and I notice it.

Without throwing science out the window, is this an issue with the connectors or what? I make sure it clicks when plugging the connectors. It sounds clear as the stock cable but not lively. How could I go in believing it was going to be better, dropping $30 of my money on it and think it’s worse than the stock cable wouldn’t it be the opposite?

Also I bought the new cable because the stock one sucks with how it stays put not because I was expecting an audible improvement. I know the way I phrased my post seems like I was expecting an audible improvement but when I say better I mean as in durability and how it’s better to use when I move around when using my headphone. Thought I should clarify after reading what I wrote.


----------



## The Jester

bigshot said:


> By the way, I listen to stereo up mixed to 5.1. Multichannel sound and DSPs allow for all sorts of signal processing that makes recordings more pleasant to listen to.
> 
> 70s hifi pales next to the sound that comes out of my phone. Today mid priced electronics sounds as good as high priced if you know what you’re doing. We are living in a golden age of sound reproduction right now. Even $35 Chinese Walmart DVD players put out perfect sound. The only thing money buys you is features and build quality. Sound quality is perfect whatever you buy.
> 
> If you want the nice me, don’t look for it in the middle of a dog fight. Do it in another thread. Start a polite thread and I’m polite. But I’m not that way in a troll thread, and you’ve been calling out and encouraging the troll. He should be encouraged to leave. He doesn’t want anything we have here. He belongs elsewhere.


If that’s your passion then maybe start a thread about DSP, Atmos etc, Atmos has little to do with “Head-fi” but DSP certainly does, over 10 years ago now I set up my then new car with a reasonable audio system as pre retirement I spent around 2 hours a day commuting so why not have my own choice of music ?
Lots of new vehicles now come with multi speaker sound systems that fill the interior but I went in a more personal direction, simple upgrade of the split tweeter/mid bass drivers, a compact sub that didn’t take up all the luggage space, and  a programmable DSP unit allowing a dedicated amp per speaker with DSP control of crossover type and frequency, as well as a programmable delay, with exact speaker distance in mm measured to, in my case the drivers headrest, entered via laptop, car environment is perfect for this as you don’t get up and move around from the set listener position ..🤔
Final adjustment by calibrated Mic and laptop based FFT response, and a little by ear to taste, end result ?
Soundstage is from the windscreen forward, no apparent sounds coming directly from door mounted tweeters or the sub in the boot, mission accomplished, and that sparked my interest in all things DSP in the home environment, 7.2.2 Atmos receiver, ceiling mounted speakers for movies initially and then certain music, especially live recordings, with the application of the various pre programmed sound fields, not as some sort of “audio perfection” more just another option to get the most pleasure from different recordings, There’s still a place for dedicated 2 channel “Hifi”, either Vinyl LP or digital from speakers or headphones which can be more pleasing and “nostalgic” depending on music and mood, however I’m optimistic that good DSP based music can open up a whole new world, as long as the recording engineers try to optimise the listening experience without over emphasising the new technology, you know, early days of stereo that had vocals in one channel and the band in the other, “listen it’s in stereo 🙄”,
2 Channel DSP has been around for a while now, I remember a Hifi show a few years back listening to a dedicated 2 channel Dipole speaker setup with each driver controlled by a central DSP unit, whole system professionally installed and setup, then simply add your own front end, and it was spectacular, but systems starting close to $100k is well out of the range of most of us mere mortals.


----------



## bigshot

This forum was created to combine all of the sub forums on Head-Fi, including the one dealing with speakers, into one forum where blind tests, placebo effect, perceptual error and expectation bias could be discussed. So speakers are on topic here. It isn't strictly headphones.

Car stereo acoustics are something I don't know a lot about. I'm guessing a lot of it is experimenting to come up with something that sounds good, rather than trying to recreate three point soundstage in a car. There must be a lot of compromises to compensate for having the speakers in the weirdest places and having bodies and seats blocking the whole middle of the car.

I think there are probably a million different ways that the output of a multichannel speaker system could be manipulated in interesting ways using DSPs. It's not the traditional adherence to the way the setup was when the music is mixed, but that's OK if you can push a button and put it back to correct calibration.


----------



## The Jester (Sep 27, 2022)

bigshot said:


> This forum was created to combine all of the sub forums on Head-Fi, including the one dealing with speakers, into one forum where blind tests, placebo effect, perceptual error and expectation bias could be discussed. So speakers are on topic here. It isn't strictly headphones.
> 
> Car stereo acoustics are something I don't know a lot about. I'm guessing a lot of it is experimenting to come up with something that sounds good, rather than trying to recreate three point soundstage in a car. There must be a lot of compromises to compensate for having the speakers in the weirdest places and having bodies and seats blocking the whole middle of the car.
> 
> I think there are probably a million different ways that the output of a multichannel speaker system could be manipulated in interesting ways using DSPs. It's not the traditional adherence to the way the setup was when the music is mixed, but that's OK if you can push a button and put it back to correct calibration.


At least with something like Atmos there’s certain things that can be adhered to, with say an Atmos certified receiver with in room calibration there’s more likelihood of the engineers desired sound coming through ?
Hopefully there’s more music coming in 5.1 and Atmos, I remember an interview several years ago where Alan Parsons thought 5.1 was the future in recording,
With the in car stuff it takes a lot of fine tuning, and with such precise DSP there’s only one true “sweet spot”, luckily the DSP system and controller can store multiple presets, so I did a whole preset for the passenger seat, just for fun …
With a friend in the car who has an “interest” in music, Hifi etc (sadly Audiophile has been hijacked 🙄) with a CD source .. “ new sound system is pretty good” … open the glovebox, see the little box, press enter, select “soundfield 2” … “oh wow” and mine degraded back to “in car” …
To stay “on topic” I’ll add that in the last 10 years I’ve had no desire to “upgrade” speaker cables or the RCA interconnects from head unit to DSP .. 😉


----------



## bigshot

The problem with Atmos is that as a standard, it isn't very standard. It ranges from the source for Apple Music's spatial audio tracks, which are basically stereo with head tracking, to full theatrical installations with over a hundred speakers. When you say "5.1" you know what that is, but the term "Atmos" could mean just about anything.

There's probably more multichannel music than you realize. There are lots and lots of classical and opera titles, live concerts on blu-ray, and albums given the deluxe treatment... The Beatles, Alan Parsons, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Jean Michel Jarre, Dire Straits, Tears for Fears, Be Bop Deluxe, Al Stewart, Genesis, Kraftwerk, Yello, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Santana, REM, King Crimson, Rolling Stones, Yes, Elton John, Gentle Giant, Earth Wind and Fire, Tomita, David Bowie, etc. There are a few Jazz titles too. It mostly skews to "50 year old guy music" since those are the people who can afford to build a multichannel speaker system. But there are exceptions. Some modern groups have embraced it too, in particular Steven Wilson, who is the producer behind a lot of the multichannel remixes of 70s and 80s prog rock.

We had a thread on this stuff in the past. You can search it up and resurrect it if you'd like.


----------



## The Jester

Sounds like a plan … 🤔
One that was around for a little while was Pure audio on BluRay .. have Elton John, Supertramp and John Lennon on those, Dolby digital , DTS and 24/96 stereo soundtracks, dunno what happened to that format ?


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

Not all of the pure audio series were multichannel. I don't see any point to hires formats if they aren't multichannel. There are several formats... The oldest is Dolby surround CDs. They can be decoded using the Dolby Pro Logic setting in your receiver. DVD-A can be hard to find a player but they include a regular multichannel DVD track in Dolby or DTS that any DVD or blu-ray player can decode. There's blu-ray audio which can include just about any kind of track. And SACD, which isn't always multichannel. I've got an Oppo player that can handle any surround format. Some of the older disks and ones that were only released in Japan can be very pricey.

I think the only surround Supertramp is the Paris concert video blu-ray. I haven't seen any of their studio albums in multichannel.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

About the "_engineers desired sound_"...

With regard to sound engineers, apart from the fact that "Mickeys" does exist, do not forget that they are fully dependent for the most part on the wishes and... orders... of producers and broadcasters.

The loudness war is the best known result...


----------



## bigshot

You're repeating yourself, so I will repeat my answer... The quality of a mix is dependent on the skill and tastes of the producer, engineers and artists. Like all things, there are good mixes and bad mixes. Good or bad, it was the choice of the people making the album in the studio and you are stuck with it. Swapping in an overpriced wire won't fix it if you don't like their balance choices.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Hello Dave,
> Thanks for writing this answer down. I now see you in a different light. I take you more seriously now, because this time you have genuinely put an effort into describing things which cannot be described in words.



*This is normal. But making (somewhat) detailed answers takes time. Especially during working hours (and I have a lot of work !!...), and when you have a lot to say, share instead. I am not making this up. I don't have enough imagination for that. I'm just testifying.*



cirrus101 said:


> You have gone beyond the "I am right, you are wrong" type of discussion, and the "I know so much more than you" attitude, and merely bared witness to whatever you have experienced, which, as human beings as we are, is legitimate as can be. We are all dust in the wind in the end. So, thank you for that.



*Yes, I find this particularly ridiculous ("I am right, you are wrong" type of discussion). It is actually an anti-scientific position. A gimmick.*



cirrus101 said:


> Concerning your comments. Man, the way you speak of it, I'd like to listen to music in your room and hear these differences for myself! Regardless of the cables issue we are discussing, it seems you have curated your listening environment very carefully and that's always something to appreciate. Sounds like a good time to spend.



*If one day you can come to France, you are welcome. Like anyone else here. And so yes, I listen to my music in a very controlled environment. What is interesting is that the arrangements have... then... been validated by measurements. That helped to refine things. 

But at some point, when you know the sound of real instruments, unamplified, you know how a double bass, a cello and a violin should sound, for example...

In any case, given the amount of money involved, a dedicated and acoustically treated room is a non-negotiable point for me. 

I should also point out that cables, and fuses, are the icing on the cake. The system must be perfectly balanced. Otherwise, very high quality cables will bring all the defects of the system to the table.

Finally, what interests me is music, all musics. The gears are only a means, a vehicle for me. That's all it is.*



cirrus101 said:


> Now. If we look back into our not-so-distant-past, it is amazing _in itself_ that we can get to such a high degree of audio quality. Not long ago, little more than a century ago, the very idea of holding forever on Earth a sound form that breathed in the air flows, with its qualities hidden in its mysterious passages, seemed impossible, almost like magic. Now that this is a palpable and commonplace reality, we take it for granted that it should deliver "a real sound as real as real life". *But could it really be so?* Maybe.



*Very good points. I think you are right. At least, I share that opinion. *



cirrus101 said:


> And while cables are definitely not the end solution to this question, I am open to new discoveries! Who's to say whether there might be a missing aspect of audio signal transmission that was lost in translation in the electrical vocabulary?



*There is no "final solution" (unfortunate expression), but one thing I am sure of is that we must always think in terms of "systems". A cable by itself has "no sound". A cable is only as good as the devices it connects to. And so that's where the real difficulties start, because you have to look for synergies.

Finally, never forget that in a system, or a chain, these are the weakest elements that impose their limitations on the other elements. And so this is particularly true with cables, in my experience.*



cirrus101 said:


> If Georg Simon Ohm had not discovered the *Ohms*, if Alessandro Volta had not come up with *Volts *and James Watt with *Watts *— all of them at different times, from different approaches, and different objectives — how would we be so sure of those specifications and the known relations between them today?



*These are the basics, yes.*



cirrus101 said:


> Surely, someone else would discover those things eventually, but the point here is that at some point those notions _didn't exist_, and it was altogether _*incomplete*_. Maybe there's a factor missing that applies specifically for audio transmission in cables???



*Yes and no. Let's say that there are general rules established.*



cirrus101 said:


> I mean, unlike normal electricity that is basically a + or - pulse, audio _does _carry an entire spectrum from >20hz-20khz of information with a huge array of different dBs amplitudes for each of them an all this info is delivered simultaneously in real-time sync: so God knows how electricity can do that without garbling and mashing all this info together like play dough. In light, if you add all colors you get white. With ink, adding all colors results in black. But in sound, if you add all frequencies, you do get all frequencies as it were. Which always amazes me.



*But then there are, I am sure, many special cases. And analogue audio cables are one of them. Indeed, at the very least, we are talking about a bandwidth of 20 to 20 khz (in fact much more), frequency transmission groups, numerous pollutions (magnetic, triboelectric, vibratory, etc...), signals whose useful dynamics can be very important, in short, really complex and delicate signals, weak and strong currents. 

Another element that is often overlooked is having compatible input and output impedances between devices. The cable itself must have a stable impedance.*



cirrus101 said:


> I have two more questions which will add more interest to your statements and interest to this discussion:
> 
> - Which cable, in your opinion, is the BEST? And, more importantly: what do you think is the reason (physical components) that makes it so?



*Sorry, but there is no such thing as "best cable" ever. It's all about synergies. Also, the more "neutral", "transparent", "balanced" your system is, the easier it is to find the best cables. 

Indeed you have some constants that I have noticed :

- Pure copper = "natural" after all.
- Pure silver = transparent, without colours. But sometimes a bit "bland" and lacking a bit of substance.
- Gold = warm, round.
- Rhodium = sharp, sometimes "acid"...
- Palladium = fast, sharp.
- Platinum = textured, uncoloured, more weight (tones).

And therefore all possible permutations, plating, melting, all of that in a same cable, etc.

So it's a complex subject, believe me. Let's make a "simplistic" version. If the system concerned is balanced, 'natural', rather realistic in itself (this is the most complicated to achieve = no systematism) :

- Best interconnect = pur silver, litz braiding and individual isolation, very thin conductors (like hairs). XLR plugs pur gold plated copper (noetech). For RCA, Eichmann silver bullet, or copper bullet. Cryogenic treatement is a very good move too. What is very important is to take into account the vibratory phenomena. This is very important. Because we are dealing with complex, subtle, delicate  mechanical and electroacoustic environment and connexions.  Properly shielded cables (blackest background, best noise rejection). Active or passive shielding ? Mine are passive. 

- Best HP Loudspeaker = pur copper (the purest as it is possible ; but "purest means with selectionned impurities... iron or nickel residues for example, this is not the same thing.). The surface finishing of the individual litz wires must have a mirror polishing quality. The current is always flowing at the periphery of the conductors. Forks have the best contact. Pure copper or pure silver are the very best (no plating). Cryogenic treatement is a very good move too. What is very important is to take into account the vibratory phenomena. This is very important. Because we are dealing with complex, subtle, delicate  mechanical and electroacoustic environment and connexions.. Of course, you also need cables that can carry the necessary amount of current, especially if the speakers are difficult (heavy loads). Properly shielded cables (blackest background, best noise rejection). Active or passive shielding ? Mine are passive.  

Ideally, no "classic" tin soldering for for the internal mounting of the plugs but high-pressure crimping or plasma-sealed material mixtures.*



cirrus101 said:


> - You have mentioned fuses. Do you think fuses - say, in an amplifier - are also affecting sound behaviour?



*Yes they are, and it is just mindblowing as I think... But this is an another subject, and an other icing on the cake. 

Finally, there is the question of the power supply... which is the most important. But here I hesitate to go into details. I don't want to summon the Kraken too !

Quickly = dedicated line, no inverters (not fast enough for power calls), no batteries...

And as for the power cables... there is also a lot to say. *



cirrus101 said:


> And, feel free to answer _when _you'd like and _what _you'd like, only.
> This is a place to share knowledge, not the Spanish inquisition.
> Cheers!


Hi Cirrus101,

I will replay in your original message. It is more convenant, I guess.
My pleasure.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

What a load of manure! Does anyone have the patience to read all that stuff from beginning to end? I didn’t even get any further than the first paragraph without bailing. This is what happens when you encourage someone who’s in love with the sound of their own words. There isn’t a single idea in his head and he’s thinking up a flurry of words to describe all the nothing.


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> Bigshot, you seem to have vast knowledge, but your ways of passing this knowledge is inefective.
> Taking out these bits would make it an enjoyable read:
> 
> 
> ...



You’re  missing the basis of the majority of the replies which distilled down is:  Electronics have already far exceeded human hearing in their ability to accurately reproduce recorded audio.  As our hearing is already the limiting factor, further refinement of electronics will not result in audible improvement. Items that have already surpassed human hearing - amps, dacs, cables.  Areas where audible improvement can be made: transducers, DSP, room treatments.

I don’t  think anyone responding is misunderstanding you.  The issue seems to be your understanding of the current state of audio reproduction.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Hi bfreedma,

Seriously, have you ever heard an audio system (stereo or multichannel) as good as an unamplified live concert ?

Even in a treated room?

I never have.


----------



## sander99

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi bfreedma,
> 
> Seriously, have you ever heard an audio system (stereo or multichannel) as good as an unamplified live concert ?
> 
> ...


That is why improvement is possible in transducers and room treatment (and mics and the way they are used, etc.), as @bfreedma says in the post that you quote! But the limiting factor is NOT cables or DACs or electronics!


----------



## sander99

The Jester said:


> Atmos has little to do with “Head-fi”


Atmos, and other multichannel formats, and stereo can all be enjoyed by binaurally simulating loudspeakers in a room over headphones.
When done right, personal HRTF based and with headtracking it comes very, very close to listening to real loudspeakers.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 27, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi bfreedma,
> 
> Seriously, have you ever heard an audio system (stereo or multichannel) as good as an unamplified live concert ?
> 
> ...



Yes.

I've heard unamplified concerts in acoustically terrible rooms that sound worse than my 5.2 system that's setup and carefully tuned in my well treated room.  The acoustics in many venues are awful.  If you haven't, perhaps your vaunted "system in Paris" still needs work.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Shouldn't this Null Test put an end to cable arguments once and for all?


It did and has! There are no “cable arguments” in the world of music/sound engineering, telecoms or any other area of pro-audio. The ONLY place we find cable arguments is in the tiny niche corner of the audio world, the audiophile community. Q: Why is this? A: We’re not dealing with engineers who know how things work and routinely objectively measure things, we’re dealing with consumers who come into the audiophile world knowing pretty much nothing and everything they then learn is dictated by that closed world. You can therefore feed them any amount of BS, change history to your heart’s content and omit whatever pertinent facts you like and the vast majority of the time you won’t get found out. The audiophile world has a vast body of “knowledge” much of which is just advertising fantasy that’s been built upon for decades! How many times have you seen the Null Test mentioned in audiophile cable advertising, reviews or discussions? Pretty much never IME, and the extremely rare cases when it has been mentioned was only to falsely deny it’s a valid test, which is the typical audiophile response to science/facts which prove audiophile claims are nonsense. If audiophile cables really did perform better than cheap/standard cables wouldn’t the manufacturers/retailers be falling over themselves to prove it with the results of null tests and/or measurements that confirm it? You never see such tests/measurements and the marketers get round this huge logical hole by effectively claiming that science is wrong and audio measurements don’t measure audio and audiophiles swallow that nonsense!


cirrus101 said:


> there _is_ always room for improvement (in every part of the audio chain), therefore, why are you hitting this key?


No, there is NOT room for improvement in every part of the audio chain. There is room for improvement in some areas of the audio chain and even then, it’s often improvement only in terms of printed specifications, not in terms of what is audible and sometimes not even in terms of the actual sound reproduced. In the latter case it’s because the one area where there really is room for improvement is the transducers. Sound is produced by the speakers/HPs and is a massively inefficient process. A typical 100w speaker will produce roughly 10w of acoustic energy, EG. It’s only 10% efficient. What’s the difference with a DAC that has jitter artefacts at say -140dB and another at say -160dB? A: Nothing at all, because even a -140dB artefact represents way too small an amount of energy to even move or affect the movement of a speaker driver. Therefore, the sound produced by the speaker will be the same in both cases and so there’s no difference to hear, regardless of how superhuman an audiophile believes their hearing to be.


cirrus101 said:


> Arguably, different combinations of gear (among many things: source > dac > amp > cables >speakers> room > your ears) will shift you either farther or closer to this illusion.


The last 3 certainly can, although you’re missing arguably the most influential part of the whole reproduction chain, “… your ears > your perception”! The first obviously can if it is applying processing (EQ, etc.) but otherwise shouldn’t. The other 3 (DAC, amp, cables) don’t, although there are some effectively lower-fi pathological exceptions.


cirrus101 said:


> You still need the waves to flow in the air to reach you. We're talking of things that affect that. You don't need to lecture me how live music is different from recordings, that is obvious in its very premise. My point was so simple..


But it wasn’t, it may appear simple but isn’t. And with all due respect, you probably do need a lecture (or several) on how live music is different from recordings. For example, if we had say a hypothetically perfect recording taken exactly from your audience position in a live gig and replayed it on a hypothetically perfect stereo system, so the sound waves entering your ears were identical in both cases, this perfect reproduction will still sound different, at least in some places and very probably significantly different. That’s because this perfect audio system obviously is not accounting for arguably the most important part of the chain, your perception (which is constantly changing what you’re actually hearing).


cirrus101 said:


> _Could it be that in 1000 years we'll find out new things about electricity?_ It's an open question, food for thought.


It is an open question but it’s not really food for thought as far as audio is concerned. It’s entirely likely we’ll find new things about electricity in a 1000 years but it’s extremely unlikely that what we find out will entirely invalidate what we already know. If what we already know about electricity was wrong then some or all of our electrical and electronic devices simply wouldn’t work. By way of example, our mathematical knowledge is vastly superior to what we knew 5,000 years ago and yet 1+1 still equals 2. The digital and electrical side of audio recording and reproduction are already sorted to beyond the ability of the human ear, IE. It’s audibly perfect. So what electrical discovery/development could make it better than perfect? Obviously nothing can be better than perfect, unless, as @bfreedma stated, human hearing evolves in the next 1000 years and causes (audibly) “perfect” to change. Again though, this is with the exception of the transducers (which are partly electrical and partly mechanical).


cirrus101 said:


> As for historical data, I was basing myself off that Mojo's article and similar things I've read online.


Unless you hunt out the science or pro-audio publications/forums, what you read online will mostly be audiophile marketing based, because audiophile marketing generates money and refuting it doesn’t! And you should consider what I wrote above, the audiophile community largely relies on an alternative reality of knowledge/facts/history.


cirrus101 said:


> I was talking of perfection in reproducing, ie: how to spill out the most perfect air waves from a hardware unit to reach your beautiful organic ears.


Firstly, your “beautiful organic ears” are obviously organic and therefore have nowhere near the resolution of our best specialist electronic devices, just as our beautiful organic eyes have nowhere near the resolution of our best specialist telescopes or electron microscopes. So “most perfect sound/air waves” has no more practical meaning than an atomically perfect painting. If you want to go down that road, then the first thing you should look at would be the actual air itself, the air between your speaker drivers and your ears has far more effect on the sound waves entering your ears than skin effect, shielding, silver vs copper and other cable “concerns” combined yet audiophiles ignore this as irrelevant and endlessly go on about jitter, nonsense cable problems and numerous other nonsense issues that have less effect, far less effect or no effect at all on the “air waves”!


cirrus101 said:


> But my drift was on how to get that perfection into sound waves in our physical touchable reality as real as possible?


Which again leaves us with transducers and human perception.


cirrus101 said:


> even to this day we didn't come to a consensus on what is the best music reproduction equipment.


Again, in the vast majority of cases it doesn’t matter, nearly all DACs and amps are audibly perfect, assuming the correct specification for the job, cables are all audibly perfect. Of course there will never be “consensus” on that in the audiophile world as long as there’s money to be made from avoiding consensus! And again with transducers there will probably never be consensus, at least not until we all have identical listening environments with identical room acoustics or in the case of HPs, have identical head sizes/shapes and identical HRTFs.


cirrus101 said:


> I am saying transporting this digital audio into reality will always come with compromise.


Yes but it’s only audible compromises once we reach the speakers/HPs, at which point we’ve got comprises in the speakers/HPs themselves, compromises in the listening environment, compromises with our ears/hearing and then more compromises with our perception.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bfreedma said:


> Yes.
> 
> I've heard unamplified concerts in acoustically terrible rooms that sound worse than my 5.2 system that's setup and carefully tuned in my well treated room.  The acoustics in many venues are awful.



Okay me too (also every time I go to the cinema, I find the sound mediocre... just last night. Big theatre though...), but that's not what I'm talking about. 

I'm talking about the "real thing", the "real event", vs. the "reproduced event"...


----------



## bfreedma

DaveStarWalker said:


> Okay me too (also every time I go to the cinema, I find the sound mediocre... just last night. Big theatre though...), but that's not what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'm talking about the "real thing", the "real event", vs. the "reproduced event"...



Goalposts on the move.

Sorry, I don't waste time with trolls.  Good luck finding someone else to engage with you.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 27, 2022)

Frankly, it's exhausting...  Keep your insults to yourself, and please, at least show some imagination.

You have absolutely no desire to exchange anything.
Good luck with that.  

Me too, I ignore (it's done ; I am done) trolls. Time is precious, yes. We will be in agreement.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 27, 2022)

gregorio said:


> consumers who come into the audiophile world knowing pretty much nothing and everything they then learn is dictated by that closed world


Yes, I am aware, and I am not one of them. However I felt it would be interesting to join a forum like this and get closer to this audiophile community to see what they have to say, think, etc;. I am very interested in the perceptions obtained by people who actually care about audio quality. In a world where the new generation is mostly lost with crap TikTok videos with low-quality bad tasting music loops, degraded quality music streaming services, and mostly listening to things via their smartphone's or smartTV's built-in speakers (ugh). It is a joy to see the other end of the spectrum, where the audience actually cares.



gregorio said:


> And with all due respect, you probably do need a lecture (or several) on how live music is different from recordings.


With all due respect, you do not know me, so I can frankly tell you I do know the difference, as I have vast experience in this. I may not have went head deep on this geekery of reading and studying academia-level content about electronics and audio signals to the extent you display to possess, but I do live and breathe music. I do own a home studio as well. So I know very well the differences. It was very kind of you to be concerned and to explain, nonetheless.



gregorio said:


> the first thing you should look at would be the actual air itself, the air between your speaker drivers and your ears has far more effect on the sound waves entering your ears


Do you think someone living in the mountains, where the air is thinner and oxygen is more scarce than at sea level, would make audible differences, compared to the same setup on sea level?



gregorio said:


> nearly all DACs and amps are audibly perfect


This is the thing that is hard to grasp. If it is so, then why do people report differences between _this _and _that _DAC or Amp ? Why different brands and price ranges, supposedly sound like _this _or _that_? It seems to be an universal truth in these forums and other audiophile communities that these components sound differently, and we even have loads of reviews comparing them. Is this entirely BS?


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> - Pure copper = "natural" after all.
> - Pure silver = transparent, without colours. But sometimes a bit "bland" and lacking a bit of substance.
> - Gold = warm, round.
> - Rhodium = sharp, sometimes "acid"...
> ...


And again, this quote and the rest of that post are just a regurgitation of old audiophile marketing with no relation to actual fact. Sharp, warm, transparent, uncoloured, etc., have not only been measurable for many decades but measurable way beyond the limits of human hearing. So how come we see NO evidence for ANY of what you describe in measurements AND, it also all magically all ceases to exist under controlled listening tests. Maybe audiophile cables know when they’re being measured or DB tested and change their output? Devilishly clever these audiophiles cables, that why it’s worth spending 100x more on them! It really is hard not to laugh!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Seriously, have you ever heard an audio system (stereo or multichannel) as good as an unamplified live concert ?


Define “good”. If you mean as “good” an experience, then typically “no” because I don’t typically have a world class orchestra in my sitting room and I typically just press play rather than waiting with anticipation for 20 minutes with a couple of thousand other expectant audience members.

If you’re talking about “good” purely in terms of sound quality, then yes and not uncommonly significantly better. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> Even in a treated room?


Your constant direct and indirect reference to your listening environment is ridiculous! Firstly, it’s an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy that you specifically stated you do not subscribe to, and yet that’s exactly what you keep doing. Secondly, it’s not even a valid appeal to authority! It’s unlikely your “treated room” is as good as mine. I have a studio built to tier 1 BBC mastering specifications, so not just acoustically treated but acoustically constructed (suspended floors, non-parallel walls, etc.), very highly isolated and near flat freq response down to about 23Hz. Maybe if you’ve spent >$400k your room is better than mine but it’s certainly not better than the world class recording studios/dubbing theatres I’ve worked at, who’ve spent tens of millions. 

So unless the laws of physics/sound are somehow different in Paris to everywhere else, enough with the nonsense appeals to authority!



DaveStarWalker said:


> I never have.


Really? That indicates:
A. Your system isn’t particularly hi-fidelity or 
B. Your critical listening skills aren’t very good or 
C. Both the above.

G


----------



## bigshot

It’s exhausting to see unvalidated subjective impressions posted over and over. As Gregorio has said, you’re in the sound science forum. We get to reject anti-intellectual made up reasoning based on magical thinking. When you list types of metal and their sound based on the color of the metal, you become self evidently foolish. It isn’t an insult to point that out.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> This is the thing that is hard to grasp. If it is so, then why do people report differences between _this _and _that _DAC or Amp ?


Because people believe all kinds of things that aren’t true. Sloppy comparisons and sloppy thinking lead to sloppy conclusions. The truth isn’t always easy to discern, even if it’s obvious. You have to make an effort to be well informed and a lot of people are intellectually lazy.

Some people assume that more expensive means that it sounds better. And they believe what the used car salesman tells them because it appeals to their ego and status. Salesmen play on all these weaknesses and exploit them.

Dave has been presented with facts and solid info, yet he rejects all of it and keeps parroting sales pitch as if it’s gospel. Why is he so invested in a lie? The reason is that the lie is wrapped all around his self image. Salesmen have told him that he has better than average perception, that his expensive equipment gives him a higher social status, that he’s smarter than everyone else and he’s at the top of the hobby. He comes to a forum like this expecting to be welcomed like a king among men, and instead he’s told that he’s been fed a foolish lie to trick him into spending money wastefully. If he chooses to accept that self realization, he also has to let go of all the ego boosts and feelings of superiority that were fed to him along with the lie. Not many people are eager to humble themselves like that. They’d rather defend their ego and cling to the lie than accept they’ve been hoodwinked and there’s nothing special about them.

The hardest thing to admit for some people is that they’re human, just like everyone else.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

One more thing that I need to emphasize… If I stepped out of this group into head-Fi as a whole and talked about blind testing and the results of peer reviewed studies on the audibility of differences between wires, I would be banned in a heartbeat. I was banned from head-Fi for almost a year because I posted photos of what was inside a snake oil “signal enhancer” dongle… which is unironically listed in Dave’s equipment list in his sig file. Sound science is a banishment group. There are vested interests in keeping the info we discuss here away from the average consumer. You may be surprised that the truth doesn’t automatically rise to the surface, but there are good reasons why it doesn’t. That isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s just business. It’s up to you to do your own research and sort the wheat from the chaffe. If you choose not to do that, no one here in sound science is going to convince you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think.


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> Because people believe all kinds of things that aren’t true. Sloppy comparisons and sloppy thinking lead to sloppy conclusions. The truth isn’t always easy to discern, even if it’s obvious. You have to make an effort to be well informed and *a lot of people are intellectually lazy*.


Not only lazy, but even dishonest.

I'd introduce a new term: _Impressionistic sound quality (ISQ)_. ISQ is affected not only by the sound, but also placebo effect and other senses:

- An audio device looking cool/fancy must have good/better sound, right?
- An audio device costing a lot of money must have good/better sound, right?
- An audio device weighting a lot must have good/better sound, right?
- An audio device with good "haptic feedback"  must have good/better sound, right?
- An audio device by a well-known respected brand must have good/better sound, right?

Since every audio device have their unique look and how the buttons feel to use etc., every audio device has its own user experience, even when they actually have audibly identical sound. It is because all that feeling generated by other senses affect ISQ. Proper blind tests are done to remove all other aspects except to sound itself telling as about the sound quality. An intellectually honest way to tell why you like device X is to say it has great ISQ thanks to its properties such as price, weight, design, brand name, mechanical noises of operation, feel of buttons etc. Just saying it has better sound is not only wrong, but lazy and even dishonest, because it allows us to live in delusion where everything we do is 100 % rational when it is not so at all.



bigshot said:


> Some people assume that more expensive means that it sounds better. And they believe what the used car salesman tells them because it appeals to their ego and status. Salesmen play on all these weaknesses and exploit them.


Yes. People can take control over these things and exploit salesmen instead if they are smart!


----------



## DaveStarWalker

These are scientific claims ?


----------



## bigshot

These are practical points. He asked why people fight for the right to be wrong. This is why.


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> I am very interested in the perceptions obtained by people who actually care about audio quality.


Then you’re maybe not be in the right place. Many audiophiles don’t “actually care about audio quality”, most seem to care about brand names and audiophile marketing/reviews more than audio quality. If they did care about audio quality why do they often buy more expensive equipment with lower audio quality, why do they spend so much on things that make no difference to audio quality instead of spending it on things that do?


cirrus101 said:


> With all due respect, you do not know me, so I can frankly tell you I do know the difference, as I have vast experience in this.


I don’t know you, which is why I said probably. But even those with home studios, lots of experience and several years of university study in the subject typically need one or more lectures. 


cirrus101 said:


> Do you think someone living in the mountains, where the air is thinner and oxygen is more scarce than at sea level, would make audible differences, compared to the same setup on sea level?


I think the thinner, colder atmosphere with different humidity/pollution in the mountains would make far more difference in the audible spectrum than skin effect in cables, jitter, fuse direction and a whole range of other things audiophiles go on about. 


cirrus101 said:


> This is the thing that is hard to grasp. If it is so, then why do people report differences between _this _and _that _DAC or Amp ?


Firstly, there are audible differences between certain DACs and amps, but such DACs and amps are very rare. For example certain NOS DACs and certain tube amps. There are also actual differences which result from user error. For example, when comparing and amp with the incorrect power/impedance for a specific HP with one that has the correct power/impedance and there are many other errors, comparing different masters thinking they’re the same and then attributing the difference to something else seems quite common. The rest of the time, people are reporting differences in their experience/perception of listening to those devices, an experience/perception influenced by audiophile marketing/reviews/testimonials. So not actual audible differences but imagined/placebo differences. This is why all these supposed differences disappear under controlled testing. 


cirrus101 said:


> It seems to be a universal truth in these forums and other audiophile communities that these components sound differently, and we even have loads of reviews comparing them. Is this entirely BS?


Exactly my point, the audiophile community is deliberately closed, as bigshot correctly stated, audio/sound professionals and scientists are deliberately run out of audiophile sites like this one. Either by shills, trolls, hardened audiophiles who brook no questioning of their beliefs and even by the site itself, who don’t want their audiophile advertising revenue impacted. As it’s so closed, it’s largely free to invent whatever BS it wants, with little or no dissent. In general, it’s unwise to mention the audiophile community to professional sound engineers, they’ll at best roll their eyes and at worst laugh at you and treat you like an idiot. 

Is it entirely BS? Sometimes but typically it’s not entirely BS and on a very few audio subjects they can be entirely correct. Occasionally I’ve read lengthy audiophile articles on some aspect of audio which are entirely correct but which are actually entirely BS because they’ve omitted one single fact which invalidates the whole thing. Most of the time it’s somewhere between the extremes of correct and entirely BS and it’s very rare to find one that isn’t at least partially BS. With reviews, they’re either directly or indirectly paid for by the manufacturers or otherwise written by someone entirely subject to/biased by the audiophile myths.

Most of this site and pretty much all it’s advertising revenue would simply disappear if audiophile BS were not allowed free rein and refuting it were not effectively banned outside this little sound science corner.

G


----------



## cirrus101

bigshot said:


> Some people assume that more expensive means that it sounds better.





71 dB said:


> Since every audio device have their unique look and how the buttons feel to use etc., every audio device has its own user experience, even when they actually have audibly identical sound



Hopefully you're not trying to say that an identical audio file (16/44.1) being played back to an identical output (speakers/HPs) in these:











Will sound the same as with these:









....Are you?

I really hope I am missing something obvious you've mentioned that got past me.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> This is the thing that is hard to grasp. If it is so, then why do people report differences between _this _and _that _DAC or Amp ? Why different brands and price ranges, supposedly sound like _this _or _that_? It seems to be an universal truth in these forums and other audiophile communities that these components sound differently, and we even have loads of reviews comparing them. Is this entirely BS?


It is not hard to grasp if you know how the World and human mind work. This understanding doesn't come without price. It can make people cynical, but at least it gives good immunity toward snake oil.

I believe people get different "feelings" using different amps/dacs/etc. but that is _at most very marginally_ about the sound and mostly about impressions of the product (price, weight, feel of material, brand reputation). For example my home theatre amp when powered on makes a ridiculously loud "snap" sound* when a relay is activated (could be the short circuit protection of speaker output, could be something else). This sound only happens when I power the amp on or off, but it gives me an impression of a VERY powerful amp, because the sound is something you might hear when powering up a powerful factory machine.

* the sound doesn't come from speakers, but from the relay itself and the snap makes the whole amp caging vibrate like a drum!


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Hopefully you're not trying to say that an identical audio file (16/44.1) being played back to an identical output (speakers/HPs) in these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not talking about speakers. Of course if you play at a level that requires say 10 W of power, a 1 W amp won't do. It will clip like crazy, but if you compare a cheaper 100 W amp to the most expensive 100 W amp, the difference in sound quality is at most very marginal or probably inaudible. As for DACs go, the "pink stuff" have probably almost as good performance.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Those products have COMPLETELY different consumer segments so NOBODY decides between them. Apples and oranges. Sorry.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 27, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> *This is normal. But making (somewhat) detailed answers takes time. Especially during working hours (and I have a lot of work !!...), and when you have a lot to say, share instead. I am not making this up. I don't have enough imagination for that. I'm just testifying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi cirrus101,

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how...ke-a-difference.481385/page-218#post-17165112

Interested by the answer ?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> It is not hard to grasp if you know how the World and human mind work. This understanding doesn't come without price. It can make people cynical, but at least it gives good immunity toward snake oil.
> 
> *I believe* people get different "feelings" using different amps/dacs/etc. but that is _at most very marginally_ about the sound and mostly about impressions of the product (price, weight, feel of material, brand reputation). For example my home theatre amp when powered on makes a ridiculously loud "snap" sound* when a relay is activated (could be the short circuit protection of speaker output, could be something else). This sound only happens when I power the amp on or off, but it gives me an impression of a VERY powerful amp, because the sound is something you might hear when powering up a powerful factory machine.
> 
> * the sound doesn't come from speakers, but from the relay itself and the snap makes the whole amp caging vibrate like a drum!


It is your feelings that you are expressing here. 

Also, according to your testimony, you may feel like you have a very powerful amp, or you may actually have a very powerful amp. 

Mine for example, their current power is not an "impression" at all...


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 27, 2022)

gregorio said:


> Exactly my point, the audiophile community is deliberately closed, as bigshot correctly stated, audio/sound professionals and scientists are deliberately run out of audiophile sites like this one.


Which is why I've steered clear from places like this for decades, lol.


I just want to wrap this topic, but one last thing:
It seems we've run into some kind of contradiction here.
I had mentioned that most audio industry evolved on profits, to which bigshot annoyingly said that this is "laughable". I quote:


bigshot said:


> your quote claiming that progress in home audio has only been in profitability is laughable


Then goes on to say audio perfection was the goal since the 1920s and that mankind has only worked toward achieving its pinnacle ever since until we finally got to the invention of the CD:


bigshot said:


> They scientifically defined audible transparency in the 1920s and worked to make recording and playback exceed that threshold.



However, some posts later, we go back into saying that the audio industry is mostly based on BS and sales pitches:


bigshot said:


> they believe what the used car salesman tells them because it appeals to their ego and status.





71 dB said:


> It is not hard to grasp if you know how the World and human mind work. This understanding doesn't come without price. It can make people cynical, but at least it gives good immunity toward snake oil.



Well. Profitability or Noble science goals? You must decide what's the story.
Or at least we are talking of two different things; the scientific world of audio, and the audio industry, if there is any distinction.



71 dB said:


> Your comparison is ridiculous. Those products have COMPLETELY different consumer segments so NOBODY decides between them.


It is meant to be ridiculous. As ridiculous as it could be! Because despite that fact, the items shown do have the capability of audio playback, which is all that matters in the comparison I was trying to make.



DaveStarWalker said:


> Interested by the answer ?


I am sorry pal, but that wasn't really digestible.


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> It is your feelings that you are expressing here.


Yes, because I have intellectual honesty to admit what I feel are my feelings and not a universal truth. How about you?



DaveStarWalker said:


> Also, according to your testimony, you may feel like you have a very powerful amp, or you may actually have a very powerful amp.


Testimony? I am not making any claims about the power of my amp. It is powerful enough for ME with ease, but someone else may need 10 times more power my amp has to offer. How ppowerful my amp really is is irrelevant in this context. My point was the "snap" sound might give impression of power.



DaveStarWalker said:


> Mine for example, their current power is not an "impression" at all...


Power requirements vary a lot. In a small room using sensitive speakers 1 W might be all you need, while someone else may need 200 W. The difference between 1 and 200 W is "only" 23 dB.


----------



## cirrus101

71 dB said:


> II believe people get different "feelings" using different amps/dacs/etc. but that is _at most very marginally_ about the sound and mostly about impressions of the product (price, weight, feel of material, brand reputation). For example my home theatre amp when powered on makes a ridiculously loud "snap" sound* when a relay is activated (could be the short circuit protection of speaker output, could be something else). This sound only happens when I power the amp on or off, but it gives me an impression of a VERY powerful amp, because the sound is something you might hear when powering up a powerful factory machine.


Personally, I came here because I have tried a Cirrus Logic DAC for the first time and it really was mindblowing how could such a small change make such a difference. Hence my username. Was it all placebo? Gosh, reading these topics and posts is like self-gaslighting.


----------



## cirrus101

gregorio said:


> I think the thinner, colder atmosphere with different humidity/pollution in the mountains would make far more difference in the audible spectrum than skin effect in cables, jitter, fuse direction and a whole range of other things audiophiles go on about.


Very interesting.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Yes, because I have intellectual honesty to admit what I feel are my feelings and not a universal truth. How about you?
> 
> 
> Testimony? I am not making any claims about the power of my amp. It is powerful enough for ME with ease, but someone else may need 10 times more power my amp has to offer. How ppowerful my amp really is is irrelevant in this context. My point was the "snap" sound might give impression of power.
> ...


- For your first answer : so I am. I am only talking about my experience, empirical and pragmatical ways. 
- For your second answer : you are talking about a "snap" , etc... What is the current capacity of your gears ? And which loudspeakers do you use ?
- For your last answer : yes indeed. But a confortable power reserve is a good thing too. And you have to consider the low and angled impedances, and the damping factor as well. About the damping factor, a high damping factor isn't necessarily a good thing.

This is all about synergies between your components.

Always think as a whole system.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

cirrus101 said:


> I am sorry pal, but that wasn't really digestible.


You make me sad.😭

About what?

I though it is a very (very) simplistic answer. 🤔😉


----------



## 71 dB

cirrus101 said:


> Well. Profitability or Noble science goals? You must decide what's the story.
> Or at least we are talking of two different things; the scientific world of audio, and the audio industry, if there is any distinction.


Amps and DACs have been perfected in audible sense years (decades) ago. Sound science is studying things that are not perfected such as spatial audio with headphones.



cirrus101 said:


> It is meant to be ridiculous. As ridiculous as it could be! Because despite that fact, the items shown do have the capability of audio playback, which is all that matters in the comparison I was trying to make.


Nobody says ANY device with audio playback capability has audibly identical sound! That said, the DAC performance in your purposedly ridiculous example is surprisingly similar thanks to the science of perfecting DAC technology allowing good performance in TOYS using the cheapest DAC ships.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 27, 2022)

@cirrus101

Oups, some sentences where duplicated! It is fixed.


----------



## cirrus101

DaveStarWalker said:


> You make me sad.😭
> 
> About what?
> 
> I though it is a very (very) simplistic answer. 🤔😉


Well mostly I am very skeptical about these "differences":


DaveStarWalker said:


> - Pure copper = "natural" after all.
> - Pure silver = transparent, without colours. But sometimes a bit "bland" and lacking a bit of substance.
> - Gold = warm, round.
> - Rhodium = sharp, sometimes "acid"...
> ...


Like others have pointed out...
I don't think these materials affect sound in this manner at all.
Didn't mean to offend or anything. If it makes you happy and its audible to you, good!


----------



## cirrus101

71 dB said:


> Nobody says ANY device with audio playback capability has audibly identical sound!


Ah! There. Thank you. For a moment I was feeling extremely gaslighted in my senses.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Well mostly I am very skeptical about these "differences":
> 
> Like others have pointed out...
> I don't think these materials affect sound in this manner at all.
> Didn't mean to offend or anything. If it makes you happy and its audible to you, good!


Just try it.

A very easy way to try it is to borrow iem cables. 

And then we talk. 👍

With pleasure.

But you have right = this not at all the main point about a cable "can" sound. 😉

It's interesting, because the platinoïds (rhodium, palladium, platinum...) haven't a very good conductivity. Copper and silver, even gold, are all far better. 

But they have other specificities. 😉

What I realized is that conductivity is not the main element. At least for weak currents. 

In which way it affect the sound the way I discribe it ? I just don't know... 😑

And no offend at all : we are discuting 👍


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> Hopefully you're not trying to say that an identical audio file (16/44.1) being played back to an identical output (speakers/HPs) in these …


I’m very familiar with the bottom two, particularly the bottom one, because I’ve owned and used 3 of them almost every day for several years. The top two look like children’s toys so it’s unlikely they would be able to power many/most decent quality HPs. It’s also quite likely they’ve done something silly with the internal wiring design or component shielding that you wouldn’t find in an adult laptop/device. It is still entirely possible that a DBT would reveal no audible difference and if you could just take the DAC chip output it’s even more unlikely there would be any audible difference. It’s difficult to be certain in this case because it’s just children’s toys and audio performance is probably a long way down the list of priorities. I was talking about comparing audio devices with audio devices, not pro-audio devices with children’s toys that aren’t even primarily audio devices!


cirrus101 said:


> Well. Profitability or Noble science goals?


Why is that a contradiction? For much of audio recording history noble science goals (I presume you mean higher fidelity?) and profitability were largely correlated. Of course there were probably always some exceptions but around the end of the 1990’s this correlation ran into a brick wall. “Noble science goals” not only reached the limit of human audibility but could do so cheaply. Since then, noble science goals have taken a back seat to not so noble marketing goals! All the hi-res stuff beyond 16/44 is, for the audiophile consumers, just one marketing goal after another and it will continue until the audiophiles can no longer be convinced by the marketing BS.

G


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> - For your first answer : so I am. I am only talking about my experience, empirical and pragmatical ways.


Okay.



DaveStarWalker said:


> - For your second answer : you are talking about a "snap" , etc... What is the current capacity of your gears ? And which loudspeakers do you use ?


I don't know the current capabilities. Calculating from power measurements at least 8 A peak current.

My speakers are DIY Hifi 6/2 (small 6 liter 2 way speakers) with Hifi 55/2 (55 liter)  passive sub to extent the bass from 50 Hz to 25 Hz. Nominal impedance is 8 Ω.


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> I came here because I have tried a Cirrus Logic DAC for the first time and it really was mindblowing how could such a small change make such a difference. Hence my username. Was it all placebo?


There’s only a handful of DAC chip manufacturers, even in the 1990’s no one could blind test the difference between them and they’ve only got better since then, not worse. It is possible there was something else in that DAC that made it sound different, maybe you didn’t accurately compensate for it’s output level, maybe it had a pathological filter (not likely but possible)? If you did accurately level match, far and away the most likely is indeed “all placebo”. 


DaveStarWalker said:


> What I realized is that conductivity is not the main element. At least for weak currents.


So a wire’s job is to conduct an electrical signal but conductivity of an electrical signal is not the main element, particularly for weak currents. Got it, thx. BTW, what is the main element then, the colour of the metal, how cool it looks, how much audiophile magic it generates? You’ve got to laugh!


DaveStarWalker said:


> In which way it affect the sound the way I discribe it ? I just don't know...


Magic would seem an ideal candidate; it can’t be measured, there’s no scientific explanation for it and no reliable evidence about it. With all this going for it, what could possibly be better? 

Go on, you know you want to. You can’t be happy in a public forum with “I don’t know …”, be a man, go for it, say “it’s audiophile magic” and be proud of being a Frenchman! (Sorry Castle )

G


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Hopefully you're not trying to say that an identical audio file (16/44.1) being played back to an identical output (speakers/HPs) in these:
> Will sound the same as with these:....Are you?


I have no idea what the capability is of those particular children's players are and that fancy piece of gear doesn't appear to be a CD player, but a CD player is a CD player. If it can play a CD and it's rated playing according to plain vanilla Redbook specs, it's putting out a signal that is audibly transparent. That doesn't mean the speaker is audibly transparent. None are. But to put the comparison in terms of a player I do know about, if you took line out from a $35 Walmart DVD player and ran it through the best system in the world, it would sound the same as a high end transport/DAC combination playing the same CD. 16/44.1 is 16/44.1. If a player can play a digital file, it's playing it to spec. There are no shades of gray.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Interested by the answer ?


*- Pure copper = "natural" after all.
- Pure silver = transparent, without colours. But sometimes a bit "bland" and lacking a bit of substance.
- Gold = warm, round.
- Rhodium = sharp, sometimes "acid"...
- Palladium = fast, sharp.
- Platinum = textured, uncoloured, more weight (tones).*

This is what I'm referring to as horse manure. This is totally made up. It's based on your squishy personal feelings and has nothing to do with the way electricity conducts through various metals. Putting your words in bold don't give them added gravitas, it just draws attention to how wrong you are. It's a complete waste of time to post junk like this, because unless I have your brain and eat the same thing you had for lunch and feel the same as you do, I will certainly hear something totally different. Your descriptions are 100% pure, unadulterated solipsism.

The way you find out how metals affect sound signals is to factor the type of metal against the design of the cable and how long it is. That will give you an idea of whether the conductivity is different enough to cross the threshold of audibility. When we're talking about normal interconnects, that's not bloody likely.

I patiently answered you plenty of times. Other people in this thread did too. You've ignored us and plowed forward spreading the manure. That's fine, but I'm not going to pretend your comments deserve respect because they don't. You don't know what you're talking about and your ignorance doesn't hinder you from talking in the least. Dunning and Kruger's study applies perfectly to you.


----------



## 71 dB

This thread makes me physically ill. So, I stop being here.


----------



## bfreedma

71 dB said:


> This thread makes me physically ill. So, I stop being here.



Rather than abandoning the thread, I'd suggest simply ignoring the troll.  They tend to disappear if they don't get the attention they crave.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> Okay.
> 
> 
> I don't know the current capabilities. Calculating from power measurements at least 8 A peak current.
> ...


OK thanks 😉

Easy load? Your impedance curse is angled or not ? 🤔


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> This thread makes me physically ill. So, I stop being here.


Dommage.

Je ne vois pas pourquoi... 😑


----------



## bigshot (Sep 27, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> I had mentioned that most audio industry evolved on profits, to which bigshot annoyingly said that this is "laughable". I quote:
> Then goes on to say audio perfection was the goal since the 1920s and that mankind has only worked toward achieving its pinnacle ever since until we finally got to the invention of the CD:
> However, some posts later, we go back into saying that the audio industry is mostly based on BS and sales pitches:


There is absolutely no contradiction there.

OK. I am going to answer this question and spend time to answer it thoroughly. I wouldn't throw pearls before swine with Dave, but I will work with you, because you ask the right questions.

The engineers who developed sound technology had audible transparency as a goal, beginning in the 1920s. If you asked the scientists at Bell Labs in the 1920s what their ideal sound reproduction technology would be, they would describe an audibly transparent medium that does not have generation loss or surface wear, a long playing time, and has a small storage footprint. Their description would match the Compact Disc perfectly.

Sound engineers who design audio formats and components have to consider efficiency and cost as well. The designers of the compact disc did that. They designed a format that was very practical- discs could be recorded and mastered in the home, burned or replicated for less than a dollar, and the manufacture of the playback equipment was scalable to the point where devices that played to spec could be made for under $50.

All of this progress follows a path that serves society and fills a need efficiently. Commercial compromises have been completely overcome.

Since 1985, we've enjoyed perfection in sound reproduction and the cost has steadily declined from high end prices at the beginning to $30 or $40 for a player today. The Compact Disc completely blew other formats out of the water and replaced them. Then MP3s and other compressed file formats came along and blew CDs out of the water. The file you can download from the Apple Music store is just as audibly transparent as a CD, even though the file sizes are a tenth of the size. With small file sizes and without being tied to a physical object, that made it possible to distribute music _through the air like radio. You can share your music with your friends over bluetooth. They don't even have to buy it! _Huge benefit to consumers. As far as consumers are concerned, we are living in a golden age of sound reproduction. It couldn't possibly get any better.

Now is where the commercial interests come in... If music can be distributed from person to person for free without being anchored in a physical product, and if the players for the music are mass produced for less than two twenty dollar bills in China, how can the home audio industry make any money on it? Put yourself in the place of Sony or JVC... or Universal Music... or even the high end audio retailer downtown that competes with the big box stores. What would you do?

Think about that a minute.

OK. We are now in the year 2000. Everything from Bell Labs in the 1920s to today has led to perfection in audio reproduction. But all of the advantages are with the consumer and the retailers, manufacturers and record labels are SOL. What would you do if you were them?

If you are a record label, you would...

• Put a lock on the files. DRM or Digital Rights Management

• Discourage permanent ownership of files and transition to streaming services. How do you charge someone for Dark Side of the Moon when they own three copies already? Get them to trash their permanent copies and charge them rent!

• Centralize the availability of music to discourage peer to peer streaming or file sharing and instead direct people to use huge online music sources operated by record labels to stream music for a fee.

• Create physical copies to buy in "collector's editions" or esoteric formats... Vinyl, blu-ray audio, big box sets with fancy books and outtakes... How do you convince someone to buy a physical copy of Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon when they can just stream it? Create a collector's box and encourage consumers to upgrade to a shelf filling super deluxe edition.

• Try to convince consumers that there is sound quality beyond audible transparency... 24/96, SACD, blu-ray audio, etc. Even though all of these sound formats are exactly the same to human ears, promote the THEORETICAL differences to plant doubt in consumers' minds about whether CDs or MP3s are "good enough". "Maybe there's some information missing in lossy audio that might make sound _more realistic."_ Of course there is no difference, but all you need to do to make a sale is plant enough doubt. People will buy the MP3, then the CD, then they'll wonder if HiRes music has more "detail" and "a wider soundstage". Even though it doesn't they'll buy an SACD or download a HiRes file anyway... _just to be safe._

If you are an equipment manufacturer, you do similar sorts of things...

• Design your equipment to look different to create brand identity (Apple) and then plant doubt that (maybe) your equipment has (theoretically) better sound quality without presenting any proof (MQA).

• Invest your product with status. People will pay more for a product that makes them feel good about themselves. A shinier finish on the box, some bigger knobs, maybe a little bit of hardwood as an accent... voila! You can add a few hundred dollars to the price. The electronics inside can be stock components that are the same as in every other brand, but the consumer now has perceived quality in workmanship, and that will rub off on their perception of sound quality. That aqua glow of McIntosh components instills confidence in their products. And that confidence translates to expectation bias when a customer compares sound. Once people have invested their self-worth into your product, you've got them on the hook. Pride in ownership! They can't change their mind without scuttling their own ego and admitting their own inability to hear differences.

• Buy off the press. Magazines are suffering financially anyway. It's easy to negotiate your advertising budget to include plenty of favorable advertorial articles and ensure positive reviews. Invest authority in magazine writers who will say whatever you want. Quote their reviews on your website. Tell people that this reviewer is the leading authority in the field. You own him, so he won't be causing any trouble.

• Create brand loyalty in social media. Ever notice how people in forums congregate around certain brands? That's seeded by the manufacturers. They identify influencers among the crowd and give them free stuff. That happens right here on Head-Fi. Most of the time, the influencers never mention the stuff they get for free to talk up the brand. Create walled gardens. Establish forums with rules that punish opinions and facts that hurt sales. Have the admins talk about "fairness" in letting completely made up opinions have equal weight (or better) than well supported ones. That will control what consumers hear and direct them in the profitable way. Once you've closed off dissent, the sales pitch becomes "general knowledge" and everyone will parrot it as "fact". Most of Head-Fi is cut and paste sales pitch from manufacturer's websites presented as individual posters' words.

• Publish deceptive equipment specs... Focus people's attention on things that don't matter, like super audible frequencies and noise floors far below the threshold of audibility. Encourage them to choose one model over another simply by looking at numbers in the abstract. _"This set of headphones goes up to 28kHz (+/-9dB)! That must be better than this set that only goes up to 22kHz (with a +/-3dB variation)."_ Most audiophiles haven't a clue about where the thresholds of audibility lie in the real world. A lot of sound science people don't even know because they focus on test tones and absolute thresholds instead of just what matters when you are sitting on the couch listening to Beethoven.

• If science doesn't sell the product, then spread distrust of science. Push ideas like "If we don't know everything about sound, we can't know anything." or "Blind tests have been proven to be faulty at times, so I don't believe in blind tests." or things that completely go against established facts like "You can only compare two sound samples by living with each one for a long period of time." or "I can recognize my bias and eliminate it from my sighted comparisons." Manufacturers can be scientific when it comes to trying to explain the inaudible theoretical differences between their product and a competitor, but they should poo poo science when someone threatens to do an actual controlled listening test to compare the two. When in doubt, call for more stringent controls until a test isn't practicable any more, and second guess the testing methodology after you find out the results didn't go your way. Cherry pick just information that serves your argument.

OK. That's enough of a rant for now. My point is that if you look at the progression of home audio development from the dawn of recording at the turn of the century to today, you will find science leading the way and solving all the problems. If you look at it from 2000 to today, you see an industry that has been raped by commercial interests. Those two aren't mutually exclusive the way your question at the top of this post puts it. You have to consider the time frame you're talking about, because today isn't the same as 30 years ago.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 27, 2022)

bigshot said:


> My point is that if you look at the progression of home audio development from the dawn of recording at the turn of the century to today, you will find science leading the way and solving all the problems.


Thank you. This was better, more concise, more informative and more honest than any silly infographic on "The History of Recording Music" I've seen!

I've often tried to timeline whatever happened since the first discoveries up to today. Suppose this will do. Yeah, it doesn't have cute shiny graphics with pop up text balloons, just plain text, but instead it's on point and extensive which is infinitely more valuable. You spoke all the quiet parts out loud - shh! Are you not afraid of a permanent ban? They're coming to get you. Better lock the windows and doors really well tonight.

PS: Your post should be pinned at the home page of these forums.



bigshot said:


> Create brand loyalty


That hit me. :'/ #Cirrus4ever

(Just joking... I was not a victim of any salesman, nor does this company's product make part of my ego or status. I have no friends to show off anyway. *awkward laugh*)



gregorio said:


> It is possible there was something else in that DAC that made it sound different, maybe you didn’t accurately compensate for it’s output level, maybe it had a pathological filter (not likely but possible)? If you did accurately level match, far and away the most likely is indeed “all placebo”.


Here is the part that noone will like to read but I have to say it (feel free to ignore or disagree - I stand by it):

It _cannot _be placebo. I refuse this idea of "it's all in your head, figments of your imagination, because you wanted to sooo very much!!". That's just gaslighting suicide and throwing years of audio listening experience out the window. I will refrain from throwing personal adjectives at you like Dave did, but I can sense he may have experienced what I have experienced regarding two things: 1) I am very used to my sound system, I am very used to listening to things on a daily basis acutely in it and 2) suddenly I've heard things I never thought previously possible to come out of my speakers - something new, something different, strikingly so, brutally even: new nuances, transients, realism in songs I took for granted by heart; it was a game-changer, a level-up, setting the bar higher of my entire system - with this simple change of DAC, which was the only component changed in the link. In Dave's case, it was cables instead (seems unlikely to me but I won't get into that). I could agree that it might not have been the DAC chip itself. It might have been something else within its implementation? Something I cannot quite put my finger on, maybe the output stages are now properly set? impedance? amplification issues? I frankly do not know. But who cares. It is better now, that's what matters, for whatever reason. But I will not abide to the idea that it is non-existent. Something real exists that changed and I just cannot trace it. Whatever 'problem' there was in my system, there is no more, thanks to it. It fixed something I heretofore didn't know I needed.



bigshot said:


> If it can play a CD and it's rated playing according to plain vanilla Redbook specs





bigshot said:


> If a player can play a digital file, it's playing it to spec. There are no shades of gray.


How about this. What If:
1) Manufactures aren't properly rating these specs? who does the rating? is there any verification from an exempt third-party auditor?
2) They're deliberately delivering below specs items because most of us wouldn't notice anyway and it's cheaper?
3) Cheap chips could cause weird quantization errors, or other artifacts in its decoding?
*4)* The actual analogue electric current generated was garbled from it's original information packet from the digital data it received? yes, it can _read _vanilla specs, alright, but does that prove it _emits_ the same equivalent specs in analog form with all of its integrity? is there any actual proof to this, testing, verification, auditing?

I mean. Why not? We've seen that in the cable industry the product engineers are not a tiny bit ashamed to deliberately create so-called premium products and lie about the qualities of their products in bad faith of the technical knowledge they've learned. Just in order to sell overly priced items to the unwary user.

I think all these things could account for a DAC behaving differently. And each chip is designed differently, they are not all identical. Each brand has their proprietary technology, from the machines they use to build things to the assembly part. A factory might have better quality control than another. What makes every model of every brand apparently homogenic is that they all "deliver the necessary specs" ie: they can read 16/44.1 or sometimes higher. But is that really reliable? It's just numbers... it doesn't measure the quality of the output signal that was translated.



bigshot said:


> Try to convince consumers that there is sound quality beyond audible transparency... 24/96


This 96khz format is a mistake, as is 192khz. Multiples of 44.1 are the proper way to avoid quantization errors.



gregorio said:


> do you really believe that wax cylinders were the height of audio fidelity and it’s been downhill ever since, have you ever heard one?


No, but I think the point that the Mojo guy was trying to make is that cylinders have "Tangential tracking…no arc error…no skating error" compared to "Disks warp... arch error... skating errors introduced." of discs. Implying that our audio history could have had it much better (for the purist) if the standard format evolved upon cylinders instead of going to discs. Not necessarily wax, other materials could've been developed and used. Anyway, with digital this is all gone. Vinyls looked cooler than cylinders anyway.



bigshot said:


> On top of that is heaped the "analog is better than digital” bull crap.


It seems this is because digital is actually so clean, true, perfect, sterile; a 100/100 copy. So it's about what digital is lacking: defects. The same with transistor vs valve/tube amps: there's some harmonic distortion added and we like it. Humans as we are, we actually like (controlled) defects. Take the "lo-fi" genre, for example. Adding vinyl pops and clicks and hum to songs. Not always do we crave for perfection; there is beauty in imperfection.






People who have volunteered to stay in absolute silence in anechoic chambers, where you can listen to the sound of your own body organs, often cannot stay there longer than 15-30 minutes, reporting uneasiness and even hallucinations.

Humans need noise; birds chirping, insects, wind blowing, rain drops, a fan turned on for noise or even a TV set on any channel to help some people to be able to sleep.

In that sense, analog imperfections adds that "grit" which makes some people more comfortable. It's ASMR for them.



bigshot said:


> Then MP3s and other compressed file formats came along and blew CDs out of the water.






And we also have the natural evolution of these compressed formats: AAC is a much superior format to MP3. MP3s were never aimed at quality; it was about compression, in a time of slower computers with limited disk space and memory, and slow internet bandwidths. MP3s clips and chunks out lots of information for the sake of size. Better algorithms have been made since. As seen above... while the frequencies that have been chopped off from the MP3 file aren't exactly frequencies where music is prevalent or even within hearing range, for the purist, and for archival purposes, it is a loss that shouldn't happen.

That being said, I still enjoy lots of 128kbps .mp3s from the early 2000s.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

About mp3 128 = me too 😉

A lot to digest, pal (😇) ... But a lot of very interesting things here. 👍


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 28, 2022)

A very good training = mp3 128 vs 16/24 wav. Blind test. 😉....

Maybe more relevant than the different masters of a same song.

But far more difficult. Believe me. 😅

I have tried that, years ago (about 20 years ago...) : I wasn't able to tell certainly the differences.

By the way, these differences (degradations) are really... real, spectrogramm wise for instance... This is documented. 🤔

Conclusion ? You need to be trained for that kind of (very difficult) excercice.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 28, 2022)

Lossy can be transparent. It just depends on the codec and data rate. I use AAC 256 VBR. That is 100% transparent. I would like to see something pick it out of a blind comparison with lossless. Ain't gonna happen.

Cirrus101, I'll answer your post when I get a some time. I burned through my quota today.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 28, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> It _cannot _be placebo. I refuse this idea of "it's all in your head, figments of your imagination, because you wanted to sooo very much!!". That's just gaslighting suicide and throwing years of audio listening experience out the window.


And this is a near perfect explanation of why audiophile marketing reliant on placebo/perceptual error is so effective!

As I mentioned previously, the audiophile world downplays perceptual errors and even when they are mentioned, they’re grossly misrepresented. Admittedly, aural perception/perceptual error is actually a complex subject area and we don’t yet know everything there is to know about it. On the other side of the coin, we started studying it over 2,000 years ago (Pythagoras), studied aspects of it intensively from about 700 years ago and for the last century or so have an entire branch of science specifically dedicated to it (psychoacoustics). Without trying to cover the whole subject in a few sentences, “wanting it sooo very much” can affect perception but that’s just one of countless potential biases, some conscious, some subconscious. We are constantly under the influence of these aural perceptual effects/errors, our ears change what we hear and our brain interprets the resultant information, balances it against information from our other senses and against our knowledge and multiple biases, does some processing to change the “sound” even before other parts of our brain starts to process all of the above and the result is the perception of hearing. All this happens in a fraction of a second, we’re completely unaware of it all and have virtually no conscious control over any of it! “Wanting it so very much” is just one variable/consideration of many that your brain is calculating and therefore it may affect the final perception construct significantly, not at all, anywhere in between and positively or negatively depending on all the other variables. Consider these two examples:

1. The whole history of western music/harmony from about 700 years ago is based on subconscious biases, a bias towards certain ratios of simultaneous notes/frequencies and against other ratios. In music terminology we call these consonance and dissonance respectively and with the exception of certain avant guard genres in the C20th, all western music/harmony was based on the juxtaposition of dissonance and consonance and another bias (expectation bias) that dissonance will “resolve” to consonance. In other words, without subconscious biases changing/influencing our perception of sound, almost the entire history of western music/harmony could not exist, we could not perceive music, it would just be semi-random sound!

2. Occasionally, in moments of fear or stress, we can hear our heart thumping loudly, the rest of the time we can’t hear it at all. Our hearts do not suddenly output 10,000 times more sound under stress/fear. So, there are two options, either: We subscribe to the audiophile myth of believing what we’re hearing, in which case you have to conclude that most of the time you’re dead because your heart isn’t beating or the actual truth: Most of the time your brain is drastically changing what you’re hearing, it’s filtering this continuous loud thumping out of your perception of hearing. Obviously we’re not dead most of the time and in the 1970’s, through some clever experiments, science discovered most of the properties of this heartbeat filtering process in the brain and about 4 years ago they identified the specific region of the brain performing this processing.

These are just two of many other examples which prove that our perception of hearing and the actual sonic reality are two quite different things and our perception is easily manipulated, both consciously and subconsciously. We’ve developed this because there are significant evolutionary benefits but it’s not so beneficial when we’re trying to use our perception to determine the actual sonic reality. Of course, our perception is what we’ve had all our lives, we’re mostly consciously unaware of the difference between our perception and the sonic reality and most of the time it’s irrelevant to our interaction with the rest of humanity because they too have the same biased perception/perceptual errors. Although the resultant perceptions and preferences can of course vary, which is why we can differing opinions that a piece of music is good or bad.


cirrus101 said:


> 1) I am very used to my sound system, I am very used to listening to things on a daily basis acutely in it and 2) suddenly I've heard things I never thought previously possible to come out of my speakers - something new, something different, strikingly so, brutally even: new nuances, transients, realism in songs I took for granted by heart; it was a game-changer, a level-up, setting the bar higher of my entire system - with this simple change of DAC, which was the only component changed in the link.


That’s a very common fallacy, “_this simple change of DAC_” was NOT the only component changed in the link! There were various other components in the link that were changed; how you were listening, what you were concentrating/focusing on, what you noticed, your conscious biases, your subconscious biases and other potential variables your brain was subconsciously balancing/calculating, any one of which could be responsible for the difference you perceived. This is why there are a whole bunch of conditions required for scientifically valid listening tests.


cirrus101 said:


> How about this. What If:
> 1) Manufactures aren't properly rating these specs? who does the rating? is there any verification from an exempt third-party auditor?
> 2) They're deliberately delivering below specs items because most of us wouldn't notice anyway and it's cheaper?
> 3) Cheap chips could cause weird quantization errors, or other artifacts in its decoding?
> *4)* The actual analogue electric current generated was garbled from it's original information packet from the digital data it received? yes, it can _read _vanilla specs, alright, but does that prove it _emits_ the same equivalent specs in analog form with all of its integrity? is there any actual proof to this, testing, verification, auditing?


1. It is possible the manufacturer has made a mistake or deliberately published false specs (there are examples of both) and it’s pretty much standard practice to “game” the published specs. For example, use a dB weighting and/or measure the spec under optimal conditions that may not be representative of actual usage.

However, in the case of chips (and other components) the published specs are not designed for consumers, they’re intended for engineers. Equipment design engineers will have to measure the performance of the chips/components within their circuit design and would notice any faults or discrepancies. The professional audio engineers who use the equipment which contain those components also measure performance and would notice any significant faults/discrepancies. These facts cover all the points you’ve made here.


cirrus101 said:


> This 96khz format is a mistake, as is 192khz. Multiples of 44.1 are the proper way to avoid quantization errors.


Not sure where you’ve got this? Quantisation errors have nothing to do with the different consumer sample rates, quantisation errors are due to the bit depth, not the sample rate. The proper way to avoid quantisation errors is a process called “Dither” and as it’s a process required by digital audio, there are no quantisation errors (unless dither has deliberately not been applied or applied incorrectly).


cirrus101 said:


> No, but I think the point that the Mojo guy was trying to make is that cylinders have "Tangential tracking…no arc error…no skating error" compared to "Disks warp... arch error... skating errors introduced." of discs. Implying that our audio history could have had it much better (for the purist) if the standard format evolved upon cylinders instead of going to discs.


Sorry, I don’t really know the exact technicalities of wax cylinders, quite a bit before my time! I assume, as is almost always the case with analogue audio, that wax cylinders have certain technical advantages over disks and certain technical disadvantages but the one that survived the test of time was better on balance. As is also almost always the case with audiophile articles, the advantages are discussed and the disadvantages omitted (or vice versa) depending on the point they’re trying to push. Maybe cylinders really were technically better but I’d be surprised and would need some good solid evidence.


cirrus101 said:


> It seems this is because digital is actually so clean, true, perfect, sterile; a 100/100 copy. So it's about what digital is lacking: defects. The same with transistor vs valve/tube amps: there's some harmonic distortion added and we like it. Humans as we are, we actually like (controlled) defects.


That’s an oversimplification. In general we prefer higher fidelity over lower fidelity although there certainly is such a thing as “euphonic” distortion with some common types of music. However, while digital itself is lacking audible defects, what we record using digital isn’t. As you say, it’s a clean, perfect, 100/100 copy but a clean, perfect, 100/100 copy of what? Why can’t we add that euphonic harmonic distortion, plus any other subjectively pleasing defects we desire and then we’d have a clean, perfect, 100/100 copy which includes any or all of those defects? The answer is that we do and we always have! Today typically with DSP and earlier (and sometimes still today) we apply those “defects” either before conversion to digital or during mixing and mastering by converting to the analogue domain, using some vintage analogue device and converting back to digital again.


cirrus101 said:


> while the frequencies that have been chopped off from the MP3 file aren't exactly frequencies where music is prevalent or even within hearing range, for the purist, and for archival purposes, it is a loss that shouldn't happen.


The frequencies removed from an MP3 file are frequencies that cannot be heard and therefore will make no audible difference (due to auditory masking), even for the purist. It’s not suitable for archival purposes in many cases because an archive will possibly be remixed or remastered and frequencies that were masked in one mix/master may not be masked in another, so you might run into issues if those masked frequencies have been removed. If you want to discuss this further, it really needs a different thread.

G


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 28, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> This 96khz format is a mistake, as is 192khz. Multiples of 44.1 are the proper way to avoid quantization errors.


What the heck do you mean by that? Quantization errors can't be avoided with any sample rate because it would require infinite bit depth. However, we can use dithering to mold the quantization error into noise that has zero correlation with the music. This means the unavoidable error inducing quantization process doesn't cause distortion, only slightly increased noise floor. We can even make the dither less audible perceptually by using shaped dither. It is all about selecting the bitdepth high enough to push the noise floor down enough to be totally inaudible. In consumer audio this is about 13 bits.

You probably mean samplerate conversions? Yes, multiples of a certain samplerate makes things easier in that sense, but it is not impossible to do arbitrary samplerate conversions extremely accurately using sinc-resampling. I have myself written (some 20 years ago) Matlab code to resample impulse responses measured with MLSSA (using weird samplerate) to produce material for listening tests (music samples convoluted with impulse responses). Because it was about listening tests, the sample rate conversion had to be as accurate as possible to avoid it change the sound. Anyway, 44.1 kHz is not the only "standard" sample rate in use! In video produtions 48 kHz is the standard so in that sense 96 kHz and 192 kHz are completely valid as multiples of 48 kHz. 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz may look very arbitrary compared to each other, but they are not: 44100/48000 = 147/160.

In a way all commonly used sample rates are a "mistake", because the _optimal_ samplerate for audio is about 60 kHz. It is enough for human hearing up to 20 kHz while allowing gentle relaxed anti-alias and reconstruction filters without unnecessarily high bandwidth.



cirrus101 said:


> It seems this is because digital is actually so clean, true, perfect, sterile; a 100/100 copy. So it's about what digital is lacking: defects. The same with transistor vs valve/tube amps: there's some harmonic distortion added and we like it. Humans as we are, we actually like (controlled) defects. Take the "lo-fi" genre, for example. Adding vinyl pops and clicks and hum to songs. Not always do we crave for perfection; there is beauty in imperfection.


It doesn't really matter at which point of audio reproduction chain pleasing defects are created. "lo-fi" genre does this in the production phase so that everyone hears the "same" defects when using transparent reproduction of sound. Digital productions can be "too" clean and sterile to sound pleasant. That is a danger all producers should be aware of and address in the production phase. Extreme sterile feel can of course be artistic intent, although I believe this is rarely the case. Something as simple as causing very small fluctuations (e.g. low-pass filtered white noise) of gain can be enough to remove the sterile feel without _perceptual_ decrease in fidelity.



cirrus101 said:


> People who have volunteered to stay in absolute silence in anechoic chambers, where you can listen to the sound of your own body organs, often cannot stay there longer than 15-30 minutes, reporting uneasiness and even hallucinations.


At first being inside an anechoic chamber is an intense experience, because the total lack of "acoustics" around us is something we never experience in normal life. However, the more time you spend in anechoic chambers, the less intense it feels. I worked for years in an acoustic lab (in fact that pic looks like one of the smaller chambers from that lab, but I could be mistaken because unechoic chambers look so similar of obvious reasons.) and while only a small fraction of it was working inside anechoic chambers, I also measured loudspeakers in anechoic chambers. My ears got used to the "lack of acoustics" so that it felt just like being in a very damped/quiet place. Typically I spent just a few minutes at a time inside the chamber for example changing the position of measuring microphone etc. so it is hard to say how I would feel after 15-30 minutes, but is doesn't sound scary to me. My HRTF was measured once and it took a long time, but it was constant bursts of measuring noise so it wasn't absolute silence. Generally I liked it inside unachoic chambers because it was so peaceful and quiet. After being inside one for a while the outside world feels very noisy! A small lab room feels almost like a catheral for a few seconds before hearing adjusts back.



cirrus101 said:


> Humans need noise; birds chirping, insects, wind blowing, rain drops, a fan turned on for noise or even a TV set on any channel to help some people to be able to sleep.


Maybe because my ears are so used to anechoic chambers, I prefer complete silence when I sleep. As a very introverted person I have a very rich "inner world" inside my head where I go to when I am trying to fall to sleep. This inner world is full of imaginary stuff so that I am not "alone" in the silence. Or I might practise imagining four-dimensional space-time: In silence eyes closed it is easier to "see" in my mind how for example black wholes bend space-time. I wonder if people who need static noise or sounds of rain to sleep have anything between their ears...



cirrus101 said:


> In that sense, analog imperfections adds that "grit" which makes some people more comfortable. It's ASMR for them.


I wouldn't say it is the exact same thing. It is more like the fact that our hearing expects sounds to have some level of imperfections, because perfectly clinical sounds are a product of somewhat modern technology.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

I have an idea brewing in my head to try ABX, blind listening, etc, with earphone adaptors cables :






Then :





For example.

All else being equal, except for these DAP output adapters.

The first one is made with a type 6 Gold-silver-palladium-copper cables.
The second one with parallele pur copper PCOCC-A cables.

From a methodological point of view, it seems simple to me to try blind swaps... the cable for the headphones remained the same.

Exemple :





What do you think about that?


----------



## 71 dB

gregorio said:


> The frequencies removed from an MP3 file are frequencies that cannot be heard and therefore will make no audible difference (due to auditory masking), even for the purist.
> 
> G


This is the big idea, but in practice people can learn to hear the data compression at least with lower data rates such as 128 kbps when auditory masking is not able to mask defects 100 %. Admittedly at higher data rates hearing data compression becomes extremely challenging if not impossible.


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK thanks 😉
> 
> Easy load? Your impedance curse is angled or not ? 🤔


Yes, easy load. An amp that is designed to drive 4 Ω speakers should have a field day driving my 8 Ω speakers.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 28, 2022)

71 dB said:


> Yes, easy load. An amp that is designed to drive 4 Ω speakers should have a field day driving my 8 Ω speakers.


Yes indeed.  
Okay, I couldn't read your signature on the phone. But with the computer I could. These are good products. NAD, it works very well.


----------



## castleofargh

cirrus101 said:


> It _cannot _be placebo. I refuse this idea of "it's all in your head, figments of your imagination, because you wanted to sooo very much!!". That's just gaslighting suicide and throwing years of audio listening experience out the window. I will refrain from throwing personal adjectives at you like Dave did, but I can sense he may have experienced what I have experienced regarding two things: 1) I am very used to my sound system, I am very used to listening to things on a daily basis acutely in it and 2) suddenly I've heard things I never thought previously possible to come out of my speakers - something new, something different, strikingly so, brutally even: new nuances, transients, realism in songs I took for granted by heart; it was a game-changer, a level-up, setting the bar higher of my entire system - with this simple change of DAC, which was the only component changed in the link. In Dave's case, it was cables instead (seems unlikely to me but I won't get into that). I could agree that it might not have been the DAC chip itself. It might have been something else within its implementation? Something I cannot quite put my finger on, maybe the output stages are now properly set? impedance? amplification issues? I frankly do not know. But who cares. It is better now, that's what matters, for whatever reason. But I will not abide to the idea that it is non-existent. Something real exists that changed and I just cannot trace it. Whatever 'problem' there was in my system, there is no more, thanks to it. It fixed something I heretofore didn't know I needed.


Just like with Dave, I have no idea what your experience really was. Maybe you're both right, maybe not. Why should I take all you say at face value? Because I like you? Because you're some guy on the internet and nothing false has ever come out of "someone on the internet"? We keep arguing about the wrong things here. What's missing isn't a nice rational explanation as to why you're right or Gregorio is. What's missing is any sort of supporting evidence to your statement. 

- is someone's self confidence a mark of truth? nope. 
- is a sighted experience something highly reliable? nope. 
We could and usually should stop here.




Some sound difference will be big enough for everybody to just accept a testimony. Do you doubt that I can tell my headphone setup playing the hires version of Baby shark apart from a lawn mower by hear? Nobody will. When it's that big we have a fairly universal agreement that it's audible and that no amount of bias will really matter to settle the question of audibility.  
That will probably still work for our ability to perceive audible differences between 2 headphones in most cases. Even though the swapping method is terrible based on listening test criteria, I don't expect anybody to call you out on it and doubt your ability to tell most headphones apart by ear. But already I felt the need to say "most headphones".  
DACs and cable are known to have minimal impact on audio(measurements tend to say so). Suddenly we're in the realm of exotic anecdotes and small sound differences. Many of which will be inaudible. We'll face an entire range of personal values when it comes to trusting those testimonies. Some audiophiles have the false but strong belief that if something measured differently then they can hear that difference. Some people put their head in the sand anytime the notion of psychological bias is brought up. Some will acknowledge biases but only for other people, "not me, I know better, I have experience"(every professional reviewers). Some people will demand blind tests and won't trust anything sighted because they want to know about hearing ability and nothing else.

You will not find for small differences the same consensus we have for huge ones. Even worse, you will find that the very notion of what's a small difference changes greatly from one listener to the next, the same way 100$ is a lot for one guy and irrelevant to another. What I call irrelevant in term of audibility, someone on this forum will have described as night and day difference. So when you tell us that you've heard a clear difference, what am I to think?
 All those issues and what I wrote before about how people suck at judging their own experiences of small cues under sighted conditions, just add to the already terminal matter of trusting a random testimony on the web that's not demonstrated in any way. 


Maybe your experience is as real and big as you say. There is a bunch of possible cases we know of, starting with one DAC having a louder output than the other, some grave failure to filter enough input noise, some clipping with full scale signal, some radical differences in the reconstruction filter implementation that starts well within the audible range or turns into an aliasing factory... 
Any half competent designer should have worked on mitigating all those potential issues, but at some point, some guys designed R2R NOS filterless DACs(which is basically the same as making a digital converter while denying the sampling theorem that makes digital audio possible). And more amazing, some people bought into the "more analog" DAC BS.  
Same thing with cables, there are well accepted scenarios that have nothing to do with rediscovering science. Some here decide to ignore those scenarios when discussing cables or DACs in general for the sake of pushing an idea about spending money for the wrong reasons, but of course reality still has those scenarios. 

My point here is that it doesn't even matter if your impressions are correct or not because we can't get to that point. What you have to offer isn't and really shouldn't be convincing others. I'm obviously not saying this to attack you, it's just a fact that empty statements on the web aren't the gold standard for trust. You or anybody else, it's the same. 
Some people just say things that aren't entirely accurate and we have to account for that possibility.


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> I have an idea brewing in my head to try ABX, blind listening, etc, with earphone adaptors cables :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the single ended one will sound audibly different ^_^


----------



## DaveStarWalker

castleofargh said:


> I think the single ended one will sound audibly different ^_^


Yes indeed lol   

Just illustration pics.
I think it can be tried. And that's an elegant and potentially effective way to do it.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 28, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Cirrus101, I'll answer your post when I get a some time.


Take your time. You've contributed enough. 



gregorio said:


> your brain is calculating and therefore it may affect the final perception construct significantly


Yes. I am aware of those things. I work in audio post-production, and I know how maddening it is during final mixing and the insane levels you can get going back and forth from mix A and B, tweaking incessantly as your brain tricks what you've just heard, and if you spend long enough in that mix, you end up hating everything altogether.  Been there. Will keep on doing it in the future just the same, out of love for the thing. Love-hate, yknow?

In this case, as you say, it would mean I don't need any good quality gear at all (provided it covers the basics): I have the very best sound system on Earth right in my head! FOR FREE. INCLUDED W/ FREE UPGRADES FOREVER!

All I need is to use my brain to enhance every sound I want at the power of my will. I just need to really really reeeally want it, and it will happen. Like magic. Suddenly, I can turn this hillbilly violin into a Stradivarius with the sheer power of my bias! Wow. I love this bias. It's better than any DSP or plugin for christ's sake . Thanks for unlocking this power in me! You're a guru. You should make followers and stuff.



gregorio said:


> all western music/harmony was based on the juxtaposition of dissonance and consonance


Yes, I've read about it in a music history book. It seems that with every century, what was previously considered "dissonance" and heresy to be applied into music (which had a certain sacred aspect to it), slowly sounded more pleasing and acceptable to the ears. I think nowadays is the ultimate level of this process, since there are some artists out there that basically only make noise.



gregorio said:


> in moments of fear or stress, we can hear our heart thumping loudly


I've never witnessed this myself, to be honest.



gregorio said:


> your conscious biases, your subconscious biases and other potential variables your brain was subconsciously balancing/calculating


So much for the bias. But here's the thing, I'll tell you a story. I once purchased a device called ToneRite©, and what it does is that it plugs into an acoustic instrument like a guitar, and it vibrates the strings as if you were playing. This stimulation would work the tone in the wood and 'open it up'. Of course, skeptics were (are) all over this device to say it's worthless and la-dee-da, so I made a personal comparison of my acoustic guitar with two videos showing before and after 1 month using it. There was an evident, clear response from the guitar that had been improved, and it was audible in my comparison. Then some guy on YouTube commented it was not a fair display, because in the first video the mic was placed in a certain way, and the second it was slightly different. To which I've argued that yes, while it is true that changing the axis of the mic will affect the sound, it DOES NOT change the sound that dramatically. If a sound could be changed like that just by re-positioning the mic's, then nobody would need good guitars made out of good wood, you could buy the simplest ones and just use the 'mic trick' during recording. Which isn't true. And if the change was so insanely subtle that a mere mic positioning change would cast a shadow over it, then it would mean the ToneRite© is indeed useless. But that is not what happened in the comparison shown.

So as you can see, while bias is real, the bias for trying to disprove something is even worse, as it can cause denial of evident effects; I think it's all about being honest with yourself at all times. If you're a cunning man with a big ego, I'd definitely take into account a strong bias from that person; but we all know ourselves, and as long as you're earnest in your efforts and being sincere with yourself, ie: _it does not matter that I have either 'wasted money' or 'found the holy grail', the important is the truth above all else, all things must pass_, then I think you can get to good results which might not please a scientific community, but are enough to please oneself.



gregorio said:


> The professional audio engineers who use the equipment which contain those components also measure performance and would notice any significant faults/discrepancies. These facts cover all the points you’ve made here.


That is very generic. How can you be sure the integrity of a pure digital information was converted in analogue as perfectly as that could ever be done, for all brands, for all chips, for all models? Sure, the signal comes out, it's within the 20hz-20khz the spectrum at the desired amperage - Checked! Not faulty! Next please! But hey, does that account at all for parameters which might be relevant to the quality of that signal? I don't think so. I think they may be outputting different things which are not measured or not within their faulty/discrepant check-list.



gregorio said:


> Quantisation errors have nothing to do with the different consumer sample rates


You're right, my mistake, I meant resampling.



gregorio said:


> Why can’t we add that euphonic harmonic distortion, plus any other subjectively pleasing defects we desire and then we’d have a clean, perfect, 100/100 copy which includes any or all of those defects?


We can, and, in fact I often do that by rerouting signals from my tube amp back into the recording. That's nothing new, as a gazillion other people also insert tape compression and other artifacts, etc. Dozens of digital plugins do that emulation quite well too. What I have meant is that those people who argue _"analog is better than digital"_ are actually people who prefer to have _everything _they hear within that analog imperfection realm they love. Despite the labels/producers/musicians choices. They don't want their first print of a good old vinyl to be digitalized, remastered and played back 'clean' for them which is different from what they remembered. As for new artists, they'd rather have the vinyl feeling too, even for those sterile commercial mixes, because its comfortable for them, that's why turntables are still a trend today.



gregorio said:


> The frequencies removed from an MP3 file are frequencies that cannot be heard and therefore will make no audible difference (due to auditory masking), even for the purist.


I disagree; a .FLAC and .MP3 sounds different; even if something is "outside audible frequencies"*, it is still there; resonating in the room and in your head. It does not matter that the ears cannot pick it up; you're not annihilating those frequencies existence just because you cannot pick it up with the tiny hairs inside the ear; the speakers might try to reproduce them too, which can have a positive or adverse effect as they try to reproduce more frequencies in a lossless file than a lossy one.

* I digress here in that .FLACs always sound sharper - especially with classical music. A rock or pop song can do fine in 128kbps .mp3, but classical music will sound duller, as if some of the attacks and decays are not as sharp, as real life instruments are not hingered by any chopping of frequencies and all those affect our body as a whole.



71 dB said:


> You probably mean samplerate conversions? Yes, multiples of a certain samplerate makes things easier in that sense, but it is not impossible to do arbitrary samplerate conversions extremely accurately using sinc-resampling. I have myself written (some 20 years ago) Matlab code to resample impulse responses measured with MLSSA (using weird samplerate) to produce material for listening tests (music samples convoluted with impulse responses). Because it was about listening tests, the sample rate conversion had to be as accurate as possible to avoid it change the sound. Anyway, 44.1 kHz is not the only "standard" sample rate in use! In video produtions 48 kHz is the standard so in that sense 96 kHz and 192 kHz are completely valid as multiples of 48 kHz. 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz may look very arbitrary compared to each other, but they are not: 44100/48000 = 147/160.


Yes that's what I meant. Very interesting. I've been fiddling with different resampling techniques using different FIR presets in a music creation program I have, and it's amazing how it changes the sounds of the samples that you load into it. Depending whether its a more electronic chiptune sample, or a realistic acoustic instrument, the resampling chosen (linear, sinc, etc), alters it significantly.

By the way, "147/160" of what?



71 dB said:


> Something as simple as causing very small fluctuations (e.g. low-pass filtered white noise) of gain can be enough to remove the sterile feel without _perceptual_ decrease in fidelity.


That sounds good.



71 dB said:


> A small lab room feels almost like a catheral for a few seconds before hearing adjusts back.


That must've been a precious moment! Thanks for sharing that. Little unique things in life some of us get to experience.



71 dB said:


> As a very introverted person I have a very rich "inner world" inside my head where I go to when I am trying to fall to sleep. This inner world is full of imaginary stuff so that I am not "alone" in the silence.


Same here! But most people have troubled lifes and suffer from anxiety, depression and start to panic, because they cannot escape their problems or themselves. But that's a whole other topic! lol


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 28, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> Just like with Dave, I have no idea what your experience really was. Maybe you're both right, maybe not. (...)



I trust Nano. She seems nice. If she wants to be a cat, why not. Each to his own. If I want to indulge myself in good music due to my bias, why not. At least the bias improved the music, so it's money well spent, eh?  (j/k)

Pro tip: you don't need to trust anyone on the internet, just take with you any information you find relevant and move on. If mine or anyone else's testimony means nothing to you, that's fine really. However if someone else felt the same as I did, and finds common ground with my experience, then it was worth sharing it. I've read other reviews here in this forum which matched things I have experienced and I am glad they took the time to do so. It's a really good feeling when you don't feel alone in the universe because another mind experienced the same as you did, so you can correlate to the experiences of others and not just silently experience your own. Because, you know, we cannot enter into anybody else's minds, we're stuck with our own unto death.


----------



## 71 dB (Sep 28, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> Yes that's what I meant. Very interesting. I've been fiddling with different resampling techniques using different FIR presets in a music creation program I have, and it's amazing how it changes the sounds of the samples that you load into it. Depending whether its a more electronic chiptune sample, or a realistic acoustic instrument, the resampling chosen (linear, sinc, etc), alters it significantly.


Linear interpolation certainly creates distortion in re-sampling, but sinc-interpolation should not. What kind of re-sampling have you tried (from what freq. to what?) Are you sure you don't confuse re-sampling and pitch-shifting (the latter is MUCH trickier to do well)?



cirrus101 said:


> By the way, "147/160" of what?


44.1 kHz is "147/160" of 48 kHz.



cirrus101 said:


> Same here! But most people have troubled lifes and suffer from anxiety, depression and start to panic, because they cannot escape their problems or themselves. But that's a whole other topic! lol


I have suffered from those things too, but when I do, background noise doesn't help at all. When panic hits I have to go out in the night to walk around. That helps me.


----------



## 71 dB

DaveStarWalker said:


> Okay, I couldn't read your signature on the phone. But with the computer I could. These are good products. NAD, it works very well.


I had tons of problems with my NAD CD player. First a full bridge rectifier blew and was repaired (now 4 times "bigger" just in case). Then soon after the motor that operates the disc tray blew and was replaced. NAD is garbage these days, but I am a NAD fan so it is what it is... The NAD amp measures one of the worst amps but apparently the problems are inaudible and I am very satisfied with the performance. It is just shame that the stupid amp can't send digital sources to "ZONE 2" which I use to drive my headphone adapter/cross-feeder.


----------



## bfreedma

General comment:

Many people believe they can conquer various forms of human bias.  Those who feel strongly about this should check their sighted testing results against their results from participating in a reasonably well constructed DBT to see how controlled testing results align.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> I had tons of problems with my NAD CD player. First a full bridge rectifier blew and was repaired (now 4 times "bigger" just in case). Then soon after the motor that operates the disc tray blew and was replaced. NAD is garbage these days, but I am a NAD fan so it is what it is... The NAD amp measures one of the worst amps but apparently the problems are inaudible and I am very satisfied with the performance. It is just shame that the stupid amp can't send digital sources to "ZONE 2" which I use to drive my headphone adapter/cross-feeder.


I was talking sound wise.👍

Sorry about all these problems.😣

It sucks. ☹️


----------



## bigshot

cirrus101 said:


> How about this. What If:
> 1) Manufactures aren't properly rating these specs? who does the rating? is there any verification from an exempt third-party auditor?
> 2) They're deliberately delivering below specs items because most of us wouldn't notice anyway and it's cheaper?
> 3) Cheap chips could cause weird quantization errors, or other artifacts in its decoding?
> *4)* The actual analogue electric current generated was garbled from it's original information packet from the digital data it received? yes, it can _read _vanilla specs, alright, but does that prove it _emits_ the same equivalent specs in analog form with all of its integrity? is there any actual proof to this, testing, verification, auditing?


If a player or DAC wasn't performing to digital specs, you would know about it. There are people who do third party verification. Here as an example is a very good set of measurements of the iPhone that made quite a stir when it was released...

https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm

It's no more expensive to produce a chip that performs to spec and avoids quantization errors. The cost of perfect sounding DAC chips is well under $10 apiece many are under $5. The way chips are manufactured, cost isn't an issue.



cirrus101 said:


> I think all these things could account for a DAC behaving differently. And each chip is designed differently, they are not all identical. Each brand has their proprietary technology, from the machines they use to build things to the assembly part. A factory might have better quality control than another. What makes every model of every brand apparently homogenic is that they all "deliver the necessary specs" ie: they can read 16/44.1 or sometimes higher. But is that really reliable? It's just numbers... it doesn't measure the quality of the output signal that was translated.



DAC chips are made by a small handful of companies in massive quantities and are off the shelf components. Each manufacturer makes a range of chips designed for specific applications. The same chip might be used in a wide variety of brands and models. Every one I've ever seen has been designed and manufactured to meet spec. I can't think of any application for a DAC that doesn't perform to spec. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of a way that a chip could even decode a digital file format incorrectly without resulting in massive noise or distortion. Digital is an "all or nothing" thing. It isn't like analog where errors can be subtle. I know audiophools go on and on about the differences between Sabre, Wolfson and Apple branded DAC chips, but I have components with all three of those and I've compared them and they all sound the same. Chalk it up to brand bias.

The only way a consumer DAC could possibly sound different is if the analog components are faulty. You hear people talking about op amps a lot. But even cheap DVD players have clean enough analog output to be audibly transparent. They may not be clean enough for studio work where levels can be boosted a lot, but for playing back commercial music at a normalized line level, they are fine.

I would love to find a commercial DAC, DAP or disc player that isn't audibly transparent. I compare every piece of gear I buy and they all sound the same. I've asked here for about ten years for someone to provide me an example of a consumer player that sounds clearly different in careful listening test comparison. No one has ever been able to provide me an example, except for obsolete NOS DACs from the pre-1985 era.

If you are buying something to play digital audio, you should consider features and build quality, not the sound. All of them should sound exactly the same. If one doesn't sound the same, it's defective by either manufacture or design. That is uncommon enough that I've never heard of an example.



cirrus101 said:


> It seems this is because digital is actually so clean, true, perfect, sterile; a 100/100 copy. So it's about what digital is lacking: defects. The same with transistor vs valve/tube amps: there's some harmonic distortion added and we like it. Humans as we are, we actually like (controlled) defects. Take the "lo-fi" genre, for example. Adding vinyl pops and clicks and hum to songs. Not always do we crave for perfection; there is beauty in imperfection.


There are DSPs that emulate vinyl surface noise and euphonic distortion. The nice thing about them is that they are adjustable. You can dial in exactly the amount of error you want. You aren't locked in to distortion hard wired into a tube amp, or random surface noise on a record album.

With any kind of coloration, it's best to start from a place of high fidelity. Clean and accurate. Then you can use signal processing to color it to taste, like adding salt and pepper to a steak.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 28, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> So as you can see, while bias is real, the bias for trying to disprove something is even worse, as it can cause denial of evident effects; I think it's all about being honest with yourself at all times. If you're a cunning man with a big ego, I'd definitely take into account a strong bias from that person; but we all know ourselves, and as long as you're earnest in your efforts and being sincere with yourself, ie: _it does not matter that I have either 'wasted money' or 'found the holy grail', the important is the truth above all else, all things must pass_, then I think you can get to good results which might not please a scientific community, but are enough to please oneself.



All humans are subject to bias. It doesn't matter how hard you try to be objective, subconscious bias is subconscious and you can't control it. It doesn't matter if your bias is in favor of something or against it. It's the same thing. It's a waste of time to try to eliminate bias by sheer force of will. You're only fooling yourself.

The controls placed on listening tests are designed to minimize bias and perceptual error. They are very effective at doing that. If you choose to not apply those controls, it's fair for us to assume that the results of your comparison have been tainted and may not be at all accurate. That kind of sloppy comparison is fine for you. If it really doesn't matter to you, and you want to just go on first impressions yourself, that's cool. No one is trying to stop you. But if you try to share that kind of comparison with someone else as a recommendation or fact, don't be surprised if someone calls you on it and tells you that you're spouting bologna.



cirrus101 said:


> I disagree; a .FLAC and .MP3 sounds different; even if something is "outside audible frequencies"*, it is still there; resonating in the room and in your head.



Case in point... Bologna.

Once you know the rules, you will be expected to play by them.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 28, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Then you can use signal processing to color it to taste


Yeah. But, it's fake.



bigshot said:


> I've asked here for about ten years for someone to provide me an example of a consumer player that sounds clearly different


About every device I've used my whole life sounds different from one another. I cannot believe your statement. Just pick any two smartphones, different models, different brands. Or compare it a computer with onboard motherboard sound. Compare old PCs with new PCs. Compare a PC with a dedicated soundcard on. Mp3 players - chinese generic brands sold on the streets and bazars vs big brands (Sony, Panasonic, etc.). List goes on and on. Every one of these offers a different experience, and I'm not talking of its tactile feel. Maybe its not the DAC used per se, but the combination of whatever hardware is employed creates obvious differences.



bigshot said:


> All humans are subject to bias.


I think your bias is that everything sounds the same. You firmly believe that, because Science. So everything _will_ sound the same.


bigshot said:


> Case in point... Bologna.


Are you denying that a lossless file contains more frequencies than a lossy one like the mp3?

That's very unscientific. Any simple spectrogram like the one I've posted will reveal that.

Whether those frequencies and their relation to our perception are important or not, that's another issue. But they are there and they do exist and they are part of what exists in the natural world before they were chopped off by compression. Period.

And even your friend of the article you've linked above states the following:

_I did spend several hours A/Bing an iPod Touch 4G with 160 kbps AAC VBR files against the original CDs, I wasn't able to hear any difference at all as monitored with a STAX SRM-T1 amplifier and STAX SR-007 MK II electrostatic headphones. (MP3 files sound much worse at the same data rates, I'm not talking about them.)_

Mind that parenthesis over there. I hope you like bologna, 'cause I'm giving it back to you.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

"All humans are subject to bias." = well said.

To meditate... 😉👍


----------



## DaveStarWalker

DaveStarWalker said:


> A very good training = mp3 128 vs 16/24 wav. Blind test. 😉....
> 
> Maybe more relevant than the different masters of a same song.
> 
> ...



What do you think about this proposition ?...

No one here is motivated by the challenge ? 😇😉


----------



## chef8489

cirrus101 said:


> Yeah. But, it's fake.
> 
> 
> About every device I've used my whole life sounds different from one another. I cannot believe your statement. Just pick any two smartphones, different models, different brands. Or compare it a computer with onboard motherboard sound. Compare old PCs with new PCs. Compare a PC with a dedicated soundcard on. Mp3 players - chinese generic brands sold on the streets and bazars vs big brands (Sony, Panasonic, etc.). List goes on and on. Every one of these offers a different experience, and I'm not talking of its tactile feel. Maybe its not the DAC used per se, but the combination of whatever hardware is employed creates obvious differences.
> ...


Thing is would all the equipment actually sound different in a proper double blind test?

Some equipment, yes and some no. Engineers design equipment to sound different from one generation to another. While the dac chip might be the same, other things after it can have an impact on how the device sounds. 

As far as flac and 256 aac vbr lossy. Again double blind testing and a rate of 95% or higher needs to be achieved to prove that you can tell a difference.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> About every device I've used my whole life sounds different from one another.


Did you compare using multiple averaged level matched, direct A/B switched blind tests? If not, I am going to tell you that your subjective comparisons are meaningless because they're likely to error due to bias and perceptual error. There's no reason to believe that DAC chips sound different than one another. They're designed to be audibly transparent. The only differences are in function and performance beyond the range of human hearing.

Repeating... Once you know the rules, you will be expected to play by them.

A few quick notes...

• A PC with grounding issues doesn't mean that the DAC chip inside it isn't audibly transparent. A $10 POC incorrectly designed and manufactured player bought in a Chinese bazaar isn't what I'm talking about either. I'm talking about consumer home audio equipment available right now on Amazon. (NOS DACs excluded.)

• I am subject to bias just like everyone else. I don't deny it. I make an effort to apply controls to my comparisons to minimize it. I don't go purely by my subjective reactions.

• "Inaudible frequencies" means inaudible. Inaudible frequencies don't have a sound _by definition._ If you can't hear a frequency, there is no reason to believe it has any impact on the perceived sound quality of commercially recorded music.

• With VBR on, AAC 160 is allowed to assign more data to sections of the music that are harder to decode. With VBR on, it is perfectly possible for AAC to be audibly transparent at lower data rates. It's transparent with most sound samples at 192 CBR.

Dave can get by with spouting bologna because he's clearly oblivious and not terribly connected to anything anyone else says to him. (I'm saying that as nicely as I can.) You aren't like that. If you ignore facts and use logical fallacies to make your point, you're doing it deliberately to justify a false argument. I can just dismiss Dave with a wave of the hand, but you asked me to engage with you and I've spent time and energy doing that. I'm going to hold you to a higher standard. Consider this a shot across your bow.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Did you compare using multiple averaged level matched, direct A/B switched blind tests? If not, I am going to tell you that your subjective comparisons are meaningless because they're likely to error due to bias and perceptual error. There's no reason to believe that DAC chips sound different than one another. They're designed to be audibly transparent. The only differences are in function and performance beyond the range of human hearing. And "inaudible" means inaudible. Inaudible frequencies don't have a sound _by definition._
> 
> Repeating... Once you know the rules, you will be expected to play by them. Dave can get by because he's oblivious and not terribly connected to anything anyone else says to him. (I'm saying that as nicely as I can.) You aren't like that. If you ignore facts and use logical fallacies, you're doing it deliberately to justify a false argument. I can just dismiss Dave with a wave of the hand, but you asked me to engage with you and I've spent time and energy doing that. I'm going to hold you to a higher standard. Consider this a shot across your bow.


Sorry pal,

It is precisely because I am very connected with so many (and different) people that I have been able to do so many tests and experiments.

It's important not to be self-centered.

I am not a subjectivist or an objectivist person. This is a silly duality. No relevant at all.

But I am a pragmatic and empirist person. For this hobby. 

And repeat : real science does nothing with this hobby, because this is... a hobby. 🙄😉

If you want to deal with real science, then, get some money, time, and work out your methods.

Pleasure is not ever an option too = bias. 😅


----------



## bigshot

chef8489 said:


> Some equipment, yes and some no. Engineers design equipment to sound different from one generation to another. While the dac chip might be the same, other things after it can have an impact on how the device sounds.


Why would a manufacturer be motivated to produce a piece of gear that doesn't perform to spec? Do you have any specific examples of this, or are you just assuming this is the case. I've compared a lot of equipment and I can't find any electronics that aren't audibly transparent. Transducers, yes of course. But not DACs, DAPs, amps or players (with the stated exception of obsolete NOS DACs, and manufacturing errors.)


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

This forum is about science being applied to improve the performance of home audio equipment. There are a dozen forums in the rest of head-fi for subjectivism and casual impressions. I'd suggest if you want to engage in that, you would be much more on-topic in one of those forums.

(not speaking to chef here. speaking to the oblivious one.)


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Why would a manufacturer be motivated to produce a piece of gear that doesn't perform to spec? Do you have any specific examples of this, or are you just assuming this is the case. I've compared a lot of equipment and I can't find any electronics that aren't audibly transparent. Transducers, yes of course. But not DACs, DAPs, amps or players (with the stated exception of obsolete NOS DACs, and manufacturing errors.)



What a statement!

Compared how? 🤔


----------



## bigshot

nope. not for you. sorry. g'bye.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Why would a manufacturer be motivated to produce a piece of gear that doesn't perform to spec? Do you have any specific examples of this, or are you just assuming this is the case. I've compared a lot of equipment and I can't find any electronics that aren't audibly transparent. Transducers, yes of course. But not DACs, DAPs, amps or players (with the stated exception of obsolete NOS DACs, and manufacturing errors.)


Daps and some amps are not designed to be transparent in sound. Many manufacturers have a house sound that they tailor their amps and daps towards while others do try to to obtain transparency in audio.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> This forum is about science being applied to improve the performance of home audio equipment. There are a dozen forums in the rest of head-fi for subjectivism and casual impressions. I'd suggest if you want to engage in that, you would be much more on-topic in one of those forums.


So read carefully what I am saying.

About method.

And so I came up with some tough tests and proposition recently. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to be rushing. Strange... 🤔😉

Stop talking for people. I don't know you, you don't know me.

I don't speak for you.

However, I am waiting for real answers to the real questions I just asked you.





bigshot said:


> nope. not for you. sorry. g'bye.


The escape.

As expected. 😅


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Which ones? Can you point to a specific model and link to measurements verifying coloration in the audible range?

NOS DACs and tube amps, sure. But I don't know why anyone would deliberately color solid state electronics. If word got out that they weren't performing to spec, I don't know any audio consumer who would choose to buy it.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> Daps and some amps are not designed to be transparent in sound. Many manufacturers have a house sound that they tailor their amps and daps towards while others do try to to obtain transparency in audio.


Yes they are.

But, it is not really tailored with the Dac themself, but with their implantation, and in particular with the analogic stages output .


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Which ones? Can you provide me with measurements verifying coloration in the audible range?


And you?

If you can process that, I am very interested.

Although... About odd and even harmonics... 😉

The even harmonics : which are even multiples of the fundamental frequency; The odd harmonics : which are odd multiples of the fundamental frequency.

About tube vs solid-state amps for instance... And distorsion structure. 💡😇


----------



## bigshot

nope. not you. sorry!


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Which ones? Can you point to a specific model and link to measurements verifying coloration in the audible range?
> 
> NOS DACs and tube amps, sure. But I don't know why anyone would deliberately color solid state electronics. If word got out that they weren't performing to spec, I don't know any audio consumer who would choose to buy it.


I don't have measurements on hand, but Astel & Kern. The different lines were known to be tuned differently and now with the sp200t they are even including a tube so it can alter the sound even more. 

Then you can compare Fiio the m15, the m11, m11 pro, m11 plus Ltd and the m11 plus. 

I have had a chance to dbx the m11 and the se100 and se200 and could tell the difference between the Fiio and the A&k players. This was done about 2 years ago. I didn't set up the test and I was truly blind in it. All files were Flac 16/44.1. 

I'll get back to you on the amps but schiit comes to mind. I have not used solid state in some time.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Well, naturally including a tube is likely to color the output, even though there are transparent tube amps.

When you compared two and they sounded different, did you compare them to other things to see which one was transparent and which one was colored? Is Astel & Kern the colored ones? I'm only interested in colored equipment.

I'd like to see the published specs and hopefully measurements on those models. I'm interested to see exactly what they are altering to give it a "house sound". I'm afraid I'm not up on abbreviated names. Which models should I check specifically please? I'd like to do some googling.

Thanks! This is exciting.

P.S. If Schiit is the amp that guy with the forum said was colored, I don't believe it. The measurements he pointed to were well below the range of audibility. His measurements are good, but his conclusions aren't.

Edit: I found this. I'll look it over tomorrow. https://www.stereophile.com/content/astellkern-ak240-portable-media-player-measurements


----------



## chef8489

Se100 and se200 are astell and Kern as is sp200t

The m series are fiio. 

As far as when I listened. I don't know which was colored. All I remember is that they sounded different. I know I wound up preferring the astell and Kern sound a lot which was a shame because I preferred the android system of the fiio when I was hands on with them. Unfortunately I don't have any of them. I sold the fiio and gave away both the astell & Kerns to my parents this past Christmas. I have moved back to a desktop setup with planars. 

I do know if it had been a sighted test, I think frustration with the astell and Kern ui would have swayed me enough.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> nope. not you. sorry!


Run, you fools ! (Gandalf the Grey) 😂😅


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Astell & Kern's published specs are crazy far below any threshold of audibility, and on first glance the stereophile measurements seem to back them up. Do you think the Fiio might have been the colored one?


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 29, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Astell & Kern's published specs are crazy far below any threshold of audibility, and on first glance the stereophile measurements seem to back them up. Do you think the Fiio might have been the colored one?


If you think that every system is ontological perfect = yes.

But in real life, it doesn't exist.

Think about impedance mismatches for instance. 🤔😉

Think about impedance input and output for instance 💭😳

Etc.

Think about this well-known product = Campfire Andromeda. An universal iem.

If you listen to it with a dap that has a high output impedance, you get no bass and as a result, too much treble (inbalance).

On the other hand, things return to "normal" (excellent low end).

Also, given the very high sensitivity of the product, and given this particular behaviour in relation to the output impedance of the daps, the Andromeda hiss with the aforementioned Astell & Kern (I have tried it with the most high end AK products at the time : Sp1000, then 2000...).

In contrast, it is completely silent  (pitch black, dead...) with other daps, such as the Dx90 or the m1s. *Cheap dacs*... Strangely enough, this is what I use (see my signature). 

Ironically, their advertised theoretically performances, especially in terms of theoretically signal-to-noise ratio, are much worse...  

Do not confuse signal to noise ratio (dac) with... noises of various origins (whole system). A common confusion. These are not the same think at all.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Impedance mismatches are user error. I’m assuming we’re talking about line out.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Astell & Kern's published specs are crazy far below any threshold of audibility, and on first glance the stereophile measurements seem to back them up. Do you think the Fiio might have been the colored one?


It could be. I have not had a chance to hear the other AK daps. I could not tell the difference between the se200 and se100. I will be going to moon audio in November though. It is said that there is a sound difference between the difference between the tiers from everyone who have heard them even by astell & kern.. the se100 and se200 are in same tier so we will see.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 29, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Impedance mismatches are user error. I’m assuming we’re talking about line out.


Yes and know.

*In audio, there is a golden rule = always think in terms of a whole system.*
This is where cables can come into the game (Remember that this is the topic here = cables...   )

Well-known case: amplifiers and preamplifiers that have input and output impedances that are, if not incompatible, at least not very optimised = poor results.

The same thing with no ajusted gain.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Were you running line out through a switcher? Could the differences be due to impedance or level matching? That wouldn’t be coloration in the unit. Plugging and unplugging between samples can create error in the testing too.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Were you running line out through a switcher? Could the differences be due to impedance or level matching? That wouldn’t be coloration in the unit.


This remains a form of colouring in any case. Also, the more elements you add to the chain, the more you reduce the transparency of the chain.

Another golden rule.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Were you running line out through a switcher? Could the differences be due to impedance or level matching?


It was level matched and through a switcher. Decibel meter was used to check levels it was done in an audiologist friend with some of his equipment.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Great!

How many trials and how accurate were you in identifying them? Sounds like a good test.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

And about even and odd harmonics, this is very interesting.

The triangle and the square sine waves both have only odd harmonics.
A sine passed through a full wave rectifier has even harmonics.
The saw has even and odd harmonics.

For example:

Fundamental = 100Hz
Harmonic 2 = 200Hz = even harmonic
Harmonic 3 = 300Hz = odd harmonic
Harmonic 4 = 400Hz = even harmonic
etc...

it's not complicated, even harmonics are those that have an even relationship with your fundamental, and the odd ones, well, they have an odd relationship ( X1,5, X3...)...

The less obvious the relationship between the fundamental and its harmonics, the more dissonant the sound appears. The ear is somehow used to perceiving the "beautiful" mathematical relationships in the sound.

Tubes based amp for instance are even harmonics machines = flattered ears.


----------



## chef8489

I was around 87% accurate. We tested around 250 different tracks over 4 hours. While taking breaks every 10 min or so.


----------



## bigshot

Excellent. I’m going to look into the Fiio tomorrow.


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 29, 2022)

This was the gen 1 m11 BTW.

Iems I used were my westone es60 and my refrance inears customs in my sig


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Great!
> 
> How many trials and how accurate were you in identifying them? Sounds like a good test.


It could be, yes.
If you have time and courage to do it, try it.   

About the cables, I propose this method :

I have an idea brewing in my head to try ABX, blind listening, etc, with earphone adaptors cables :







4.4mm Balanced Male to 2.5mm Balanced Female = this image is just an illustration. 

Then :





4.4mm Balanced Male to 2.5mm Balanced Female. The image is the good one.

For example.

All else being equal, except for these DAP output adapters.

The first one is made with a type 6 Gold-silver-palladium-copper cables.
The second one with parallele pur copper PCOCC-A cables.

From a methodological point of view, it seems simple to me to try blind swaps... the cable for the headphones remained the same.

Exemple :







What do you think about that?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> Excellent. I’m going to look into the Fiio tomorrow.


Fiio makes excellent (I mean *EXCELLENT*) products.

My reference iem, any prices, any technologies is the FiiO FH9 = pur talent, pur poison !!!


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> Fiio makes excellent (I mean *EXCELLENT*) products.
> 
> My reference iem, any prices, any technologies is the FiiO FH9 = pur talent, pur poison !!!


They do make very good products, at least the ones I have tested over the past decade or so. I have tested a handful of players and headphone amps.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Was there a single amp that both ran through? I know some IEMs are very persnickety about amping.

Dave doesn’t seem to notice that his input isn’t needed or desired.


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> It could be, yes.
> If you have time and courage to do it, try it.
> 
> About the cables, I propose this method :
> ...


I’ll do this because by now it’s the only post related to cables...
You won’t have a rapid enough switching(better than swapping IEM cables for sure but still a little long for human auditory memory). This will lower your ability to notice a change if you’re really doing it blind and having to try and identify which cable is used each time(on a piece of paper for example while the one conducting the test also marks which cable is plugged each time).
If you just swap and ask yourself if there’s a difference without control(the fact checking aspect of a test), that’s not a controlled test but your subjective opinion about what you heard. Then having too much delay will increase you idea that there is a difference(because the memory of the previous sample has time to deteriorate, or even get replaced by some interpretation/analysis that compares yet older memories of listening to other stuff).

 Someone else has to do the unplugging/plugging, you shouldn't talk to or look at that person beside what's needed strictly for the test. If you notice any distinctive sound from plug/unplug actions, you have to give up on that method.
You need to decide from the get go how many trials you'll do(again you can take as long as you want and do it over 5 days, but you have to stick to the initial number and not stop at 7 because the odds so far are what in your favor). 
Because stats are what they are, something like 20 attempts would be very nice. 

There are many ways to skin a cat but that should be a fairly acceptable one.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 29, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> In this case, as you say, it would mean I don't need any good quality gear at all (provided it covers the basics)


What do you mean “_as you say_”? I never said that at all, in fact I’ve repeatedly excluded transducers and mentioned room acoustics. So why are you mis-quoting me? Additionally, if you’re a professional sound/music engineer there can be situations with a valid need for certain equipment (ADCs/DACs for example) that significantly exceeds human audibility but we’re discussing what’s applicable for consumer playback.


cirrus101 said:


> All I need is to use my brain to enhance every sound I want at the power of my will. I just need to really really reeeally want it, and it will happen.


Absolutely, assuming of course that you’re a superhuman audiophile who can consciously control all your brain’s conscious and subconscious processes!


cirrus101 said:


> It seems that with every century, what was previously considered "dissonance" and heresy to be applied into music (which had a certain sacred aspect to it), slowly sounded more pleasing and acceptable to the ears.


No. While some things/sounds that appeared somewhat dissonant at one point in time may sound more consonant at another point in time, that’s only true of certain things/sounds. Two simultaneous tones a semi-tone apart sound just as dissonant today as they did 5 centuries ago. The basic rules of western harmony (and dissonance/consonance) from 4-5 centuries ago are still extensively used and as effective today. And, the fact that we have certain perceptions/preferences which can change over time, indicates the malleability of perceptions/preferences.


cirrus101 said:


> I've never witnessed this myself, to be honest.


You’ve never heard your own heart beating, not in an anechoic chamber, at certain times of heavy exercise, fear or stress? That would be very unusual. Nevertheless, I assume you’re not dismissing/contradicting all the science for around the last 50 years which demonstrates this heartbeat filtering process?


cirrus101 said:


> To which I've argued that yes, while it is true that changing the axis of the mic will affect the sound, it DOES NOT change the sound that dramatically.


It can indeed change the sound that dramatically, depending on the mic type, it’s polar pattern and exact placement.


cirrus101 said:


> So as you can see, while bias is real, the bias for trying to disprove something is even worse, as it can cause denial of evident effects …


How does one anecdote result in “as you can see”? Sure, biases can cause us to perceive what isn’t audible or not perceive what could/should be audible. That’s why we have controlled testing, with sample sizes greater than one. You think science has only ever tested those who believe there is no difference? Additionally, you seem to have missed the point of why we use DBT/DBX tests, it’s to DISPROVE the null hypothesis because you can’t prove a negative.


cirrus101 said:


> They don't want their first print of a good old vinyl to be digitalized, remastered and played back 'clean' for them which is different from what they remembered.


You seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to have effectively agreed that there’s nothing stopping us creating a digitised master that sounds the same as “what they remembered”, with any/all of the analogue distortions, even with vinyl surface noise, pops, crackles, rumble, etc. But obviously with digital, we also have the choice not to have any of those analogue distortions. We generally don’t add all those distortions (although we commonly add some of them to certain genres) because that is generally not what most consumers want.


cirrus101 said:


> As for new artists, they'd rather have the vinyl feeling too, even for those sterile commercial mixes, because it’s comfortable for them, that's why turntables are still a trend today.


That maybe true of some artists but is patently not true of many. And, turntables are not “still” a trend today, for quite a few years they almost disappeared and virtually all the vinyl pressing plants had closed. They have somewhat become a trend again, but do you have reliable evidence that’s because turntable/vinyl distortions supposedly can’t be sufficiently emulated by digital, rather than because of the visual/tactile experience of handling vinyl recordings or just because of current marketing/fashion?


cirrus101 said:


> I digress here in that .FLACs always sound sharper - especially with classical music.


Now you’re directly contradicting the demonstrated science and without any reliable evidence! Sure, there are very obvious measurable differences between lossless and lossy but they are inaudible and therefore sound the same, not sharper, regardless of genre and science has countless ABX results which provide reliable evidence of this fact.


cirrus101 said:


> A rock or pop song can do fine in 128kbps .mp3, but classical music will sound duller


Obviously, as we lower the bit rate it becomes progressively easier to tell the difference, as more information within the range of audibility needs to be discarded in order to achieve the lower kbps requirement. At 64kbps it’s relatively easy to tell the difference with pretty much any music genre but not so with today’s typical bit rates, >192kbps.


cirrus101 said:


> Depending whether it’s a more electronic chiptune sample, or a realistic acoustic instrument, the resampling chosen (linear, sinc, etc), alters it significantly.


Yes it alters it significantly but not audibly unless you’re using an obsolete resampler or inappropriate settings. 20+ years ago there were *some* dodgy resamplers but it’s trivial to get it right today.

In your post you mis-quoted (seemingly deliberately) and you misrepresented and/or contradicted the facts/science, with no supporting evidence other than personal anecdotes. As explained previously, none of this is acceptable in this subforum and continuing to do so will result in increasingly hostile responses.

G


----------



## castleofargh (Sep 29, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> About every device I've used my whole life sounds different from one another. I cannot believe your statement. Just pick any two smartphones, different models, different brands. Or compare it a computer with onboard motherboard sound. Compare old PCs with new PCs. Compare a PC with a dedicated soundcard on. Mp3 players - chinese generic brands sold on the streets and bazars vs big brands (Sony, Panasonic, etc.). List goes on and on. Every one of these offers a different experience, and I'm not talking of its tactile feel. Maybe its not the DAC used per se, but the combination of whatever hardware is employed creates obvious differences.


As your all life involved tests that were not strictly listening tests, it doesn't mean much for the actual audible differences. Doing something badly many times doesn't make it more accurate.
again I insist that I'm not suggesting all things sound the same and you dreamed it all. I'm suggesting you don't have a way to verify.
A blind test is an occasion to see if what we feel matches what we're really able to hear. A sighted impression could be right, could be partially biased, could have made up all the sounds we think have changed between 2 devices, cables, formats. The uncertainty should call for caution, and yet, because we're humans and because our brains is a junky for good answers(what we think is a good answer!!!!!!!), we typically are overly confident and overly deaf to what contradicts us. That too is perfectly normal and yet goes against knowing the truth. Such is a human being and why the scientific method that seeks to know better, isn't telling us to stick a finger in our nose and trust our intuition on every subject.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 29, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> I’ll do this because by now it’s the only post related to cables...
> You won’t have a rapid enough switching(better than swapping IEM cables for sure but still a little long for human auditory memory). This will lower your ability to notice a change if you’re really doing it blind and having to try and identify which cable is used each time(on a piece of paper for example while the one conducting the test also marks which cable is plugged each time).
> If you just swap and ask yourself if there’s a difference without control(the fact checking aspect of a test), that’s not a controlled test but your subjective opinion about what you heard. Then having too much delay will increase you idea that there is a difference(because the memory of the previous sample has time to deteriorate, or even get replaced by some interpretation/analysis that compares yet older memories of listening to other stuff).
> 
> ...


Hi COA,

I do not agree. That's the point. I think, having experienced it, that fast switches disorientate the hearing very quickly, also by tiring it.

Just for my own needs (I bought a second hand 4.4mm cable but my dap is a 2.5mm), I will buy such adapters.

I already have the Fiio, which a friend gave me, but as I have a mind of my own, I intend to try the Penon. I am a curious guy.

Compared to the Fiio, when I listen to it, I find that it works perfectly.

I made switches against another of my cables, installed on other intras, cabled in 2.5mm native, and I did not notice any degradation, of any kind as I know.

Also, my native 4.4mm cable is a 4 strands (24 awg), and the other one is an 8 strands (26 awg) = I strictly did not notice any "degradation" of the dynamic range (or the opposite), as many reviews and audiophiles report...

However, in terms of their tonal colour and presentation, the two cables aforementionned do not sound the same. To quickly summarise and simplify, the "Tri-copper" (pure copper, glod plated copper and silver plated copper) is "dark", the other is "bright" (pure silver melted with gold, palladium and platinum).

Anyway, I think have a good intuition here, and I will try to train myself to blindly recognise the 2 different adapters (pure copper, parallele structure vs copper, silver, paladium plated, litz structure = too very different approaches...), all things being equal, if I think it is humanly possible.

To be continued, for the cause (I am pretty excited about that).


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Was there a single amp that both ran through? I know some IEMs are very persnickety about amping.
> 
> Dave doesn’t seem to notice that his input isn’t needed or desired.


No amp isn't needed with the iems. Balanced 2.5mm out was used on all the players. Plenty of power for the iems.


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> I do not agree. That's the point.


No, that’s nonsense! Science/The facts do not change just because you personally “do not agree”, that’s the point!


DaveStarWalker said:


> I think, having experienced it, that fast switches disorientate the hearing very quickly, also by tiring it.


Again, your personal experience does NOT constitute reliable evidence and definitely does not invalidate decades of scientific research or provide any grounds to contradict it.

It’s just the same anti-science nonsense over and over again with nothing to support it except your belief that _“I think have a good intuition here_”. It’s laughable!

G


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 29, 2022)

**sigh**

Well, well, well.
What's the story, morning glory?
I'm tired of this particular subforums. It was nice coming here at first, there were some great moments of discovery. Great storytelling too. But there are limitations. Some people in it and the discussions going in circles is just unmotivating and unexciting.
Music itself and enjoying music is so much more than that.
Have fun in your sad little world of "DBTs, placebos, bias and perceptual errors".




Gentleman, I thank you for your time and for the replies.

But I have nothing else to say that wouldn't only further feed a pointless flame, burning without any purpose, going nowhere.
I stand by the things I have said.
Agree to disagree here.

*PS:* If you own any expensive fancy brand name hi-fi audiophile equipment regarding the other parts of the chain prior to speakers/HPs, you're quite possibly hypocrites, unless you have some sensible, logic-oriented, scientifically based reasons for purchasing those. Otherwise, you do not stand by the things you say; ie:_ I believe in X and will spout that to others, but for myself I will enjoy Y. _So I really hope that is not the case.


----------



## castleofargh

DaveStarWalker said:


> I do not agree. That's the point. I think, having experienced it, that fast switches disorientate the hearing very quickly, also by tiring it.


The switching has to be fast, you can listen to one cable for hours if you want, although that too is counter productive and has been demonstrated to be several times. You can train all you want outside of the test, but for better audio discrimination, short samples have proved to work better while doing the test itself.
It is a fact that when testing listeners under very rigorous conditions, they have more accurate results with short samples. It's been suggested that staying under 3 to 5seconds is the most effective, and if you happen to find a particular test signal or moment within a track that magnifies the difference, then isolating that portion of sound is going to make passing the test even easier. 
It is also significantly more effective to use a switching solution that is as silent and fast as possible.
Change that, or add biases and the results get worse. It's not an opinion but what research experiments keep showing to work best. At this point, it's only open to discussion in your head because the matter has been tested, replicated, settled and keeps being validated by 2 decades of diverse experiments about audibility and memory of sound.
Some variations are found on duration for what are considered the 3 phases of hearing/memorizing(due to significant difference in the experiments), and as it's the passing to another phase that's used to try and explain the decline in memory accuracy, we can argue about the precise ideal timing to some extent. But that's it. 
Gregorio states it aggressively without trying to justify his statement, but in this case, Science has a clear position based on serious work while you have an opinion that is wrong.  


IMO, you keep confusing feeling more differences with actually hearing more real sound differences. And from that mistake of thinking they're strictly the same thing, you logically conclude that what makes you feel more changes is the more accurate testing method. You're far from alone on an audio forum, But with a false premise the rest rarely looks good.

You brought up tasting whine before. Let's discuss that. Do you really believe your impression of how the wine tastes will not at all be affected by the bottle, label, price and what the sommelier tells you about what to expect?
 Do you think that drinking a bottle in your favorite restaurant with your friends, is going to make your experience and specific memory of the "taste" be the very same as if drinking it from a plastic cup while standing knee deep in a sewer(enjoy the non biasing smell too)? 
Only a robot would consider both situations as similar when analyzing something about the wine. A robot is exactly what you want us all to think you are when doing sighted listening. More time isn't adding errors to your always perfect memory, no! It's only letting you know more about the very real differences. And seeing different cables, knowing the metal, breading, and whatever marketing BS you learned to trust about what could make a differences in sound, knowing the price tag of each cable, none of it is going to bias your sound impression, because you're a robot.
This is enough of a fairy tail as it is, but then, turning your back to the cables, not knowing what you're listening to at a given time, that non audio variable is suddenly stressful and tiresome.
 You got to love the irony. If we are to believe you, you're pretty much immune to just about any external factor except if it can help prove your brain wrong about something. Only then we have to avoid adding non audio variables. It's an interesting take on reality. I would love to troll more about such a laughable rational, except that most audiophile and really most humans will naturally think and act like you under the same circumstances. Again, Science as a tool and a method is needed to know better and stop fooling ourselves. Finding the truth was never guaranteed to be automatic, intuitive, or fun.

More about wine and ... you know... humans not being robots.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...t-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/


And one more time, I'm not saying that all cables under all circumstances will be audibly the same. Almost all my posts on this thread have been about the so simple idea that Humans will get biased by just about anything so if they sometimes want to "just listen", they need help.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

castleofargh said:


> The switching has to be fast, you can listen to one cable for hours if you want, although that too is counter productive and has been demonstrated to be several times. You can train all you want outside of the test, but for better audio discrimination, short samples have proved to work better while doing the test itself.
> It is a fact that when testing listeners under very rigorous conditions, they have more accurate results with short samples. It's been suggested that staying under 3 to 5seconds is the most effective, and if you happen to find a particular test signal or moment within a track that magnifies the difference, then isolating that portion of sound is going to make passing the test even easier.
> It is also significantly more effective to use a switching solution that is as silent and fast as possible.
> Change that, or add biases and the results get worse. It's not an opinion but what research experiments keep showing to work best. At this point, it's only open to discussion in your head because the matter has been tested, replicated, settled and keeps being validated by 2 decades of diverse experiments about audibility and memory of sound.
> ...


I disagree, sorry.

Actually, I'm listening alternately 4 different iems. 4 different sounds. One week one, then the other, etc. 

Certainly in immediate switching, the differences are marked. Fortunately.

But at the end of my week of listening with the set 1/, when I switch to the set 2/, it is another world...

Why? Because my hearing has been trained to listen to one type of rendition over time. I have been used to a certain type of rendition . 

Exactly like the guy who is used to a brand of cigarette, and who can't smoke anything else (I don't smoke).


----------



## castleofargh

cirrus101 said:


> **sigh**
> 
> Well, well, well.
> What's the story, morning glory?
> ...


What does making sure we're really hearing something in a thread about it, has to do with enjoyment of music or purchase choices? Please don't strawman the perfectly clear question of audibility. Of course we insist on bias and blind testing in a thread about convincing people about what they can hear(or not). 
We have to constantly explain to people that they are not perfect machines, that they're not always right about everything no matter how little effort they put in coming up with claims, and that their random opinions are not a valid reasons to refute a well established law of physics. Then we're getting backlash for saying such daring yet obvious things.
I tell you, cognitive dissonance is no joke.

Now if you see me bring up blind testing and biases when discussing your latest favorite album, or how much fun you had at a concert, you should report me and demand that I apologize.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 29, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> purchase choices?


It does when some of you adamantly claim that we've come to the point where every home audio device (excluding toys lol), including a 30$ walmart dvd player, is "audibly transparent", that every possible change is null because its far beyond human listening (despite the fact that those frenquencies will keep on existing and interacting with the speakers and your body mass just the same whether your ears can pick them up or not as well as the fact they normally belong in the real world where cutoff does not exist in real musical instruments), that EVEN mp3s and lossless files are the same and "audibly transparent" (are you kidding), and as long as the gear such as DACs and amps have the same specs, they should be identical no matter the maker, implementation, brand, year or model, and that everything _sounds the same_ and _should sound the same_ and _does sound the same_ and blablabla...

In such cases, why would you spend >50$ on any gear (except for speakers/HPs), if consumer audio has reached its golden era of "audibly transparent" perfection?



castleofargh said:


> Now if you see me bring up blind testing and biases when discussing your latest favorite album, or how much fun you had at a concert, you should report me and demand that I apologize.


Well, at least that. Some sense.


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> It does when some of you adamantly claim that we've come to the point where every home audio device (excluding toys lol) …


And again, mis-quoting!

For the rest of it, your unsubstantiated opinions are nonsense. If what you’re claiming were true, it would be relatively easy to provide reliable evidence. And you even have choices for reliable evidence; measurements, null test results or DBT/DBX demonstrating audible differences. So where is this reliable evidence? Why, after years do we not see any reliable evidence but only empty claims, anecdotes or just made up nonsense of inaudible freqs rattling around inside audiophiles bodies?


cirrus101 said:


> In such cases, why would you spend >50$ on any gear (except for speakers/HPs), if consumer audio has reached its golden era of "audibly transparent" perfection?


Maybe someone likes the look of it, maybe they like the brand name, maybe it has some functionality they want that a $50 bit of gear doesn’t have. There are various perfectly valid reasons people may want to buy a bit of gear that’s more expensive than a decent budget option, but generally sound quality isn’t one of them, despite the audiophile claims and marketing BS you seem so fond of! As I mentioned, I have 3 Avid HD I/0s that cost about $4-5k each but they have functionality which I need that $50 devices don’t have. 

You claim years of experience, your own home studio and done audio-post and yet you seem to have never done null testing, measurements or DBTs/DBXs to test either the equipment you’re using or what your ears can really discern and appear to lack understanding of even of what represents reliable evidence, let alone what the reliable evidence actually demonstrates!

G


----------



## 71 dB

cirrus101 said:


> In such cases, why would you spend >50$ on any gear (except for speakers/HPs), if consumer audio has reached its golden era of "audibly transparent" perfection?


*Functionality* is one important factor. If $50 models do not have certain connectors you need to connect it to your system then you may need to go to $300 models that have those connectors. Often the cheapest amps for example have very few inputs. Or maybe you want more power than 25 W/channel? 

*Brand* is another reason. Maybe you just want a certain brand that isn't the cheapest? It is perhaps irrational, but the enjoyments in life are often irrational.

*Durability* is one aspect. Cheap "china crap" may perform just fine, but may broke down fast. Buying more expensive stuff that lasts for longer can even safe money on the long run and can be an ecological choice for those who care about the planet. Admittedly this is a weaker point these days as almost everything is china crap.

Audio gear is so much more than just audio quality.


----------



## cirrus101

71 dB said:


> *Functionality* is one important factor. If $50 models do not have certain connectors you need to connect it to your system then you may need to go to $300 models that have those connectors. Often the cheapest amps for example have very few inputs. Or maybe you want more power than 25 W/channel?
> 
> *Brand* is another reason. Maybe you just want a certain brand that isn't the cheapest? It is perhaps irrational, but the enjoyments in life are often irrational.
> 
> ...


Yes. Good. These things fit into what I said (...if anyone here is actually following the conversation rationally and not just grabbing a quote off the latest message in eagerness to reply...). I'll even highlight the important bits for you:



cirrus101 said:


> *PS:* If you own any expensive fancy brand name hi-fi audiophile equipment regarding the other parts of the chain prior to speakers/HPs, you're quite possibly hypocrites, *unless you have some sensible, logic-oriented, scientifically based reasons for purchasing those.* Otherwise, you do not stand by the things you say; ie:_ I believe in X and will spout that to others, but for myself I will enjoy Y. _So I really hope that is not the case.



Appart from "brand", the other reasons are perfectly fine.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 29, 2022)

gregorio said:


> And again, mis-quoting!


And you seem to have a knack for reading things fast or superficially and not entirely getting what I am saying. It happened quite a few times already and I just ignored it because cannot be arsed to keep correcting every-single-petty-thing with multi quotes, this takes time and effort. And it is fruitless. I'll give you _*one* _example:

My original message (I even underlined the bloody important part to avoid any misunderstanding!):


cirrus101 said:


> What I have meant is that those people who argue _"analog is better than digital"_ are actually people who prefer to have _everything _they hear within that analog imperfection realm they love. Despite the labels/producers/musicians choices. They don't want their first print of a good old vinyl to be digitalized, remastered and played back 'clean' for them which is different from what they remembered.


Your answer:


gregorio said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to have effectively agreed that there’s nothing stopping us creating a digitised master that sounds the same as “what they remembered”, with any/all of the analogue distortions, even with vinyl surface noise, pops, crackles, rumble, etc. But obviously with digital, we also have the choice not to have any of those analogue distortions. We generally don’t add all those distortions (although we commonly add some of them to certain genres) because that is generally not what most consumers want.


I am not contradicting anything. Most remasters for instance are made as clear as can be. I have never seen a remaster that is exactly a vinyl copy with all clicks and pops and rumbles. They always remove everything to make a sterile digital CD the acceptable product the market expects. Unless you go for artists with massive fan bases based on nostalgia (like The Beatles) that goes to lenghts such as re-releasing original acetates, I don't think most re-releases ever had any "analog defects" purposefully inserted. Almost all of "Best Of" collections imho are horribly remastered for the loudness war. Again: it's about enjoying things the way they were, DESPITE whatever the labels/producers/musicians choose to do with the originals. Is that so hard to understand? Some people just like it oldschool. End of story!




gregorio said:


> You claim years of experience, your own home studio and done audio-post and yet you seem to have never done null testing, measurements or DBTs/DBXs to test either the equipment you’re using or what your ears can really discern and appear to lack understanding of even of what represents reliable evidence, let alone what the reliable evidence actually demonstrates!


It's not that I DO NOT understand; I understand, I do, very well. It's just boring, dull, uninteresting, unmotivating, repetitive, uninspiring, unimaginative, so on and so forth. "Hurr durr but this the SCIENCE© FORUMS", yeah, I know, but it doesn't mean it has to be a witch hunt for anybody who has the slightest interest in having a different conversation than the same la-dee-da you guys wanked yourselfs over for the last 200 pages and the last 2 years in here. Sheesh.

Like I said:


cirrus101 said:


> *Have fun in your sad little world of "DBTs, placebos, bias and perceptual errors".*


Over and out.


----------



## 71 dB

cirrus101 said:


> Yes. Good. These things fit into what I said (...if anyone here is actually following the conversation rationally and not just grabbing a quote off the latest message in eagerness to reply...). I'll even highlight the important bits for you:
> 
> 
> 
> Appart from "brand", the other reasons are perfectly fine.


Sorry. I should not be here. Makes me physically ill.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

🙄😲😳...... 😴😪🤤


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> And you seem to have a knack for reading things fast or superficially and not entirely getting what I am saying. It happened quite a few times already and I just ignored it because cannot be arsed to keep correcting every-single-petty-thing with multi quotes, this takes time and effort. And it is fruitless. I'll give you _*one* _example:
> 
> My original message (I even underlined the bloody important part to avoid any misunderstanding!):
> 
> ...



TLDR:  Why do we discuss sound science in a forum titled “Sound Science” and why can’t everyone who’s been contributing for years change to meet yet another subjectivist’s unsupported marketing driven opinions while abandoning hard facts?


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

To chef:

Astell & Kern AK240 Player as measured by Stereophile
https://www.stereophile.com/content/astellkern-ak240-portable-media-player-measurements

Frequency response was stone flat from 20 to 20
Noise floor -90dB at 16 bit
Harmonic Distortion .0003% (-110dB)

I think it's more than safe to assume that this player is audibly transparent.

Fiio M15 Player as measured by Amir
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/fiio-m15-review-digital-audio-player.19366/

He appears to assume it's flat.
Noise floor -84dB
Distortion .0015 (-98dB)

This looks transparent to me too.

I'm no expert in reading measurements, but I don't seen any anomalies here that might qualify as an audible "house sound". Am I missing something? Are these the wrong models? Should I dig for measurements on different ones?

Could one of the players you auditioned have had a manufacturing defect of some sort? Are either of these companies known for inconsistency between copies?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> To chef:
> 
> Astell & Kern AK240 Player as measured by Stereophile
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/astellkern-ak240-portable-media-player-measurements
> ...


Just the surface...

As already noted, the output impedance of the dap is far more important.

And output components and stage synoptic, their type, their quality.... 

So these numbers are really no relevant at all. 

So you are not "an expert in reading measurements". 📖🤔


----------



## chef8489

The models I had were the m11, se100 and se200. 

I used black player pro on the m11 as I never liked the stock player and stock player on the astell and kerns as black player pro can not be installed on the AK players. No eq was ever used, dsp or up convert options like pcm to dsd. My friend controlled all playback and switching while I sat in his booth. I could not see him and could only hear the music.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 29, 2022)

Is black player pro a third party app? Could that have a house coloration?

I can't find measurements on the FiiO M11. Both the Astell & Kerns you mention have published specs similar to the one I listed before, and since stereophile's measurements corroborated those, I tend to trust their published specs. Is the Fiio model I found measurements for quite different than the M11?

I'm wondering if these players are transparent, but something else caused one of them to sound slightly different.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Is black player pro a third party app? Could that have a house coloration?


It is a 3rd party player. It's actually blackplayer ex. It has a customizable ui and categories I prefer over the standard fiio player


----------



## bigshot

Do you think that might have had an effect? I'll keep looking for independent measurements on Fiio. Maybe their published specs are jacked.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Do you think that might have had an effect? I'll keep looking for independent measurements on Fiio. Maybe their published specs are jacked.


I am not sure. As I don't have the player anylonger I can not test it and rule that out. When I go to Moon Audio, I will be able to have the se200 or se100 with me as I will be visiting my parents for a few months.


----------



## bigshot

It would be good to try to track down which one is colored. Perhaps compare to a third one and see if you can find two that match. Then it would be pretty safe to assume that the other one is the odd man out.


----------



## bigshot

cirrus101 said:


> **sigh**


Why is it when people can't participate on a peer level, they make a grand insulting exit? He might have been able to learn some things if he could argue fairly and be a little humble when he's around someone who knows things he doesn't. Too bad.

G'bye!


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> It would be good to try to track down which one is colored. Perhaps compare to a third one and see if you can find two that match. Then it would be pretty safe to assume that the other one is the odd man out.


The se200 and se100 are pretty indistinguishable for sound.ill do some tests in Nov while at my parents house between the two players. If I remember all that was updated was the memory, storage, and some of the software between the two models. Oh and they included two different dac options with the se200 you could choose to listen out of. So it had 4 headphone out 2 2.5mm and 2 3.5mm depending which chain you wanted. The Sabre or the akm.


----------



## bigshot

Are there filter settings? That might be it. How big of a difference was there? Can you describe the difference?


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> Are there filter settings? That might be it. How big of a difference was there? Can you describe the difference?


I do not remember the differences at this time. No filter settings were used. In the test I was identifying brand a or brand b between the 4 or 5 samples he played of the same track. I was not identifying them by model number or by name so I had no idea what brand or player it was that was playing. Just that it would be brand a or brand b. Playing more than 3 would reduce guessing as there were 3 players.


----------



## bigshot

I mean that you do an A/B with one set, then pick the one you think is colored and do an A/C test to see if it still sounds different. Process of elimination.


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 29, 2022)

bigshot said:


> I mean that you do an A/B with one set, then pick the one you think is colored and do an A/C test to see if it still sounds different. Process of elimination.


Well I no longer have the players. When I go to my parents in Nov I can get a hold of the Astell & kern, but the fiio is long gone.

At the time I did the tests I was trying to see if I thought the Astell and Kern were worth it over the Fiio as they were 3.5x more expensive. I wasn't looking for coloration in the sound per say.

To be honest I was hoping I could not hear a difference.


----------



## bigshot

I'm thinking the Fiio might have been the one with a color. Or at least I'd hope so if the price disparity is that great!


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> I'm thinking the Fiio might have been the one with a color. Or at least I'd hope so if the price disparity is that great!


Yep the m11 was around 500.00 and the AK players were around 1800.00 each new.


----------



## bigshot

For something that'll slip out of your shirt pocket and get lost!


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> For something that'll slip out of your shirt pocket and get lost!


Like I said I truly went into this not wanting to hear a difference. I liked the format of blackplayer. I wanted to eliminate as much bias as I could. One of my local friends is an audiologist and has a nice practice so we set up after hours and used one of his sound booths and some of his equipment. Him loving music and audio equipment didn't hurt either. 

I'll let you know how it goes in Nov.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 30, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> TLDR: Why do we discuss sound science in a forum titled “Sound Science” and why can’t everyone who’s been contributing for years change to meet yet another subjectivist’s unsupported marketing driven opinions while abandoning hard facts?


More like: Why can't people have a normal respectable conversation about audio in general without obsessing over measurements and blind tests when not everybody is obliged to do so? I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, nor your skepticism disprove me.

Another thing; a hunter mongolian might not tell the taste difference between a Coke and a Pepsi, but pretty much every westerner can. We can all agree on that, right? It's something striking, it's obvious, one is more acid and fizzy, a classic taste, and the other more bland and sweet. That capability is acquired through a life of tasting several beverages. I could tell the taste between the two and it wouldn't matter whether I am the only one who can do so. Or if the whole West can do it. Or if 8 billion people can. As long as I can tell the difference _consistently_ and I know for sure I am not tricking myself. Pepsi and Coke would still be different even if I was the only one to feel a difference.  I wouldn't need a blind test for that. Meaning that sampling is irrelevant, the results of other people's DBT's don't really matter much, why? Because everyone's different with different mileages, I don't care what their results are. The fact that a high % of them had same results as mine has zero meaning. For all I know they could be deaf or have great hearing: the perception only comes with experience and being well acquainted to your audio set. If you're not acquainted, your brain will make anything of it. Ever met someone new and tried to remember her face afterwards? It's blurry, it' unclear, it's not a reliable memory. Your brain will reconstruct that in whichever way you think ought to be. But after living together for a year, you know every inch of that face, and even all of its peculiarities and funny faces. And you will hardly forget it, even many years later. Brain has a memory for that. A permanent memory, much like one you develop with an audio setup you've been using for years. In this sense, some things Dave said here has a lot of relevance because the guy knows his room very very well and that's more important than switching A/B until your brain regurgitates.

Also, "meets specs" means zilch. You could take two potatoes: one home grown and the other from a big farm, and they will taste differently. Yet, if you run all kinds of tests on these potatoes, no machine will be able to tell you which of them is better tasting. You can scan all of its nutritional properties, dissect its chemical elements one by one, and with all his data and numbers, you would still not know which tastes better. It would take a human to do so, to taste both, and then after coming to a personal conclusion to trace and amount exactly which quantities of chemicals or nutrients are responsible for that apparent better taste. But even so, it would take a lot of trial and error and mistakes, and it could be that he could never determine what exactly made one potato better than the other, even though he's armed to his teeth with data.

Only human ears will tell about the quality of a sound; frequency ranges, TDA, noise floor, etc., are all numbers in the wind.

The example Dave gave on camera lenses is also extremely valid; specs are identical, say, for several manufactures of 50mm f/1.2 lenses, but only the human eye can spot the differences and determine which is 'best'.



DaveStarWalker said:


> these numbers are really no relevant at all.


This.



bigshot said:


> Maybe their published specs are jacked.


Oh, suddenly we're open for these possibilities? How quaint.



bigshot said:


> Why is it when people can't participate on a peer level, they make a grand insulting exit? He might have been able to learn some things if he could argue fairly and be a little humble when he's around someone who knows things he doesn't. Too bad.


This patronising attitude is exactly why one would not wish to stay here much too long.

Also, as for "participate on a peer level". I don't want to take part of your tea party, if that's how it rolls here. It's boring. And while I was always thankful, extremely patient, polite and respectful, on the end I felt an increasing hostility and patronising, as if one should hand out to you immediately some ready set of papers containing certifiable evidences, else I'm "just a nobody spewing nonsense". The nerve of it. Mind you, we're all here because we love our sonic stuff and love what we do, and talking or treating like that something that is very personal to others can be very offending. You think you are better, but you are not.

This level of disrespect will always and inevitably lead to this kind of closure.



bigshot said:


> Are there filter settings? That might be it.


Oh, more openness, what a miracle



bigshot said:


> How big of a difference was there? Can you describe the difference?


Wow, Mr.Scientist wants to hear subjective descriptions of abstract adjectives??



bigshot said:


> I'd hope so if the price disparity is that great!


And suddenly, the "BS prices" and "it's all just marketing to cash in gullible audiophiles" turns into actual reasons for why one sounds different than the other for the so-called "audibly transparent" components.


Really enjoying where this is going.


----------



## bfreedma (Sep 30, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> More like: Why can't people have a normal respectable conversation about audio in general without obsessing over measurements and blind tests when not everybody is obliged to do so? I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, nor your skepticism disprove me.
> 
> Another thing; a hunter mongolian might not tell the taste difference between a Coke and a Pepsi, but pretty much every westerner can. We can all agree on that, right? It's something striking, it's obvious, one is more acid and fizzy, a classic taste, and the other more bland and sweet. That capability is acquired through a life of tasting several beverages. I could tell the taste between the two and it wouldn't matter whether I am the only one who can do so. Or if the whole West can do it. Or if 8 billion people can. As long as I can tell the difference _consistently_ and I know for sure I am not tricking myself. Pepsi and Coke would still be different even if I was the only one to feel a difference.  I wouldn't need a blind test for that. Meaning that sampling is irrelevant, the results of other people's DBT's don't really matter much, why? Because everyone's different with different mileages, I don't care what their results are. The fact that a high % of them had same results as mine has zero meaning. For all I know they could be deaf or have great hearing: the perception only comes with experience and being well acquainted to your audio set. If you're not acquainted, your brain will make anything of it. Ever met someone new and tried to remember her face afterwards? It's blurry, it' unclear, it's not a reliable memory. Your brain will reconstruct that in whichever way you think ought to be. But after living together for a year, you know every inch of that face, and even all of its peculiarities and funny faces. And you will hardly forget it, even many years later. Brain has a memory for that. A permanent memory, much like one you develop with an audio setup you've been using for years. In this sense, some things Dave said here has a lot of relevance because the guy knows his room very very well and that's more important than switching A/B until your brain regurgitates.
> 
> ...



Thought you were leaving.

I'm not going to bother responding to multiple paragraphs where, apparently, the only science NOT applicable to audio reproduction is audio science.

BTW, your “knowledge” of food science is as limited as your audio knowledge.  The components that constitute the flavor and aromatic profile of a potato  can be and are measured.  The big agri corps conduct preference studies on produce then assess the levels of flavonoids, terpenes, and other chemical structures that create the flavor profile of the preferred product.  The results of those tests drive the genetic manipulation of the next generation of that crop.  GMO is used for more than just crop hardiness and vigor - a big harvest of bad tasting potatoes isn’t all that valuable and big farma needs to minimize risk on a multi billion dollar crop.


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 30, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> Thought you were leaving.
> 
> I'm not going to bother responding to multiple paragraphs where, apparently, the only science NOT applicable to audio reproduction is audio science.
> 
> BTW, your “knowledge” of food science is as limited as your audio knowledge.  The components that constitute the flavor and aromatic profile of a potato  can be and are measured.  The big agri corps conduct preference studies on produce then assess the levels of flavonoids, terpenes, and other chemical structures that create the flavor profile of the preferred product.  The results of those tests drive the genetic manipulation of the next generation of that crop.  GMO is used for more than just crop hardiness and vigor - a big harvest of bad tasting potatoes isn’t all that valuable and big farma needs to minimize risk on a multi billion dollar crop.


Do you really need to take everything so literally?

Quick points because I'm going to sleep:



bfreedma said:


> Thought you were leaving


Well if someone insults you as you are by the door leaving, you come back and set things straight.


bfreedma said:


> BTW, your “knowledge” of food science is as limited as your audio knowledge.


Ha ha


bfreedma said:


> conduct preference studies


Exactly my point - the machine cannot tell you anything, better or worse, it is the human who does. These studies are conducted with humans. With preferences by the humans. I give you credit for the flavonoids bit, but my point stands.


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> Do you really need to take everything so literally?
> 
> Quick points because I'm going to sleep:
> 
> ...



This is your quote: “Yet, if you run all kinds of tests on these potatoes, no machine will be able to tell you which of them is better tasting”

We know, very specifically, what flavor profiles people prefer and in what ratios.  Given that, a machine that can test for the involved chemical structures can most certainly identify a potato that the majority of people will prefer.  What do you think the thousands of people with degrees in food science do for a living?  Nothing more than subjective preference polling and random plant breeding/horticulture hoping for the best?

This whole debate is an unnecessary debunking of your red herring/deflection.  Potato phenotypes/genotypes taste different.  This has been clearly established by controlled testing and confirmed by scientific analysis.  Your claims about audio don’t clear either of those hurdles.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 30, 2022)

Yes... I find that completely crazy, off...  

Then they are the same people, who call you a "troll" (and I quote), in addition to other nice epithets , because what is said (this a discussion here, repeat : a *discution ; *but some real arguments and proposals are made. And as if by chance, no reaction, or else very aggressive "side" answers.* *) is not in line with their beliefs. I write well "*beliefs*".

Also, the admission of not being able to read graphs or specifications... 

In any case, I didn't expect this. it has a name : discredit. 

In French, there is a saying that is just perfect in this case:

"_Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet._"

Courteline.
Google trad is your friend...


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> Yes... I find that completely crazy, off...
> 
> Then they are the same people, who call you a "troll" (and I quote), in addition to other nice epithets , because what is said (this a discussion here, reepeat : a *discution*) is not in line with their beliefs. I write well "beliefs".
> 
> ...


Well multiple times everyone in here has mentioned properly conducted double blind testing as acceptable scientific testing protocol.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> Well multiple times everyone in here has mentioned properly conducted double blind testing as acceptable scientific testing protocol.


And I say to you that for what interests us here (the cables), this protocol (which is not the only valid protocol in science), is too complicated.

Period.

I propose an alternative, imao more suitable = no reaction except Castleofarfgh (may he be thanked  ).

Period.

It's a simple statement of fact.

Here (this topic) : some firemen pyromaniacs. Do as I say, don't do as I do.  

And still something must be done...


----------



## chef8489

I suggested another method on how you test the cables by measuring sound in a chamber  then comparing the results and doing a null test. As well as have software analyze the sound waves from all the microphones. If a cable produces a different sound it will be measurable.

But dbx tests have been done on cables before. So I'm not sure why you are saying it's too complicated.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 30, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> I suggested another method on how you test the cables by measuring sound in a chamber  then comparing the results and doing a null test. As well as have software analyze the sound waves from all the microphones. If a cable produces a different sound it will be measurable.
> 
> But dbx tests have been done on cables before. So I'm not sure why you are saying it's too complicated.


I'm going to ask you a *real* question (a question of substance even) :

*Would you be afraid that I would pass the test I'm proposing?*

Which is fully legit and methodologically valid.

Really, the more I read and participate in this topic, the more I read some people draping their own beliefs in a scientific veneer (or a badly digested and misunderstood soup).


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> I'm going to ask you a *real* question (a question of substance even) :
> 
> *Would you be afraid that I would pass the test I'm proposing?*
> 
> Really, the more I read and participate in this topic, the more I read some people draping their own beliefs in a scientific veneer (or a badly digested and misunderstood soup).


Your test isn't valid. You use two different speakers one left and right. This by itself has the sound waves hitting your body differently. Your ears are different between your left and right. Your face is different. How the sound waves bounce off the walls are different.


----------



## gregorio (Sep 30, 2022)

cirrus101 said:


> I am not contradicting anything.


Yes you are. Maybe you don’t know enough to realise you’re contradicting yourself but all that means is that you’re inadvertently contradicting yourself! For example:


cirrus101 said:


> Most remasters for instance are made as clear as can be.


That’s just not true. Many/Most remasters are typically made clearer, for example some tape hiss or other noise is  commonly reduced but they are not typically made as clear as can be.


cirrus101 said:


> I have never seen a remaster that is exactly a vinyl copy with all clicks and pops and rumbles.


Of course not, for three reasons:
1. The original master never had any vinyl clicks, pops, etc., either. That was just an unwanted consequence/weakness of the distribution media which had nothing to do with the master.
2. If the remaster were an exact copy of the original master, then it wouldn’t be a remaster and why would a record company pay a mastering engineer thousands for a remaster that’s the same as an original master they’ve already paid for.
3. It would be trivial to add those vinyl clicks, pops, etc., if they wanted but almost never do, because that is NOT what consumers demand/expect.


cirrus101 said:


> They always remove everything to make a sterile digital CD the acceptable product the market expects.


Of course they don’t. Many of the analogue distortions cannot be removed and it would not be desirable to do so anyway. E-Guitar distortion obviously but also tape saturation and various other distortions.


cirrus101 said:


> I don't think most re-releases ever had any "analog defects" purposefully inserted. Almost all of "Best Of" collections imho are horribly remastered for the loudness war.


Again, that’s nonsense in fact there’s probably almost no re-releases that did not have “_analogue defects purposely inserted_”. How do you think “_remastered for the loudness war_” was achieved? A kid with a laptop in a bedroom or an amateur with a home studio might have just whacked on something like an L2 with some extreme settings but that’s not what professional mastering engineers did/do. Virtually always there are various layers of compression/limiting and virtually always that involves vintage compressors/limiters (or DSP emulations of them) which add analogue distortions.


cirrus101 said:


> Again: it's about enjoying things the way they were, DESPITE whatever the labels/producers/musicians choose to do with the originals. Is that so hard to understand?


Yes, it is so hard to understand. Call me  strange but I often find it hard to understand falsehoods/nonsense divorced from reality! If it were about “_enjoying things the way they were_” then either:
1. They would simply reissue the original master on vinyl and save the time/expense of commissioning a new master.
2. Issue a new digital master with vinyl or cassette tape artefacts applied. They don’t do this because it doesn’t sell.
3. Even if you do #1 or #2, it would only work for a relatively small number of potential consumers because perception/preferences change over time, so do expectations and even an identical reproduction of something “the way it was” will not be perceived as such by many/most. But of course this fact doesn’t fit your false narrative of perfect hearing without perceptual errors.


cirrus101 said:


> Some people just like it oldschool. End of story!


Of course it’s not “end of story” because even by your own admission, only “some people” like oldschool, which indicates some do not and also raises the issue of how we achieve oldschool in the current world with current world expectations.


cirrus101 said:


> It's not that I DO NOT understand; I understand, I do, very well.


Yet your response indicates that you DO NOT!


cirrus101 said:


> It's just boring, dull, uninteresting, unmotivating, repetitive, uninspiring, unimaginative, so on and so forth.


The science/facts are not affected by how interesting or boring you personally consider them!


cirrus101 said:


> More like: Why can't people have a normal respectable conversation about audio in general without obsessing over measurements and blind tests when not everybody is obliged to do so?


It is NOT normal or respectable to have a conversation about audio, in a sound Science forum which ignores and dismisses reliable evidence and instead relies on biased anecdotes, inapplicable analogies and marketing BS!


cirrus101 said:


> And while I was always thankful, extremely patient, polite and respectful


Of course you weren’t! How on earth is misrepresenting the facts, contradicting and dismissing the science “extremely polite or respectful” in an actual sound science forum? That’s the exact opposite of polite and respectful!


cirrus101 said:


> Only human ears will tell about the quality of a sound; frequency ranges, TDA, noise floor, etc., are all numbers in the wind.


Again, just more nonsense which contradicts decades of established, demonstrated, accepted science.


cirrus101 said:


> as if one should hand out to you immediately some ready set of papers containing certifiable evidences, else I'm "just a nobody spewing nonsense". The nerve of it.


“_The nerve of it_” in this forum is contradicting the facts/science with nothing but falsehoods, ignorance and anecdotes of superhuman abilities!


cirrus101 said:


> This level of disrespect will always and inevitably lead to this kind of closure.


Indeed, as mentioned early on in our discourse and yet that hasn’t deterred you from demonstrating “_this level of disrespect_”!!

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 30, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> Your test isn't valid. You use two different speakers one left and right. This by itself has the sound waves hitting your body differently. Your ears are different between your left and right. Your face is different. How the sound waves bounce off the walls are different.


Not at all.

*I am precisely talking about a test protocol with an iem (or headphones), a dap, a sigle cable, but two different cable adapters (for instance 4.4mm to 2.5mm).

All things being equal*, it is just a matter of modifying an interface between an A cable (*always the same one*) connected to an A DAP *(always the same one*).

*Only the adapters change*.

Only 2 people are needed :

One who is listening, the other who is making the switches (or not), these switches (or not) hidden from the eyes of the person who is listening (in a box for example, or behind the back of the listening person). That there is a *haptic *perception of the changes is thus without importance, *since there can be a change, as there can be no change*... That's all there is to it.

Statistically, 10 passes for example. 15 max.

Perfect in its simplicity.

So ?


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 30, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Not at all.
> 
> *All things being equal*, it is just a matter of modifying an interface between an A cable (*always the same one*) connected to an A DAP *(always the same one*).
> 
> ...


You need far more tests that just 15. More like 100 to 200.  What are you trying to test the adaptors? Ideally the adaptors need to be covered or they remain connected and a switch is used where someone else set up the and person switching the switch is blind as well.

Thing is you have to make sure the impedance is identical and exactly volume matched. They can not be a fraction a decibel off.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 30, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Then they are the same people, who call you a "troll" (and I quote), in addition to other nice epithets , because what is said (this a discussion here, repeat : a *discution ; *but some real arguments and proposals are made. And as if by chance, no reaction, or else very aggressive "side" answers.* *) is not in line with their beliefs. I write well "*beliefs*".
> 
> Also, the admission of not being able to read graphs or specifications...
> 
> ...


About discredit...



chef8489 said:


> You need far more tests that just 15. More like 100 to 200.  What are you trying to test the adaptors? Ideally the adaptors need to be covered or they remain connected and a switch is used where someone else set up the and person switching the switch is blind as well.


It is a huge number of tests. I hope you are aware of that. That's why I say it's not humanly possible to do this.

Or in several sessions. 10 / 10 / 10 / 10... etc. But in only one session = impossible, unless you are superman, or train full time for such an intense and difficult task.

I am happy because the discussion is finally moving forward. At least from a methodological point of view.

Let there be no mistake : *I would rather not hear anything. I would have saved a lot of time and money.*

But :

*1/ I am frustrated that I cannot demonstrate this.
2/ I am aware of the difficulty of demonstrating it (see our exchanges)
3/ Then I like to understand things...*

But it requires a real investment. Not just talk in a forum...

This is all what I am talking about in this topic. I don't "drive" for anyone or get an hidden agenda, except myself, and people of good will - agreeing or not with me (that's not the point) -but willing to exchange.
That's all.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

71 dB said:


> *"How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a good sound science topic?"  *


So "side" answers moment pal ?   

On the contrary, I think it's a very good subject. From the point of view of methods.


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> About discredit...
> 
> 
> It is a huge number of tests. I hope you are aware of that. That's why I say it's not humanly possible to do this.
> ...


It is completely possible and I did it with my players, but did you just glass over that? Problem with your tests is it is too small of a data point. You are not accepting the scientific method. You have to take breaks while testing. It will take quite a while, but it is very possible.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> It is completely possible and I did it with my players, but did you just glass over that? Problem with your tests is it is too small of a data point. You are not accepting the scientific method. You have to take breaks while testing. It will take quite a while, but it is very possible.


Bravo.

Really. I am impressed. And it is not a gimmick.

I will receive several adapters soon. I already have the aforementioned FiiO adapter, I'm waiting for another more direct adapter (ddHiFi DJ44B Adapter), so I spotted the Penon totem adapter.

I will already see, blind or not, if I perceive differences or not. I am not used to these adapters, so I am discovering things, I am curious.


----------



## chef8489 (Sep 30, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Bravo.
> 
> Really. I am impressed. And it is not a gimmick.
> 
> ...


You keep saying blind or not. If it is not blind and sound matched and measured properly with a decibel meter exactly, it is invalid and not scientific. You really don't seem to understand the scientific method or proper controlled tests.

That's why I went to my audiologist friend that had all the testing equipment for hearing aids and for hearing.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Sep 30, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> You keep saying blind or not. If it is not blind and sound matched and measured properly with a decibel meter exactly, it is invalid and not scientific. You really don't seem to understand the scientific method or proper controlled tests.


Decidedly...  

I make a first listening.

If I think it is *possible *to detect differences, then the idea, *as I described it here*, is to go into blind tests. Of course! .... No discussion about that, otherwive, all our past discussion is pointless.
Understood ? 

At this time, I don't know. I have only one adapter (the FiiO) with me.

My first intention was to have the best possible results (I may already have them ? I just don't know), but then I came up with the idea of the blind protocol, as I described it here.

And :

* "If it is not blind and sound matched and measured properly with a decibel meter exactly, it is invalid and not scientific." *

Yes, absolutely.

And that's the whole point of this proposal. Since we *only *change the adapters, all other things being equal:

*1/ very simple operation that can easily be invisible for the listener.
2/ no need to match the listening volume, since by definition, it is always the same (same dap, same listening output volume, same output plugs).*

Unless you consider that one adapter sounds louder or softer than another...

... which would already be an objective difference.  

Really tickles me...


----------



## cirrus101 (Sep 30, 2022)

Oh boy...



bfreedma said:


> what flavor profiles people prefer and in what ratios


Exactly, these profiles have been defined by the input of *humans* who relied on _their _tastes and _their _senses. Will you make a retort again on how much data was collected?



DaveStarWalker said:


> "_Passer pour un idiot aux yeux d'un imbécile est une volupté de fin gourmet._"


Brilliantly put. Bravo! Bravo!



bigshot said:


> HE'S BACK!


Nope. Just wrapping up.



bigshot said:


> This thread doesn't seem to attract the best and brightest.


Get off your high horse already. You were called out.



bigshot said:


> Are you going to follow the rules and be a part of sound science now?


Read as "Are you going to join our tea party and sit with us and play with our dolls?".



gregorio said:


> That’s just not true. Many/Most remasters are typically made clearer, for example some tape hiss or other noise is commonly reduced but they are not typically made as clear as can be.


You really do have a knack for getting on my nerves. Gosh. Ok. Let's settle what "clear" means = free of analogue defects caused by the faulty primitive equipment (ie: vinyls) opposed to the original masters usually from magnetic tapes. In this sense, yes, they are clear! CLEAR FROM ANALOGUE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WHO LOVE LISTENING TO OLD VINYLS GET. It. Is. Not. That. Hard. To. Understand.



gregorio said:


> Maybe you don’t know enough to realise you’re contradicting yourself


Maybe you should get off your high horse, too.



gregorio said:


> 1. The original master never had any vinyl clicks, pops, etc., either. That was just an unwanted consequence/weakness of the distribution media which had nothing to do with the master.


Holy moly, what is so hard to understand about this?
Yes, but some people want the vinyls which had those defects.



gregorio said:


> 3. It would be trivial to add those vinyl clicks, pops, etc., if they wanted but almost never do, because that is NOT what consumers demand/expect.


Yes, but some people want the vinyls which had those defects, they want the real thing, not some fake added emulations later.



gregorio said:


> Again, that’s nonsense in fact there’s probably almost no re-releases that did not have “_analogue defects purposely inserted_”. How do you think “_remastered for the loudness war_” was achieved? A kid with a laptop in a bedroom or an amateur with a home studio might have just whacked on something like an L2 with some extreme settings but that’s not what professional mastering engineers did/do. Virtually always there are various layers of compression/limiting and virtually always that involves vintage compressors/limiters (or DSP emulations of them) which add analogue distortions.


Mate.
I am not saying it is wrong for these remasters to be released the way they are.*
I am not saying the entire record industry is wrong for doing their choices and their decisions.
I am not saying the record industry should focus on small cult groups instead of catering for the larger audiences.
I AM SAYING THAT THERE EXISTS A NICHE WHICH LIKES THE VINYL SOUND AS IT WERE, NOTHING ADDED, NOTHING TAKEN, CAPISCE?

* Despite personally not liking them and/or being against the loudness war which affects dynamics, no matter how professionally it is done. But that is another topic.



gregorio said:


> Yes, it is so hard to understand. Call me strange but I often find it hard to understand falsehoods/nonsense divorced from reality!


Once again, patronising off your high horse.



gregorio said:


> 1. They would simply reissue the original master on vinyl and save the time/expense of commissioning a new master.
> 2. Issue a new digital master with vinyl or cassette tape artefacts applied. They don’t do this because it doesn’t sell.
> 3. Even if you do #1 or #2, it would only work for a relatively small number of potential consumers because perception/preferences change over time, so do expectations and even an identical reproduction of something “the way it was” will not be perceived as such by many/most. But of course this fact doesn’t fit your false narrative of perfect hearing without perceptual errors.


Yes, but some people want the vinyls which had those defects, so that's why that segment will always exist and those people will say "analog is better than digital".



gregorio said:


> Of course it’s not “end of story” because even by your own admission, only “some people” like oldschool, which indicates some do not and also raises the issue of how we achieve oldschool in the current world with current world expectations.


How we achieve? that's simple, the market regulates itself. As long as there is a need, people will offer a way to sell it. That's why there are so many collectors and thrift stores for old stuff.



gregorio said:


> The science/facts are not affected by how interesting or boring you personally consider them!


Yes, but talking about those things is.



DaveStarWalker said:


> Your recent questions (fantastic !!! thank you ! ) prove it : You are here totally *discredited*.


Good one, Dave.


----------



## cirrus101

bfreedma said:


> I'm simply not willing to invest my time in making multiple detailed responses which you continually ignore.
> 
> Post something interesting and that may change.  Version #12343 of "Science Knows Nothing" isn't it.


Science knows many things.
But science does now know which potato tastes better.
The human does.
The data tells what humans know.
The data can only tell what humans have perceived.
The knowledge is within the human, not the data.
The knowledge is within the human, not the science.
Can I make this any more clearer?


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> Science knows many things.
> But science does now know which potato tastes better.
> The human does.
> The data tells what humans know.
> ...



Science certainly determine what potato tastes better
https://www.labcompare.com/Food-Testing-Equipment/
https://www.fishersci.com/us/en/scientific-products/applications/food-beverage-testing-products.html
https://www.labx.com/application/food-testing-equipment
https://www.prestogroup.com/industry/food-beverages-testing-equipments/
https://www.ametektest.com/materials/food-testing-solutions
https://lab.equipment/food-testing-lab-equipment


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bfreedma said:


> I'm simply not willing to invest my time in making multiple detailed responses which you continually ignore.



The same lol... 

Except that on my side, the detailed answers have already been done.... 😂


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> To hell with "appropriate", it's an invitation to use your brains for christ's sake!



I'm not using my brain if I question unsupported subjective opinion that is in conflict with known science?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bfreedma said:


> I'm not using my brain if I question unsupported subjective opinion that is in conflict with known science?


No.

With your known science. Big difference. 🧐

You know, I prefere my ignorance, to yours... 😉


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bfreedma said:


> Follow the trolling.  This is a response to Cirrus' claim that machines can't identify a potato with flavor that most people would prefer.  Thought I'd share information on how and by what machines we already do exactly that.


OK, but your answer is ?

Just try to think by yourself.


----------



## cirrus101

bfreedma said:


> I'm not using my brain if I question unsupported subjective opinion that is in conflict with known science?


Funnily enough, unsupported subjective opinions were exactly what fed _any _and _every _result of all the links you have just posted above.


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> Funnily enough, unsupported subjective opinions were exactly what fed _any _and _every _result of all the links you have just posted above.



Thanks for demonstrating that you clearly don't understand what some of those machines do.


----------



## cirrus101 (Oct 1, 2022)

bfreedma said:


> Thanks for demonstrating that you clearly don't understand what some of those machines do.


Thanks for continually demonstrating how slow you are.
Let me draw something for you.​


Spoiler



Since you did take the time to gather those links, I equally dedicated time to look at each of them. But do any of them talk about "taste" ? No.
Link 1 - a range of lab instrument accessories for your food quality and safety applications
Link 2 - a range of lab instrument accessories for your food quality and safety applications
Link 3 - a range of lab instrument accessories for your food quality and safety applications
Link 4 - a range of lab instrument accessories for your food quality and safety applications
Link 5 - this one does get close, because it talks about the quality regarding texture, I quote: "In production, texture analysis is used for the measurement and control of process variations such as temperature, humidity and cooking time."
Link 6 - a range of lab instrument accessories for your food quality and safety applications









The evaluation of what is _best _- let me define best here: what is desired; what consumers like; what consumers find tasty; what tastes better - is an information machines cannot define themselves, only a human could. The machine can only take measures so that the human can put those measurements for good use;* accordingly to what he wants it or would like it to be*.

Again, we go back to how unsupported subjective opinions defined by humans _is_ the basis of science.
You can't go past that, it is a brick wall, and you are running around it trying to find a way in, but let me tell you a secret: there isn't.

Fin.


----------



## joe

Guys. Stop with the personal attacks. I know conversations can get heated, but let's all take a deep breath and a moment to calm down.


----------



## bfreedma

cirrus101 said:


> Thanks for continually demonstrating how slow you are.
> 
> Since you did take the time to gather those links, I equally dedicated time to look at each of them. But do any of them talk about "taste" ? No.
> Link 1 - a range of lab instrument accessories for your food quality and safety applications
> ...



So you don't understand what Food Quality Testing is composed of and what other products those sites sell?

Here's a unit from one of the links - what do you think the purpose of Chromatography gear is?

https://www.fishersci.com/us/en/scientific-products/applications/chromatography/jcr:content.html

"Meet your gas chromatography needs with products from our portfolio. Browse GC and GC-MS capillary columns that serve the environmental, petroleum, chemical,* food and beverage*, and pharmaceutical industries. Choose compatible GC accessories to maximize performance, too. You’ll find GC inlet liners, septa, syringes, vials, calibration standards, extraction solvents, and gas management products, such as generators and pressure regulators, to support your methods from sample preparation to separation."


----------



## The Jester

Another term often used is “transparent”,
In visual terms take a window, the ultimate transparency would be no glass, after that clean glass with no flaws, then slightly grubby, then maybe a slight blue or red hue, put humans into the picture and there’s a certain percentage who’s eyesight is slightly on the blue side of the spectrum, others slightly to the red side, so even with no glass individuals will see a slightly different image, with an optical spectrometer science can accurately resolve what is the true image, but that still doesn’t alter what an individual “sees”, so why should what we hear be any different ?
The equivalent of no window would be a live acoustic performance, the flawless clean glass is hopefully a skilled engineer who can accurately recreate what’s coming down from various mic’s into his mixing desk, after that it’s off to the human consumers who can have varying degrees of “perception”, some may hear “warm, detailed, dark, bright, harsh, incisive” and all the other used (misused ?) descriptions, for a casual listener it wouldn’t really matter, for others a cable or component that measures within simple defined guidelines, say a cables R/C/L, theoretically all should be as low as possible, resistance is easiest, just a good quality conductor like copper, inductance and capacitance is harder as insulation/dielectric as well as the configuration of conductors can alter these, beyond a certain level lowering one usually increases the other, so a cable within acceptable measurements with lower inductance and higher capacitance or vice versa, may well sound “slightly different” to some ?
In isolation, with one cable or component being somehow “tested and compared” to another there could be little if any “perceptible” or “measurable within accepted guidelines” differences, using cables with similar characteristics through a system with components that may have slight deviations in a similar way could well sound different enough for those with a deviation away from “100% accurately measured sound” to somehow heighten their pleasure or appreciation ?,
Not stating any of the above as fact, rather a question of the original thread title, “How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference” ?
The old saying “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” depends on all of the people being exactly the same, and we are not.
Problem with this forum isn’t those demanding scientific proof, it’s those trying to explain a personal preference by trying to use science,
Equally those in other forums that are discussing “how does this sound” as a personal opinion should refrain from trying to justify a real personal preference via this or that measurement  ?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

joe said:


> Guys. Stop with the personal attacks. I know conversations can get heated, but let's all take a deep breath and a moment to calm down.



Well said. 

Thank you very much.


----------



## cirrus101

joe said:


> Guys. Stop with the personal attacks. I know conversations can get heated, but let's all take a deep breath and a moment to calm down.


Indeed. I forgot to say: Thank you!  A light in the darkness of this hole.


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> Exactly, these profiles have been defined by the input of *humans* who relied on _their _tastes and _their _senses.


And in the case of sound/audio, we obviously also use HUMANS who relied on their senses, their sense of hearing in this case. That’s why we must use controlled testing, so that they actually rely on their sense of hearing and NOT instead (or in addition) rely on perceptual error/placebo.


cirrus101 said:


> You really do have a knack for getting on my nerves.


Yes, to those pushing marketing BS, myths and other nonsense, the science/actual facts do typically “get on their nerves”. Therefore, I’ll take your comment as a compliment.


cirrus101 said:


> Ok. Let's settle what "clear" means = free of analogue defects caused by the faulty primitive equipment (ie: vinyls) opposed to the original masters usually from magnetic tapes.


You’re again just contradicting yourself. If “_clear means = free of analogue defects cause by primitive equipment_” - then there is NO “_opposed to the original masters usually from magnetic tapes_” because magnetic tapes used to record analogue audio signals is “primitive equipment” which “causes analogue defects”! In fact, at least some amount of tape saturation (an “analogue defect”) was virtually always deliberately applied. And, this is just one example of many, another for instance would be the harmonic distortion of vintage analogue compressors.


cirrus101 said:


> In this sense, yes, they are clear! CLEAR FROM ANALOGUE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WHO LOVE LISTENING TO OLD VINYLS GET.


Even in the sense you yourself have defined, NO, remastered analogue recordings are NOT “clear from analogue things that people who love listening to old vinyls get”. The only thing they’re clear of is the analogue things specific to vinyl, clicks, pops and surface noise (which have not been “cleaned” because the recordings, mix or master never had these artefacts in the first place) and possibly some tape hiss.


cirrus101 said:


> It. Is. Not. That. Hard. To. Understand.


Correct, it isn’t and yet you don’t seem able to, even though you profess to have years of experience and your own studio! There’s two obvious conclusions as to why that’s the case!


cirrus101 said:


> Maybe you should get off your high horse, too.


Why should I get off my high horse of the actual facts/science/history in an actual sound science subforum? That makes no sense. Maybe you should get off your low horse!


cirrus101 said:


> Holy moly, what is so hard to understand about this?
> Yes, but some people want the vinyls which had those defects. …  they want the real thing, not some fake added emulations later.


I do understand there are maybe some people who like those defects. Why cant’t you understand that there are very few such people, that CD was invented to provide the option of not having those defects, the vast majority even of audiophiles at the time preferred not having those defects and many of those who still liked vinyl liked it for the cover art or physical process of cleaning and using vinyl disks/turntables rather than it’s audible defects. And, for those few who might actually prefer having clicks, pops, surface noise, etc., all over their audio reproductions, what reliable evidence do you have that they would be able to differentiate “fake added emulations”, even if there were a profitable market for recordings with such vinyl defects?


cirrus101 said:


> I AM SAYING THAT THERE EXISTS A NICHE WHICH LIKES THE VINYL SOUND AS IT WERE, NOTHING ADDED, NOTHING TAKEN, CAPISCE?


If there is such a market, then obviously it could be catered to by simply re-issuing the original master on vinyl. Again what’s the point of paying for a remaster that’s the same as the one they’ve already paid for? Remasters are obviously deliberately different to the original masters and if consumers did not want different remasters the industry wouldn’t keep making them. Capisce?


cirrus101 said:


> Yes, but talking about those things is.


So you’re saying that in a sound science forum we shouldn’t discuss sound science because you find it boring. That’s funny! Clearly you’re in the wrong forum, maybe a QAnon or other forum based on pure BS would suit you better. 

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> You need far more tests that just 15. More like 100 to 200.  What are you trying to test the adaptors? Ideally the adaptors need to be covered or they remain connected and a switch is used where someone else set up the and person switching the switch is blind as well.
> 
> (...)


As a simple human being, as I am, what do you think of this proposal? 🙄

And to respond, the adapters are using very different cables (matters, metals, structures...).

I will try to spot differences between these adapters, is it's possible.

If I feel it's possible... Then blind tests 😉👍

But 100-150 blind listenings in one session, I think no one in this earth, as we compare cables adapters, so cables, so subtle differences (if they exist and can be well perceived) can succeed. 🤔

Or else, it will be necessary to be trained to this very challenging... challenge.


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> As a simple human being, as I am, what do you think of this proposal? 🙄
> 
> And to respond, the adapters are using very different cables (matters, metals, structures...).
> 
> ...


The point of more test blind is more data points to rule out error and guessing percentage. 70 percent with only 10 tests still falls under guessing and luck. When you have 100 tests it is much less likely to be guessing. It has nothing to do with being trained. You still are not understanding the point of this. If you can truly hear a difference then you can pick it out correctly during a proper abx blind test with 100 samples at a proper passing rate that eliminates guessing percentage or luck.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 1, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> The point of more test blind is more data points to rule out error and guessing percentage. 70 percent with only 10 tests still falls under guessing and luck. When you have 100 tests it is much less likely to be guessing. It has nothing to do with being trained. You still are not understanding the point of this. If you can truly hear a difference then you can pick it out correctly during a proper abx blind test with 100 samples at a proper passing rate that eliminates guessing percentage or luck.


Yes, I am aware of that.

I think it is possible to do this, but in several sessions.

Besides, I received a first adapter, and I quickly listened.

Frankly... Compared to the DDhifi, the FiiO seems slightly more dynamic and open. But it is very tenuous. Like you have to listen 10 times to maybe... 

And I'm talking about quick permutations, not blind ones...

- FiiO = pure copper wiring, two bodies, external wiring. Plugs = metal ? Gold plated. The cheap one (about 20 dollars). 
- Ddhifi = silver plated copper wiring. Single body (internal wiring). Plugs = the same. The more expensive one (x2). 

It's a surprise for me, because I would have thought the opposite (Ddhifi more direct structure than the FiiO).

At this time, I just don't know... 🤔😐. 

Need time and multiple and extensive listening sessions.


----------



## gregorio

cirrus101 said:


> Again, we go back to how unsupported subjective opinions defined by humans _is_ the basis of science.


Unsupported subjective opinions is the basis of myths and superstitions, NOT science. It’s quite shocking that you appear to have even the “basis of science” completely backwards!


The Jester said:


> with an optical spectrometer science can accurately resolve what is the true image, but that still doesn’t alter what an individual “sees”, so why should what we hear be any different ?


True, it’s not any different. And, your question also raises many of the same issues as with hearing, for example: What are our eyes actually seeing as opposed to what are we perceiving or, while we all have variations in our vision, those variations do not extend beyond what is visible (the infrared/ultraviolet or differences/details too small for the human eye to resolve for instance). 


The Jester said:


> The equivalent of no window would be a live acoustic performance, the flawless clean glass is hopefully a skilled engineer who can accurately recreate what’s coming down from various mic’s into his mixing desk


No, that’s actually a poor analogy. Firstly, pretty much the last thing you would want in the vast majority of cases would be an engineer to recreate what’s coming down from various mics. Almost without exception, what’s coming down from the various mics is flawed, there will be phase issues, probably some freq issues and of course a lot of the time the live acoustic performance happened at different times. And, if what you stated were true, you wouldn’t need a skilled engineer, you’d just need a simple algorithm or an unskilled engineer. Secondly, what a skilled engineer actually does is edit and process what’s coming down from the various mics to create something pleasing/enjoyable/marketable and virtually always that means fairly significant to drastic changes. 


The Jester said:


> a cable or component that measures within simple defined guidelines, say a cables R/C/L, theoretically all should be as low as possible


Not sure what you mean by “theoretically”. In practice we don’t need a cable with these properties to be as low as possible, just low enough to at least meet the requirements of the upstream/downstream equipment while avoiding any audible deterioration of the signal. 


The Jester said:


> so a cable within acceptable measurements with lower inductance and higher capacitance or vice versa, may well sound “slightly different” to some ?


A cable that say measured higher resistance (or some other lower or higher property) to such a great extent that it produces differences that are actually audible would NOT be acceptable measurements. It would be the wrong, out of spec cable with unacceptable measurements. 


The Jester said:


> using cables with similar characteristics through a system with components that may have slight deviations in a similar way could well sound different enough for those with a deviation away from “100% accurately measured sound” to somehow heighten their pleasure or appreciation ?


Only if those cables have characteristics dissimilar enough to cause deviations that are audible (in which case it’s almost certainly the wrong cable for the job). However, I’m obviously talking about audio differences here. It’s entirely possible and even probable that someone’s pleasure or appreciation might be heightened by say a cable that has a different colour jacket but is otherwise identical or just a different brand name or price point. 


The Jester said:


> The old saying “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” depends on all of the people being exactly the same, and we are not.


Surely that old saying depends on people being somewhat different? If people were all exactly the same then wouldn’t you be able to fool all the people all the time or none of the people none of the time? The fact that it’s only “SOME of the people” indicates there are others who must be different. 


The Jester said:


> Problem with this forum isn’t those demanding scientific proof, it’s those trying to explain a personal preference by trying to use science


Not sure that’s really the case. 

Firstly, no one is demanding scientific proof, just reliable evidence. However, that would likely be just the start, because as the claim goes against such a wealth of demonstrated scientific knowledge/evidence then it would need a lot of very robust reliable evidence because: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”. Although this is somewhat irrelevant, as we never get past even the first step of just some reliable evidence!

Secondly, I’m not sure those making the claims of audible differences between cables are trying to explain personal preference by trying to use science. It seems to me they are trying to explain perceptual error/placebo as if it were a preference and do so by falsely dismissing/discrediting/misrepresenting the science. They typically use nothing but anecdotes, paraphrased marketing or pseudoscience and if they do use science then it’s science out of it’s context (and therefore effectively pseudoscience).

G


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 1, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Yes, I am aware of that.
> 
> I think it is possible to do this, but in several sessions.
> 
> ...


How could you miss the "graphene" cables?
I just tried one, and it was totally out there with ginormous  tectonic shifts of the sound palette and gasping depth of dynamics and pearleascent nuances.
So much that I acquired a male-male and just aligned it with my main IEM cables for subtle transinduction supermagnetism and resulting brutally improved masculinity for some music, like Rammstein.



Then I trained my imagination even further, and now the blue cables are absolutely the very best for me: with each subtle change of colour and cable weaving pattern accentuating unique delicate nuances, akin what ethylene glycol can do to wines if not to go for deeper-penetrating analogies


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 1, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> How could you miss the "graphene" cables?
> I just tried one, and it was totally out there with ginormous  tectonic shifts of the sound palette and gasping depth of dynamics and pearleascent nuances.
> So much that I acquired a male-male and just aligned it with my main IEM cables for subtle transinduction supermagnetism and resulting brutally improved masculinity for some music, like Rammstein.
> 
> Then I trained my imagination even further, and now the blue cables are absolutely the very best for me: with each subtle change of colour and cable weaving pattern accentuating unique delicate nuances, akin what ethylene glycol can do to wines if not to go for deeper-penetrating analogies


Hi

I need a 4.4mm to 2.5mm.

If it exist, please pm me a link, with pleasure 👍

I did some more listening and it is confirmed as I think.

FiiO = more open dynamically, explosive. Transients wise. 
DDHIFI = like slightly compressed. Very little dullness. 

Really strange. 😐

PS : Rammstein is one of my tracking tests batch. 3 first albums. The third is explosive ! 💣🤘


----------



## castleofargh

@cirrus101 is taking a 2 weeks break from this thread. The other posters also went too far. Looks like this week was forget self control and mature response week.
Somehow everybody else finally slowed down after the subtle message hidden under the repeated massive message deletions for insults and personal attacks, along with explicit admin warnings about personal attacks.
That was still too subtle for @cirrus101 who went: "you know what's lacking in this thread now that so much of the insults have been deleted? Me posting even more insults".  


For the last time(who am I kidding...), argue ideas, argue facts about gears, maybe prove something from time to time for a change, but do not resort to repeated personal attacks(I can only act blind so many times). It's really not that big of an ask.


----------



## moriez

castleofargh said:


> For the last time(who am I kidding...), argue ideas, argue facts about gears, maybe prove something from time to time for a change, but do not resort to repeated personal attacks(I can only act blind so many times). It's really not that big of an ask.



In real life everyone who listened would now grunt a bit more before slowly breaking up the circle and go back to minding their own/other business again. The good old days!


----------



## bigshot (Oct 1, 2022)

Thank you Castle. I appreciate the work you do here.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

❤️We are all loving you CoA ❤️


----------



## MooMilk

3602 said:


> How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference


You do a double blind tests with a "clickless" switch between setups  so nobody would even notice that something has changed - lol


----------



## Elegiac

gregorio said:


> Unsupported subjective opinions is the basis of myths and superstitions, NOT science. It’s quite shocking that you appear to have even the “basis of science” completely backwards!


He may be wording it poorly/awkwardly, but he might, in other words, be saying that all our inquiry has its basis in the arbitrary human consciousness. Science produces practical, measurable results from our perspective, but we're simply groping in a larger darkness, without a comprehensive context for it all. 
There's an immeasurable absurdity that underlies everything. Religion, myths, superstitions seek to answer this, and so does science, at least in part. In a way, to put it crudely, it's all subjective... all relative to the human mind. What would a Universal Objectivity look like? I don't know. Although, if anything is a stab in the right direction, it's gotta be science.

I don't know. Maybe he wasn't saying that at all. And that's just what I read into it. Some things defy measurement.
Anyway, now I've posted in the Ultimate Head-Fi thread  from whence the gjallarhorn will sound come ragnarok.

I don't believe in cables.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 16, 2022)

Don't forget something :

1/ Science is a method, not a religion
2/ As it can be measured, Science can just measure that it can be measured.

Think about "Contact", the classic novel of Carl Sagan. 😉

About cables, if it exists a measure about holography and accuracy of the soundstage for instance, got it. 😋👍

Well, also and finally, we are not in the 19th century anymore. There have been some small copernican revolutions since then... 😅


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 16, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Don't forget something :
> 
> 1/ Science is a method, not a religion
> 2/ As it can be measured, Science can just measure that it can be measured.
> ...


A nice collection of words....
When one puts tyres on a car - it is all about the science of rubber to make it work, nothing about "imaginations and revolutions", just for safety sake, right?
Cables are much simpler as passive circuit connectors.
If one wishes to cherish their imagination and their inner children, it may be still wise not trying to contradict the science. IEMs are not made by those "revolutioners", but by engineers.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 16, 2022)

PhonoPhi said:


> A nice collection of words....
> When one puts tyres on a car - it is all about the science of rubber to make it work, nothing about "imaginations and revolutions", just for safety sake, right?
> Cables are much simpler as passive circuit connectors.
> If one wishes to cherish their imagination and their inner children, it may be still wise not trying to contradict the science. IEMs are not made by those "revolutioners", but by engineers.


Oh no. Not at all. 

It's all about engineering pal.

The wheel was first invented in lower Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) by the Sumerians, during the 4th millennium BC.😇

However, we can estimate that it is Galileo, the 1st scientist, in the modern sense of the term...🤔

Science and engineering are not the same thing. 

What needed to be said. 😅


----------



## bigshot

The scientific method works from observation to proof. You start out with an observation. Then you make a hypothesis to try to explain how it works. Then you test your hypothesis. If it holds up, other people verify your results and add clarification if necessary. Once it's been proven, it's no longer just a theory. It's a fact.

The problem is that a lot of people jump from the first step to the last one without bothering with the ones between. They state their hypothesis as fact and ignore other people's verification and clarification.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 16, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Oh no. Not at all.
> 
> It's all about engineering pal.
> 
> ...


Engineering is called applied science (there is a lot of "science" with less direct applicability).
You do use rubber tyres, not mesopotamian wheels, right?

First scientists were if not in Ancient Greece than in Islamic Golden Age instrumental for Enlightment.

P. S. I am quite open to cables, "sounding differently", as long as it is either linked directly to science (e.g. cable resistance for IEM cables or impedance for high-power ones) or just cherishing one's imagination  for the full enjoyment of a hobby  without attempts to contradict science.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> The scientific method works from observation to proof. You start out with an observation. Then you make a hypothesis to try to explain how it works. Then you test your hypothesis. If it holds up, other people verify your results and add clarification if necessary. Once it's been proven, it's no longer just a theory. It's a fact.
> 
> The problem is that a lot of people jump from the first step to the last one without bothering with the ones between. They state their hypothesis as fact and ignore other people's verification and clarification.


Yes, this is the old way.

The Very old way... 🧓🙂


----------



## DaveStarWalker

PhonoPhi said:


> Engineering is called applied science (there is a lot of "science" with less direct applicability).
> You do use rubber tyres, not mesopotamian wheels, right?
> 
> First scientists were if not in Ancient Greece than in Islamic Golden Age instrumental for Enlightment.
> ...


No,

Fundamental science and applied science (when it's possible) are the only two branches of science.

Engineering is a praxis.

And then innovation (related to the industrialization of inventions, whose roots are multiple).


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> Yes, this is the old way.
> 
> The Very old way... 🧓🙂


It's the proven way used every day in science to this day.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 16, 2022)

We should be teaching logic and basic physics in school again. "The new way" is leading to a generation of ignoramuses who can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy.

Soundstage is not a mystical alchemy. You use the word "holography" as a magical word... it isn't. It's a scientific process of using laser light to create a three dimensional photograph. It isn't directly related to soundstage. You are using the term as a metaphor, and then mistaking the metaphor for a factual statement.

Soundstage is an auditory illusion created by the sound engineers in a sound mix. Actual left/right placement of sound objects in the stereo spread is combined with secondary depth cues (reverb, recorded room reflections, etc.) to create a  two dimensional sound field that mimics a three dimensional one. That sound field is placed in the listening room by means of the distance between the speakers and listener to create a sonic stage a distance in front of the listener to enhance the perception of depth.

Soundstage is embedded in the balances and echoes in the recording. It cannot be enhanced on playback. It can only be directly degraded by changing the position of the speakers and listener away from the standard triangulation, or by reducing the channel separation by cross feeding the two channels together. Wires can do neither of these things.

Since soundstage is an illusion, it is specifically designed to fool the listener into hearing a synthetic dimensional sound field. It's ultimately an illusion, so it can be easily affected by subjective perceptual error. This makes reports of alterations in soundstage that don't relate to speaker placement or channel separation prime candidates for being a result of placebo effect or expectation bias. Since it is an illusion, the perception of it can be affected by subjective illusion.


----------



## Elegiac

DaveStarWalker said:


> Oh no. Not at all.
> 
> It's all about engineering pal.
> 
> ...


That's like saying that Art and Architecture are not the same thing. It's splitting hairs. It's chop-logic. It's sophistry! You, sir, are a troublemaker


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 17, 2022)

bigshot said:


> We should be teaching logic and basic physics in school again. "The new way" is leading to a generation of ignoramuses who can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy.
> 
> Soundstage is not a mystical alchemy. You use the word "holography" as a magical word... it isn't. It's a scientific process of using laser light to create a three dimensional photograph. It isn't directly related to soundstage. You are using the term as a metaphor, and then mistaking the metaphor for a factual statement.
> 
> ...


OK, understood. 

You must be a Buddhist. So reality is an illusion? 😉

If we consider what quantum mechanics teaches us, you are not wrong. 🤔👍

Anyway, the audio cables... 

Let's take another example. How do you measure the texture, or the density of the timbres?

I am very interested by the answer. Really. 

Do you understand the question?


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> It's the proven way used every day in science to this day.


Do you know what is a theory ?

What is the difference between a theory and a belief?

Let's take a simple and striking example : wormholes.

Theory or belief? 🤔🙂


----------



## bigshot

Lectures on science from someone who doesn't care much about science.


----------



## chef8489

DaveStarWalker said:


> Do you know what is a theory ?
> 
> What is the difference between a theory and a belief?
> 
> ...


A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. 

A belief is just that a belief. Not been tested and no protocols backing it up. I don't know why you are starting to act like a troll again.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

chef8489 said:


> A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
> 
> A belief is just that a belief. Not been tested and no protocols backing it up. I don't know why you are starting to act like a troll again.


Stop this please. It is very unpleasant.

I also have the idea of epithets against you, but I don't use them.

*Theory *= A scientific theory is an idea or *hypothesis *that is created to explain certain phenomena. Theories are based on observation and are confirmed *or not* by scientific experiments.

*hypothesis *= *Proposal *relating to the explanation of natural phenomena, *provisionally admitted *before being subjected to the control of the experiment. Or : Proposition *admitted *either as a *axiom *of a problem, *or* for the demonstration of a theorem

*Idea* = Intellectual representation (of a being, of a way of being, of a relationship). Or : *Any representation* elaborated by thought corresponding to a word or a sentence (*whether or not there is an object that corresponds to it*).

*axiom *=  Proposition *considered *as obvious, admitted without demonstration.

Etc. 

Nothing is simple here. The problem with you and some other persons here is your incredibly simplistic view of things. Which makes you confuse *science *with *scientism*.
Back to basics (best way to progress)...


----------



## chef8489

No of it is not tested it us just a hypothesis. If a theory is not testable it is rejected. There has to be scientific evidence for it to be a theory. It also has to be accepted.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 17, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> If a theory is not testable it is rejected.


Ah ?

The String Theory is testable, for example ?

It is already rejected ? 
That's an interesting news. 

By the way, the notion of theory carries in itself a highly hypothetical and speculative value : the Big Bang Theory, for example, or the String Theory, are far from being confirmed, and could well be supplanted by other................... *theories*.

So ? Should we abandon them ?


----------



## chef8489 (Oct 17, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Ah ?
> 
> The String Theory is testable, for example ?
> 
> ...


They are working on testing it currently, or did you not know that?

But String Theory has the scientific community split. So yes some consider it pseudoscience and not a real Theory, while they ate working on disproving it currently with extermination currently.


But none of this has to do with the firm established science of cables and music.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 17, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> They are working on testing it currently, or did you not know that?
> 
> But String Theory has the scientific community split. So yes some consider it pseudoscience and not a real Theory, while they ate working on disproving it currently with extermination currently.
> 
> ...


So it is the point. Exactly the point.

There no established science of cables.

Engineering = yes. It works.
Science of cables = no.
That's good, the discussion is progressing. 

Now we may be able to discuss some hypothesis, while the premises of the discussion are set. 

A clue= (odd) harmonics and vibrations related to materials*...

* It is also there that we will find a relation with... the String Theory... Amazing, isn't it?


----------



## chef8489

Engineering
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.

So yes there is science behind cables

Another reason because the science behind sound and how audio works is behind it.

Of course there is science backing how cables work to argue otherwise is just ignorant or intentionally trying to cause problems.


I'm done replying to you.


----------



## old tech

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory


----------



## gregorio

Elegiac said:


> Maybe he wasn't saying that at all. And that's just what I read into it.


Maybe but if that were the case, then he’s confusing basic physics/math/science with philosophy. 


Elegiac said:


> Some things defy measurement.


Sure but that’s irrelevant because audio signals is not one of those things.

G


----------



## Elegiac

gregorio said:


> Maybe but if that were the case, then he’s confusing basic physics/math/science with philosophy.
> 
> Sure but that’s irrelevant because audio signals is not one of those things.
> 
> G


I understand that on a fundamental level our senses conform to reality because their basis is in the structures that constitute it, but it's still a filter that's biased towards our forms of perception. A tree may make excellent use of moisture, but does it really understand what rain is? Probably not. We are limited. And while all our science is derived from _what is, _and can manipulate it... it isn't fundamental to existence. It's just something that can exist within it. I'm not sure I'd call that philosophy of some non-concrete, rarefied variety, so much as I'd call it a... fact.

Maybe one day science will reach beyond our ability to understand it, and we'll have to change ourselves, our minds, our forms, in order to follow it there. Then we'll be closer to a universal form of perception. It's a rabbit hole. These are just my own musings.

Can't remember what I was saying defied measurement, but yeah, I probably wasn't targeting it at audio signals _specifically_. We seem to have a pretty decent, workable understanding of sound.


----------



## gregorio (Oct 19, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Anyway, the audio cables... Let's take another example. How do you measure the texture, or the density of the timbres?


Your question is utter nonsense!

Timbre - “_is the *perceived* sound quality of a musical note, sound or tone.“ _(Wikipedia). So you say “Anyway, the audio cables” but then the question you actually ask is not about audio cables, it’s about human perception. Obviously a metal wire does not have any human perception, so even if we could measure human perception we couldn’t measure any of it in an audio cable. How is that not blindingly obvious?

And if that’s not bad enough, you effectively base your argument on this nonsense!

However, there are actual audio properties which largely determine the perception of timbre (harmonic content and envelope) and of course we CAN measure these things. If we couldn’t, then audio recordings wouldn’t contain any harmonic content and humans couldn’t perceive any timbre when reproducing them! Again, how is that not blindingly obvious?


DaveStarWalker said:


> The String Theory is testable, for example ?


Of course it is, if it wasn’t testable then it could not be a theory! It would just be an idea or possibly a hypothesis but even a hypothesis requires some scientific basis/reference. Clearly, you don’t even know the fundamental basics of science!!

Although irrelevant: String Theory is testable mathematically and obviously has been, otherwise it would not be a “theory”. We cannot directly test if string theory actually applies in the real universe but that’s not relevant in this discussion because we don’t apply it. There is no technology that relies on string theory being the correct explanation in order to function and there certainly isn’t any audio equipment that does!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Engineering = yes. It works.
> Science of cables = no.


That’s obviously nonsense for two reasons:

Firstly, Engineering is the practical application of scientific principles, so if there were no science of cables it would obviously be impossible to engineer them.

Secondly: Your basis for claiming there is no science of cables seems to be that we can’t measure human perception in them, as mentioned above. Is there no science of CDs because we can’t measure the emotional response of polycarbonate plastic disks? Does science simply not exist at all because everything in the universe either doesn’t have human perception/responses or does have human perception but we can’t measure it?

Cables are obviously engineered and rely on the conductivity of metals, Ohms Law and various other scientific principles. And also obviously, if these principles were wrong, then pretty much every electrical and electronic device on the planet would never function.


DaveStarWalker said:


> That's good, the discussion is progressing.


No that’s bad because the (your) “discussion is progressing”  only in terms of more utterly ridiculous nonsense, which by definition is pretty much the exact opposite of sound science!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Now we may be able to discuss some hypothesis, while the premises of the discussion are set.


Sure, you are able to discuss any hypothesis you want, providing it does not contradict established science without reliable evidence. Because “_the premises of the discussion are set_” by the name of this subforum and you don’t get to redefine them to the opposite!


DaveStarWalker said:


> Stop this please. It is very unpleasant.


Using irrational, illogical, scientifically ignorant nonsense as the basis for an argument is “very unpleasant” anywhere but even more objectionable in a sound science subforum. So take your own advice and “Stop this please”!!!

G


----------



## gregorio

Elegiac said:


> I understand that on a fundamental level our senses conform to reality because their basis is in the structures that constitute it, but it's still a filter that's biased towards our forms of perception.


Maybe, but audio cables don’t have any senses, any understanding or any form of perception. Any philosophical questions relate to humans, our perceptions and understanding, not to audio cables. 


Elegiac said:


> Maybe one day science will reach beyond our ability to understand it, and we'll have to change ourselves, our minds, our forms, in order to follow it there. Then we'll be closer to a universal form of perception.


Maybe but again, that’s got nothing to do with audio cables.

G


----------



## Elegiac

gregorio said:


> Maybe, but audio cables don’t have any senses, any understanding or any form of perception. Any philosophical questions relate to humans, our perceptions and understanding, not to audio cables.
> 
> Maybe but again, that’s got nothing to do with audio cables.
> 
> G


And any audio cable questions can relate to human beings, their place of origin, if we wish to take it that far. I thought that he did and that's how we got here. Was it you he was talking with? Which of you was defending audio cable hocus-pocus? Expensive cables irritate me, but I believe it beneath my civility and compassion to go out of my way to persecute people over it. I think you share my irritation though, so we're all good.

Are we wasting time?


----------



## gregorio

Elegiac said:


> And any audio cable questions can relate to human beings …


Yes they can but that’s a different question. When we measure the audio performance of a cable or other audio component, then we’re measuring the audio performance of that component, we’re not measuring how a particular human relates to that measurement or perceives the result after the signal is transduced. That would require a different measurement and of course measuring that particular human, not the component.

G


----------



## bigshot

Some folks want to warn others that making certain decisions are a mistake. If the bridge is out, you wave your hands and try to get the train to stop.


----------



## castleofargh

Elegiac said:


> I understand that on a fundamental level our senses conform to reality because their basis is in the structures that constitute it, but it's still a filter that's biased towards our forms of perception. A tree may make excellent use of moisture, but does it really understand what rain is? Probably not. We are limited. And while all our science is derived from _what is, _and can manipulate it... it isn't fundamental to existence. It's just something that can exist within it. I'm not sure I'd call that philosophy of some non-concrete, rarefied variety, so much as I'd call it a... fact.
> 
> Maybe one day science will reach beyond our ability to understand it, and we'll have to change ourselves, our minds, our forms, in order to follow it there. Then we'll be closer to a universal form of perception. It's a rabbit hole. These are just my own musings.
> 
> Can't remember what I was saying defied measurement, but yeah, I probably wasn't targeting it at audio signals _specifically_. We seem to have a pretty decent, workable understanding of sound.


If the purpose is to acknowledge our ignorance, then let's jump straight to fundamental particles and admit that we keep finding new ones as the measurement rigs improve. One conclusion could be that we effectively don't know what matter even is. 

Does it help anybody here when discussing electrical wires? Of course it does, it helps those who know nothing and wish to drag everybody else to their level.
Knowing more won't change what has been a consistent outcome for such a long time that we have several long standing laws and theorems for electrical and magnetic stuff going on in a metal. At best more knowledge would impact the resolution of predictions, the same way Einstein improved on Newtonian mechanic. The fact remains that for most applications, Newton is still used because it gives more than adequate accuracy for our needs. Whatever our understanding of the cause, the apple falls the same way.
It will obviously be the same for electricity in a copper wire once our understanding gets updated in a significant way. Maybe we will get new materials doing super special stuff, but copper, silver or aluminum in the classic form of audio cables will obviously behave like they always did. We have more than enough experiences and validations all around us all the time to at least know that.

On the other hand, I'd like to see among those pushing the idea that measurements don't show everything going on in a cable while their ears(ROFL) do, how many of them have extensively measured a cable before running their mouth? How many have fairly competed against an Audio Precision analyzer to get to the conclusion that they indeed knew better. If we get more than zero, I'll already be somewhat impressed.
It's obvious to me that such ideas are brought up by people who just want to keep claiming whatever they think is true, regardless of how crappy their listening conditions were. They're not actually curious about what happens in a wire and probably didn't spend much time learning about that. All they care about is to create doubt for whatever might discredit their beliefs. Some push for insufficient knowledge, some attack controlled methods, some go all the way and weirdly try to reject science entirely(which is even funnier when done from a computer or a cellphone IMO). It's not new and certainly not a call for better understanding.


----------



## Elegiac

Don't know nothin' bout nothin' hahaha


----------



## bigshot

Ha! Ha! How did we design a computer if we don’t even know how wires work?


----------



## hakunamakaka

No wires were used on first computers as there was no electricity. Even first more complex machines were mechanical computers


----------



## bigshot (Oct 19, 2022)

I think I'd feel more comfortable with a technology we fully understand. I want a mechanical cell phone. How big will my pocket have to be for one that is as good as an iPhone?


----------



## Davesrose

hakunamakaka said:


> No wires were used on first computers as there was no electricity. Even first more complex machines were mechanical computers


But the first digital computer was electronic.  The ENIAC was created in 1945, cost $5.9M in today's dollars, and had over 5 million solder joints. It weighed 27 tons and consumed 150 kW of power.  It could do 385 calculations per second vs iPhone 4 which could do 2 billion calculations per second.  And that's just raw specs....current computers have more versatile interfaces and more forgiving programming.

With the topic of iPhone and cables....I do have balanced headphone cables for my headphone amp.  I have found there is a difference in which my amp is like many others that they have higher current with the balanced output.  A while back I bought a Sony wireless WH-100MX3 when I needed something with noise canceling and could connect via bluetooth to my computer for teleconferencing.  I found the music to be meh: seemed more recessed with upper mids and treble.  Am trying to have more activity outdoors, so have bought new Sennheiser Momentum 3 earbuds.  They do sound significantly better than the Sonys (or Jaybird buds I had previously for working out as well).  With these current wireless headphones, I don't know how much is design of transducer vs better EQ/DSP.  I like the Sennheisers with a flat EQ, but have tried bass boost in noisy environments-have been pretty impressed that it still seems "natural" bass vs just flabby bass.


----------



## gregorio (Oct 21, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> Does it help anybody here when discussing electrical wires? Of course it does, it helps those who know nothing and wish to drag everybody else to their level.


And that’s the problem. It’s not those who know nothing, it’s those who knew nothing and then had their head filled with audiophile nonsense, invented either to support some snake oil product or to counter scientific/engineering fact that debunks it. What’s so shocking is not just the complete lack of a basic understanding of what science is, what a hypothesis, theory, theorem or scientific law is, even though this is taught to school children, or even any idea of the history or timeline of the specific science underpinning audio, it’s that they’ll come to a science discussion forum, simply make-up false definitions, histories or assertions of the science and think there’s nothing at all wrong with that.


castleofargh said:


> The fact remains that for most applications, Newton is still used because it gives more than adequate accuracy for our needs. Whatever our understanding of the cause, the apple falls the same way.
> It will obviously be the same for electricity in a copper wire once our understanding gets updated in a significant way.


We quite often use the Newton/Einstein gravity analogy but don’t often directly give the facts/history of electricity itself. The scientific understanding of electricity arguably started with Coulomb’s Law in 1785, over the following 50 years Faraday demonstrated the electromagnetic principle, Ampere developed the Circuit Law, the work of Galvani, Volta and Fourier led to Ohms Law and by 1865, we had a complete proven theory of electromagnetism with Maxwell’s field equations. This is before there even were any consumer electrical products, all of which were based Maxwell’s Laws and is why Maxwell is considered the founder of electrical engineering. Unlike Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s laws did not really require updating with Einstein’s discovery of the Theories of Relativity because they were the based on Maxwell’s equations. Maxwell’s electromagnetic Laws did and still do account for everything, with the exception of Quantum effects. Dirac first formulated a theory which included quantum effects, this was further developed by Fermi and in the late 1940’s, Feynman et al reached the end of the story with the theory of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED). QED is the first theory with full agreement between quantum theory and Relativity,  it mathematically describes ALL electromagnetic phenomena and is one of the most stringently tested theories in physics. In this respect, it is quite different to the gravity analogy, we do not yet have an established theory of gravity in full agreement with quantum theory, let alone a highly precisely tested and fully accepted one. Furthermore, QED does not invalidate ANY of the previous laws of electricity, even the first (Coulomb’s Law) is still entirely valid and effectively incorporated into QED, although Maxwell’s Laws and QED defines strict conditions for it.

That’s the end of the story for the science of electricity and we reached it 70+ years ago. So, what is it that audiophiles think that science doesn’t know about electricity and in what way do they think that QED is somehow wrong and can be “updated”? And, even if there were something missing/wrong, then it could not invalidate QED because that in turn would invalidate some/all the laws of electricity and no electrical device would ever have functioned.

Unfortunately, neither the actual historical facts, science, logic nor even all three combined seem to dent audiophiles’ confidence in marketing BS!

G


----------



## old tech

bigshot said:


> I think I'd feel more comfortable with a technology we fully understand. I want a mechanical cell phone. How big will my pocket have to be for one that is as good as an iPhone?


Again why iphone as apposed to "a mobile phone".


----------



## bigshot

I want it to work well with my mechanical iMac


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> Yes they can but that’s a different question. When we measure the audio performance of a cable or other audio component, then we’re measuring the audio performance of that component, we’re not measuring how a particular human relates to that measurement or perceives the result after the signal is transduced. That would require a different measurement and of course measuring that particular human, not the component.
> 
> G


Hi, 

I have some simple questions :

How do you measure an holographic effect for example?

The weight of the notes ?

Textures of the timbres ?

Finesse and extinction of the notes ?

The precision of the soundstage ?

The separation of the soundstage ?

The soundstage.... 

With a musical program of course. 😉

Really interested by your answers. 👍


----------



## 71 dB

bigshot said:


> I want it to work well with my mechanical iMac


A mechanical iMac must be very noisy!


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 23, 2022)

But so much catchy 😎😉






Or the very last version 😍





😘


----------



## Davidzak64

Team Red and White here! 😉
Can be bought for 25 cents at your local thrift store. I'll save my money for the equipment that I can hear a significant difference. In all honesty, I guess if money wasn't an issue at all, I'd opt to get the high quality cables just for the reliability and good looks, but I haven't experienced the difference in sound quality that some people do. 
I really don't use the red and white cheap cables, but I would and have no issue using them when needed. That being said. I find that a decent built audio cable at a very affordable price is quite adequate.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

You should. Stop wasting money 💰🤑💵💸💷💶💴😭🚫⛔😉


----------



## gregorio (Oct 23, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> I have some simple questions :
> How do you measure an holographic effect for example?


They’re not simple questions, by and large they’re ridiculous questions. This first one for example, the Holographic Effect is a visual effect, there is no holographic effect of sound/audio and it should be obvious that you can’t measure something which doesn’t exist!


DaveStarWalker said:


> The weight of the notes ?


Notes don’t have any weight, unless you consider the pressure of sound waves in air to be “weight”. In which case you use a microphone and measure the amplitude of it’s output signal.


DaveStarWalker said:


> Textures of the timbres ?


Timbres don’t have textures. AGAIN, “_Timbre - “is the *perceived* sound quality of a musical note, sound or tone.“ (Wikipedia)._” - So not just a nonsense question but a ridiculous one because it’s ALREADY been answered in post #3478.


DaveStarWalker said:


> Finesse and extinction of the notes ?


Notes don’t have finesse or extinction.


DaveStarWalker said:


> [1] The precision of the soundstage ?
> [2] With a musical program of course.


1. Soundstage is a human perception, therefore you’d obviously have to measure a human brain (of the listener) and there’s no way to do that currently.
2. In that case it’s even more ridiculous; “a musical program” does not have a human brain (or therefore human perception), how are you going to measure something it doesn’t have?

I’ve got an equally simple question for you: How do you measure how many fingers a car has?

Again, it’s just more utter nonsense!!

G


----------



## Elegiac

Davidzak64 said:


> Team Red and White here! 😉
> Can be bought for 25 cents at your local thrift store. I'll save my money for the equipment that I can hear a significant difference. In all honesty, I guess if money wasn't an issue at all, I'd opt to get the high quality cables just for the reliability and good looks, but I haven't experienced the difference in sound quality that some people do.
> I really don't use the red and white cheap cables, but I would and have no issue using them when needed. That being said. I find that a decent built audio cable at a very affordable price is quite adequate.


I'll be replacing my second-hand shop cables with some new ones. It's just nicer. 

I unwrapped one set of second-hand RCA's and they were sticky


----------



## Davidzak64 (Oct 23, 2022)

Elegiac said:


> I'll be replacing my second-hand shop cables with some new ones. It's just nicer.
> 
> I unwrapped one set of second-hand RCA's and they were sticky


Some WD-40 works great on sticky cables.
When I find monster cables and other decent off brands for $1 at a thrift store It makes me very happy. 😁🎼🎧


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 23, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have some simple questions :
> 
> ...


Let me try to start with some answers, since I do not believe in "nonsense" (and do believe that it is actually what often makes this forum non- constructive and ultimately reduces it to troll/witch hunt) but in what we can understand and what we may not for different reasons.
My "curious amateur" perspective 

*Holographic effect* - I*, N* relates to space/phase delays of higher harmonics and soundstage.

*Weight of the notes* can be understood based on attack/sustain/release, while being complex, it is well researched and emulated for grand pianos with amazing samples now available.
To your previous list of grand pianos in some other forum, Dave, I could not help adding Fazioli and Shigeru Kawai.

*Texture of the timbres* - relates to relative intensity and resolution of overtones/harmonics, which is challenging for many transducers at 8+ kHz, even above 2-3  kHz.

*Soundstage* -  I*, similar to the implementation of binaural recordings, the space reconstruction is build on different positioning and/or and phase delay of the different parts of the signal. In IEMs, the impression of more spacious soundstage can be accomplished by using different transducers, the related downside is incoherency. Have you heard of famous (and banned here) S***** D-T--6?

*I* -* to some extent,  an imaginary  concept often misrepresented by audiophiles in stretching their subjective opinions or pedalling the products.
*N* *- not well-defined, try to define it yourself.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

PhonoPhi said:


> Let me try to start with some answers, since I do not believe in "nonsense" (and do believe that it is actually what often makes this forum non- constructive and ultimately reduces it to troll/witch hunt) but in what we can understand and what we may not for different reasons.
> My "curious amateur" perspective
> 
> *Holographic effect* - I*, N* relates to space/phase delays of higher harmonics and soundstage.
> ...


OK,

So your solutions about to measure it, with a cable, and a musical program, of course ? 😉

Not imaginary solutions, please.

Thanks. 🙏👍


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 23, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK,
> 
> So your solutions about to measure it, with a cable, and a musical program, of course ? 😉
> 
> ...


On another note, I have to admit now that this forum is right, and some people here are not for constructive discussion, but for reinforcing their subjective beliefs, perhaps closely related to thousands wasted on some non-sense...

I have nothing to add further to these people other than feeling sorry for my time 

P. S. Asking for methodologies for measuring imaginary/subjective concepts is utterly unrealistic, if to put it politely.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

gregorio said:


> They’re not simple questions, by and large they’re ridiculous questions. This first one for example, the Holographic Effect is a visual effect, there is no holographic effect of sound/audio and it should be obvious that you can’t measure something which doesn’t exist!
> 
> Notes don’t have any weight, unless you consider the pressure of sound waves in air to be “weight”. In which case you use a microphone and measure the amplitude of it’s output signal.
> 
> ...


So ridiculous answers, as expeted.

Just another simple question :

What is your experience of a quality reproduction musical gear ? 🤔

I really wonder...🙄

What do you listen to your music with, apart from your ears of course. 🎶🍻


----------



## DaveStarWalker

PhonoPhi said:


> On another note I have to admit now that this forum is right, and some people here are not for constructive discussion, but for reinforcing their subjective beliefs, perhaps related thousands wasted on some non-sense...
> 
> I have nothing to add to these people other than feeling sorry for my time


So be it.

Yet you have had some examples of proposed protocols. Strangely enough, there is no rush...


----------



## gregorio (Oct 23, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> So ridiculous answers, as expeted.


Well of course. If you ask ridiculous questions what else can you expect but ridiculous answers?


DaveStarWalker said:


> Just another simple question :


What do you mean “another”, where are the previous one’s? All we’ve had previously is ridiculous questions.


DaveStarWalker said:


> What is your experience of a quality reproduction musical gear ?


Well done, not a ridiculous question but unfortunately still an off-topic question, both for this thread and this subforum. This is the Sound Science subforum, not the “share personal experiences” subforum. And even though we do sometimes mention our personal experiences, I can’t answer your question even with several long paragraphs.


DaveStarWalker said:


> What do you listen to your music with, apart from your ears of course.


My brain of course, what do you use? If you’re asking about audio equipment, then most of the time I’m listening to music I’m doing so in a highly specified studio. The rest of the time is with various consumer gear and occasionally, in a world class studio, dubbing theatre or OB rig. But how is any of this in anyway relevant? We’re not talking about my experiences, we’re talking about the science of sound/audio.

G


----------



## Davidzak64

I will give an answer to the OP's question.
With a peer reviewed blind test.
Does anyone know of a credible test that's been documented?


----------



## Strat1117

“The sky was yellow and the sun was blue…”

- from Scarlett Begonias by Jerry Garcia and Robert Hunter


----------



## gregorio

DaveStarWalker said:


> So be it.
> Yet you have had some examples of proposed protocols.


No, he didn’t. PhonoPhi described some of the audio properties which influence perception, all of which can of course be measured, but he proposed no protocols whatsoever for measuring those perceptions! So yet again, just more nonsense!


Davidzak64 said:


> With a peer reviewed blind test.


Why would that convince them? It hasn’t with anything else, all they do is falsely claim DBTs don’t work. Cable believers/manufacturers are the ones making the claim, so it’s up to them to provide the reliable evidence. It’s been 40+ years and still there’s none. That alone should convince audiophiles but of course nothing does, once they’ve swallowed the cool ade that’s it, exceedingly few can ever un-swallow it. 


Davidzak64 said:


> Does anyone know of a credible test that's been documented?


It’s easy to measure what comes out of a cable, that’s what an ADC does. It was done in this subforum many years ago by Nick Charles I think. An order of magnitude below audibility or three orders of magnitude, it makes no difference to many audiophiles because they believe they can hear any level below audibility.

G


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 23, 2022)

In fact, thank you. 🍻

Lots of people here. 🥂

You'll recognize yourself. 😉

I realized one thing (since I was wandering in Paris with my dear love wife) : this topic is strictly useless. It's a total waste of time.🤔⌚

I was still thinking of demonstrations, arguments, even FR curves... but it is useless here. The level is so high. It's normal. I have to be humble with myself. 😔 Too high level. 

So, thank you guys, and farewell. 🙏😎

And have fun. 👍


----------



## theveterans (Oct 23, 2022)

DaveStarWalker said:


> OK,
> 
> So your solutions about to measure it, with a cable, and a musical program, of course ? 😉
> 
> ...



The thing is that the same exact cable shows all the good subjective stuff on one system while there’s no surprising quality / no difference in sonics from another system. The cable sonic traits is 100% system dependent just like transducers

These traits won’t show on established measurement procedures hence the established notion that cables don’t make a difference (unless it’s severely broken or soldered really badly)


----------



## PhonoPhi

theveterans said:


> The thing is that the same exact cable shows all the good subjective stuff on one system while there’s no surprising quality / no difference in sonics from another system. The cable sonic traits is 100% system dependent just like transducers
> 
> These traits won’t show on established measurement procedures hence the established notion that cables don’t make a difference (unless it’s severely broken or soldered really badly)


One can take the same transducer and different cables,  and measure all the differences precisely.
The cable difference based on cable resistance was documented for Andromeda, as well as the effect of tips and importance of their individual fit for different IEMs.

What has not been documented is the "subtle" audiophilac-dreamed differences, such as between silver and copper, palladium, rhodium, cryogenic treatment, etc, etc. If one wants to be delusional - no problem, just rationalizing delusions does not work.


----------



## AndreRitter

Why not just enjoy the music and stop calling other people stupid?
Anyone with half a brain knows you'll never win the cable debate.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 23, 2022)

I don't think it's even about cables. I think some people see the world as us and them and try to instigate arguments at any opportunity. This is on both sides of the issue. It isn't difficult at all to find out the truth, and it doesn't take too many words to express that in a forum answer. But for some reason, some people are oblivious and resistant to the truth, and other people can write novels explaining why the self evident facts are self evident.

The problem with cable believers is that they don't know how to isolate something and verify that a phenomena exists and is reproducible. And the problem with cable deniers is that they try to be so thorough in their answers they muddy the water with irrelevancies. Then when the person they're talking to gets confused and falls deeper in the rabbit hole, the deniers get frustrated and start telling them they're stupid. In this forum it's a vicious circle. I've gotten caught up in it myself, and I'm resolving to just cut to the chase more often and state things simply and clearly and dispassionately. I'm not angry at anyone and people who just don't want to hear the truth will get told that by me and then I'll stop entertaining their crackpot ideas. I'll just dismiss them. If they want to be logical about it, I'm happy to go back to discussing it with them, but they will have to put that at the top of their posts, because I'm not going to dig for gold in a post by someone I've dismissed. I'm not here to respond to everything directed to me. I will choose based on prior experience.


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 23, 2022)

AndreRitter said:


> Why not just enjoy the music and stop calling other people stupid?
> Anyone with half a brain knows you'll never win the cable debate.


I did not call anyone stupid, certainly not the people selling cables, they have elaborate techniques derailing any constructive conversations and pushing their agenda.

You should know that talking about blind tests in general forums is not allowed and moderators remove these messages.
So it is far from the "fair field".
Instead, people refer to "cable believers" (or not believers), how quasireligious is that?

Then, the staggering number of comments like: oh, this IEM  does not really great, but after 100+ hours burn-in and when you change the cable to '"pure copper" or that $200 cable (for $50 IEM), it can really shine. Many people fall for this ... and that still makes me sad. Even more so are preachers for the "beleivers" relying on empty arguments and circular logic...

Enjoy you music!


----------



## AndreRitter

Live and let live brother. Life is too long to worry about what other people do or don't.


----------



## bigshot

Exactly.


----------



## Elegiac (Oct 23, 2022)

My favourite 
 ...skip to 5:49


----------



## sonitus mirus

AndreRitter said:


> Why not just enjoy the music and stop calling other people stupid?
> Anyone with half a brain knows you'll never win the cable debate.



It is not even a legitimate debate.  It is well-established science being challenged with shenanigans and ignorance.  The most recent ballyhoo over the last few weeks has been quite transparent as bait that should be ignored, including my own hypocritical reply.


----------



## bfreedma

Unfortunately, our troll will probably be back.  Vegas has the the over/under set for Thursday before noon EST.  I'm taking the under.

If we ignore obvious trolling and only respond in the off chance something of value is posted, they will eventually tire and go troll elsewhere.


----------



## LanceSaintPaul

Another way to state the questions is:
How do I talk people out of their own perceptions?
High End Audio is based in empiricism, nothing less.


----------



## bigshot

If you can discern differences between things where the established tests say you shouldn’t, you should document your ability and submit to independent verification. It isn’t official “cannon” until it’s documented and independently verified. If the ability you have is so fundamental to the understanding of sound reproduction, you shouldn’t have trouble finding a reputable engineer interested in testing it.


----------



## bigshot

The only science I see in audiophileland is in sales literature, and that’s cherry picked “facts” presented out of any context of audibility. Its sole purpose is to try to convince buyers that new and improved Lux detergent is better than brand X. I’m sure there are engineers who design the equipment who know their stuff, but they’re muzzled because the things they might say would be bad for business.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 26, 2022)

With headphones, the term "soundstage" is usually used when expectation bias or placebo effect is operating. What is being described is a subjective experience, not something to do with sound fidelity.

Soundstage is created in the mix by adjusting channel separation and secondary depth cues, balanced against the physical distance between the listener and the sound source in a speaker system. Headphones can only play back the former, not the latter. And all that is required to play back what headphones can reproduce is reasonably high fidelity with decent channel separation. Neither of these things are usually a problem with modern home audio equipment.

Often audiophiles mistake open or closed headphones as having more or less soundstage. This isn't the case. Open sounding headphones reproduce what is embedded in the mix just as well as closed.


----------



## redrol

Im the stoundstage masta.  Meaning I rate IEMs on stage.  Certain EQ curves are FAR more 3D and more realistic than others.  It's enough to make me buy things over others and rave about them.


----------



## bigshot

Frequency response imbalances can cause auditory masking. which blocks frequencies an octave above. If there is an imbalance in the wrong spot, it can block the reverb and hall ambiences an octave above. A balanced response increases detail. What you perceive as soundstage is likely just added detail from a proper response curve. It's possible though that this correct curve is unique to you, so someone else might not perceive the same 3D effect that you are perceiving.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 26, 2022)

If you want binaural, you would do best to get a binaural setup. Commercially recorded music isn't recorded or mixed for binaural playback, so you aren't going to get any kind of binaural effect out of it, no matter what wire you use.


----------



## Elegiac

Looky looky what I ordered: Space Saturn Series - Ultra Premium Digital Coaxial (S/PDIF) Cable

I'm all for a certain standard in cables. Eager to see if I can hear a difference between Optical and Coax.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 27, 2022)

Wait, isn't that an RCA cable in the picture?


----------



## Elegiac

Yeah, you can get coax cables for audio that are RCA ended. I mean, nothing else will fit the Coaxial outputs on my DAC's.


----------



## bigshot

Maybe I just don't recognize coax digital. I used optical when I started, and now I use HDMI. Looks just like a fancy RCA interconnect.


----------



## Elegiac

Man, when I knew less, I was sold an interconnect to use for Coaxial. This one.
It works, and the product description says it can be used for digital... online some people also say that you can use them that way. 
Buuuut. The difference in clarity between that cable and an optical cable is noticeable. So I'm pretty sure it isn't optimal.


----------



## The Jester

Manufacturers obviously think RCA is “good enough” for a digital interconnect, even though spdif specs are 75ohm, ie a BNC terminated coax,
Difference between it works, works ok and optimal ?


----------



## Elegiac

The Jester said:


> Manufacturers obviously think RCA is “good enough” for a digital interconnect, even though spdif specs are 75ohm, ie a BNC terminated coax,
> Difference between it works, works ok and optimal ?


The one I ordered is rated for 75 ohms. Does the termination really matter? I can't find any info to that effect.


----------



## The Jester

Elegiac said:


> The one I ordered is rated for 75 ohms. Does the termination really matter? I can't find any info to that effect.


RCA plugs are rarely 75 ohm due to centre pin to outer contact distances, some BNC to RCA adapters can get closer and then use a BNC cable,
If it makes an “audible” difference is debatable ?


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Elegiac said:


> The one I ordered is rated for 75 ohms. Does the termination really matter? I can't find any info to that effect.


There are cables with RCA phono plugs which work kinda fine for analog. There are also cables specifically designed for digital, using real 75 ohm coax.

Optical is rated to 24/96 and coax to 24/192. A well built cable of either kind is usually transparent. And good optical cables often work fine with 24/192 on gear made in the last decade or so.

Pro audio coax uses BNC connectors but very little hifi (commercial) gear has support for that.

A nice spin on this is Audio-gd' ACSS which uses coax with BNC connectors and is good to 32/352, works great between Audio-gd components.


----------



## Elegiac

Yeah. From what I can see it should be fine, BNC or not. If it's built to do what it's built to do then it should sound better than the supposed jack-of-all-trades interconnect, which is probably only 50 ohms, and the same as my optical cable. Then I'll be happy using two different cables/inputs for two different sources.


----------



## The Jester

Some prefer optical connections as a guarantee of no ground plane or other “noise” being transferred …


----------



## gimmeheadroom

Elegiac said:


> Yeah. From what I can see it should be fine, BNC or not. If it's built to do what it's built to do then it should sound better than the supposed jack-of-all-trades interconnect, which is probably only 50 ohms, and the same as my optical cable. Then I'll be happy using two different cables/inputs for two different sources.



The analog RCA cables should have 0 impedance. For short lengths it doesn't have much effect and is probably not audible. But in principle, it's a bad match.

Optical cables don't have impedance.


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The Jester said:


> Some prefer optical connections as a guarantee of no ground plane or other “noise” being transferred …



Yeah but supposedly jitter is worse with optical. TINSTAAFL 

Anyway, due to optical's limitation by the S/PDIF standard, coax is better (more bandwidth and I think longer acceptable cable runs) unless as you say you have a noisy setup. and you don't want to get into some form of electrical isolation.

At the end of the day S/PDIF optical and coax are both consumer standards and haven't kept up with today's hires music. And, they don't have locking connectors which makes them an iffy choice in some applications.

It is rare to find optical on pro gear or higher end hifi gear any more although coax seems to be hanging in there.


----------



## The Jester

Higher end Hifi at least starts to offer AES/EBU 110ohm and less commonly I2S which has seperate conductors for data and clock signals, although a mini HDMI connector seems popular there’s no set standard for connectors and “pin outs”, so going with same brand components is the best option ..


----------



## gimmeheadroom

The Jester said:


> Higher end Hifi at least starts to offer AES/EBU 110ohm and less commonly I2S which has seperate conductors for data and clock signals, although a mini HDMI connector seems popular there’s no set standard for connectors and “pin outs”, so going with same brand components is the best option ..



Yep, most of my setup is AES/EBU with IIS between one DDC and DAC. 

I wish somebody would have come up with locking HDMI connectors. RJ45s are in the minority but at least they lock.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 27, 2022)

AES/EBU 110ohm digital connexion, and the the royal path is the double AES/EBU 110ohm digital connexion.






Classic exemple : D70/P70 (TEAC/Esoteric)  

One of the best digital gears ever made.


----------



## DaveStarWalker (Oct 27, 2022)




----------



## bigshot

It wouldn't be difficult to make a locking HDMI cable, but the locking mechanism would have to match on both the unit and the cable, which is a level of coordination that doesn't exist I guess.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

Cables, cables, cables !!!


----------



## The Jester

gimmeheadroom said:


> Yep, most of my setup is AES/EBU with IIS between one DDC and DAC.
> 
> I wish somebody would have come up with locking HDMI connectors. RJ45s are in the minority but at least they lock.


Seems to be the HDMI socket that can be an issue, It’s a similar design to USB but USB seems a more secure connection …. With exceptions of course,
 if someone is even considering spending more than “sensible $$” on a digital RCA cable it might be better spent having the RCA sockets replaced with BNC if feasible, plenty of good quality certified 75 ohm BNC cables out there for not much money,
In the end as usual YMMV …


----------



## Elegiac (Oct 27, 2022)

gimmeheadroom said:


> The analog RCA cables should have 0 impedance. For short lengths it doesn't have much effect and is probably not audible. But in principle, it's a bad match.
> 
> Optical cables don't have impedance.


I meant that it should sound the same as my optical cable. At the very least.
Uhm, the 50 ohm cables are definitely floating around: https://www.google.com/search?q=50+ohm+interconnect+cable
........................................................................................................................ https://www.google.com/search?q=50+ohm+coaxial+cable

The cable I have at the moment says it can be used for 'digital or analog', but it has a yellow designation like a video cable. From whathifi:


> Probably the least common connection when it comes to modern AV kit, coaxial digital uses electricity to transmit audio.
> 
> The connector is a standard, circular RCA connector - the kind that’s found at either end of a pair of analogue audio cables (or 'interconnects').
> 
> But don’t be tempted to try and use a standard RCA phono cable in place of a dedicated coaxial digital cable. They look similar and can work, but an analogue interconnect has different impedance values from a digital one (50 ohm versus 75 ohm), so won’t work as well.



And when I enquired whether this cable was 75 ohms, I received the following reply: 


> Thank you for getting in touch. The cable in question is unfortunately not 75ohm. We do offer a 0.5m Gold RCA AV Cable which is 75ohm which was discontinued, however I have checked stock in our main warehouse in Germany and they still have ~12x in stock. If you would like to order one, I have temporarily re-enabled it on the website for order. Lead time will be approximately 7 – 10 business days. I will deactivate the cable from the website again by CoB tomorrow if I haven’t heard from you.



But they call the cable they're selling a 'Digital Coaxial Cable'.


----------



## redrol

bigshot said:


> Frequency response imbalances can cause auditory masking. which blocks frequencies an octave above. If there is an imbalance in the wrong spot, it can block the reverb and hall ambiences an octave above. A balanced response increases detail. What you perceive as soundstage is likely just added detail from a proper response curve. It's possible though that this correct curve is unique to you, so someone else might not perceive the same 3D effect that you are perceiving.


Absolutely true and yet, since I rate iems, I have chatted with maybe 30 people that tried that IEM and for the most part everyone agreed, very out of the head sounding.  I do think in general having a big steep dip around 9-11k with in ears causes the brain to interpret this more out of the head. Just this one thing massively increases perceived stage space.  The targus flap in the ear causes the same kind of notch in high frequencies.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 27, 2022)

I think your definition of "out of the head" is entirely different than "soundstage". I've never heard any headphones that put the soundstage 10 feet ahead and added room depth cues like true speaker soundstage.


----------



## DaveStarWalker

bigshot said:


> I think your definition of "out of the head" is entirely different than "soundstage". I've never heard any headphones that put the soundstage 10 feet ahead and added room depth cues like true speaker soundstage.


Here we agree. The term "soundstage" is not the right one. Prefer "Relief". 

However, this is a facility of language.


----------



## redrol

bigshot said:


> I think your definition of "out of the head" is entirely different than "soundstage". I've never heard any headphones that put the soundstage 10 feet ahead and added room depth cues like true speaker soundstage.



You should try my stuff then!  Might be an eye opener.


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

If I state on this thread the fact that my Senn. headphones, which had a thin bass, after all the cables I connected to the system, have a strong respectable bass that puts the planar driver to shame,not to mention other benefits of the sound, am I a troll?


----------



## bigshot

redrol said:


> You should try my stuff then!  Might be an eye opener.


Do you have a speaker system yourself?


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> If I state on this thread the fact that my Senn. headphones, which had a thin bass, after all the cables I connected to the system, have a strong respectable bass that puts the planar driver to shame,not to mention other benefits of the sound, am I a troll?


Well, we know it wasn't a blind test, and you don't even say what you were comparing, so I guess we could call it subjective and undefined. Whether you're a troll or not depends on how you post, not the sound equipment you use.


----------



## T 1000

So yes, I blindly invested in my first more expensive cabal, and then with enthusiasm in the direction of influencing the sound.
I don't always judge the opinion of opponents of cables, it depends a lot on the headphones, speakers, and probably on the personal sensibility of mixing with music.
I care that those who want a better listening experience have a choice, if their money allows it.
The cables do their thing, and the different components do their thing, everything comes together in a better experience


----------



## chef8489 (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> So yes, I blindly invested in my first more expensive cabal, and then with enthusiasm in the direction of influencing the sound.
> I don't always judge the opinion of opponents of cables, it depends a lot on the headphones, speakers, and probably on the personal sensibility of mixing with music.
> I care that those who want a better listening experience have a choice, if their money allows it.
> The cables do their thing, and the different components do their thing, everything comes together in a better experience


That is not a blind test. It's funny how people twist words and ideas to get there ideas especially when it comes to cables and other audiophile falsehoods and impossibility to push an agenda.

You already had a preconceived idea that your cables were inferior and that buying higher priced cables were the solution. Then all of a sudden magic. And you said it was blind which is false. You did not do a proper blind test much less a double blind test.

Show measurement differences between the cables. But there is no sound going through the cables to begin with. So how is the cable going to change the frequency of the driver when no sound is traveling through it only an electrical signal? No equipment was done from the source.


----------



## T 1000

OK, then I found an illusion for myself that improves my perception. I'm on the winning side again
I don't have to prove anything to anyone


----------



## chef8489 (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> OK, then I found an illusion for myself that improves my perception. I'm on the winning side again
> I don't have to prove anything to anyone


So yes you are a troll. You come into the sound science forum with the typical audiophile garbage just to troll. You ignore science facts and standard testing protocol and do the usual o don't have to prove anything garbage.


----------



## bigshot

Better sound comes with smarter choices in putting together a system, not more money.


----------



## T 1000

Now I imagined myself as a one-eyed troll, not nice of you.
It is interesting that in the field of "sound science" you marked cables as garbage.
I didn't want to upset anyone, but...


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

bigshot said:


> Better sound comes with smarter choices in putting together a system, not more money.


How do you get rid of the "garbage" from the electricity(or is that a fabrication too), and you can connect your components to each other with a steel cable, and in that way you will need far more money (and with ten times more expensive components)than me, and at the same time you will not have what I get.
 I would write IMO, but this is  the facts


----------



## redrol

bigshot said:


> Do you have a speaker system yourself?


Yes I have a small home studio, JBL, Yamaha, KRK monitor speakers.


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Now I imagined myself as a one-eyed troll, not nice of you.
> It is interesting that in the field of "sound science" you marked cables as garbage.
> I didn't want to upset anyone, but...


Audiophile garbage being the tactics they use. Ie ignoring science. Refusing to do proper tests. Saying their ears are good enough when ears are fooled all the time and believing marketing bs. Not researching how sound works and understanding cables. Trolling threads like this and so on. 

First off cables have no sound whatsoever going through them. It's an electrical signal. The driver in the headphones, speaker, iem is what makes the sound. The cable has no way possible to add bass, add highs, add Soundstage to the music. It is impossible. It breaks all the laws of physics and the science of audio. 

So explain how the cable that contains no sound adds these characteristics? 

The sound that is already set is sent from the dac in the form of an electrical signal through the cable to the driver where the driver converts the electrical signal into a sound wave. So how does that cable add bass to that electrical signal? Add highs? Add Soundstage? 

Sorry mate it's just not possible. Those changes have to be done before it is sent via the cable by eq.


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> How do you get rid of the "garbage" from the electricity (or is that a fabrication too


Yes, that is a fabrication. Wires don't filter signals. They either conduct the signal properly, or they don't. Who told you that cables filter out "garbage"? I'd really like to hear about that.


----------



## bigshot

redrol said:


> Yes I have a small home studio, JBL, Yamaha, KRK monitor speakers.


What's the distance between the speaker and the listening position?


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> How do you get rid of the "garbage" from the electricity(or is that a fabrication too), and you can connect your components to each other with a steel cable, and in that way you will need far more money (and with ten times more expensive components)than me, and at the same time you will not have what I get.
> I would write IMO, but this is  the facts


Yep that is fabrication. You are not doing proper research and passing on false info. So explain this. Why do studios with far more expensive equipment than audiophiles use standard cheap cables. Why is it audiophiles are the only ones that need expensive cables? Datacenters don't, Military, studios. Things that rely on data and sound where it us far more important than an audiophile.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Audiophile garbage being the tactics they use. Ie ignoring science. Refusing to do proper tests. Saying their ears are good enough when ears are fooled all the time and believing marketing bs. Not researching how sound works and understanding cables. Trolling threads like this and so on.
> 
> First off cables have no sound whatsoever going through them. It's an electrical signal. The driver in the headphones, speaker, iem is what makes the sound. The cable has no way possible to add bass, add highs, add Soundstage to the music. It is impossible. It breaks all the laws of physics and the science of audio.
> 
> ...


It's a matter of signal transmission, a cleaner cable passes more information from point A to point B, and on that way a well-armored cable does not behave like an antenna for various crap that masks frequencies. The biggest benefits are with power cables (my experience).
Maybe I didn't convince you, but you seem to me that you approach your conviction innocently.
It is important that you investigate whether it has an effect or not, don't be guided by logic or other people's claims


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

You are all right, let the darkness reign

Because the audiophile strives for auditory nirvana


----------



## bfreedma

T 1000 said:


> It's a matter of signal transmission, a cleaner cable passes more information from point A to point B, and on that way a well-armored cable does not behave like an antenna for various crap that masks frequencies. The biggest benefits are with power cables (my experience).
> Maybe I didn't convince you, but you seem to me that you approach your conviction innocently.
> It is important that you investigate whether it has an effect or not, don't be guided by logic or other people's claims



This has been investigated - for almost a century.  As stated earlier, there are applications which require testing and certification based on actual risk should they fail. Studies have clearly demonstrated that in almost all use cases, noting beyond a “normal” cable is necessary.  That’s why you don’t see boutique cables in IT settings - not only do they not improve performance, costly boutique cables frequently fail to meet spec.

Unless you have objective evidence to the contrary, you’re posting marketing material from vendors with a profit motive with only your subjective, uncontrolled opinions to support them.

That, in Sound Science = troll.


----------



## castleofargh

T 1000 said:


> OK, then I found an illusion for myself that improves my perception. I'm on the winning side again
> I don't have to prove anything to anyone


The lack of any proof is what stops us from taking any of those claims seriously.
IMO it's a real problem and over time it makes those who report such experiences look worse than they are because there never is a clear distinction between those who have genuine anecdotes and those who just suck bad at testing for sound differences. That's only made worse by all those who get one or 2 genuine experience but draw false conclusions about the cause of it. When we notice the cause to be BS like with "the sound of silver cables" for example, we rapidly assume the testimony about audible difference to also be BS. Which is not necessarily true, but once we lose confidence in someone, it's hard to remain open minded about the rest of their claims.  

The single biggest issue in this thread is that too many people expect credibility to emerge from series of empty claims. 

I'm sorry that others react to your post the way they do, but that, just like subjective biases and empty claims, are expected from humans and hard to get rid of.



bigshot said:


> Wires don't filter signals.


They do, they low pass the signal. Audible signal though... probably not ^_^.


----------



## bfreedma

T 1000 said:


> You are all right, let the darkness reign



You could take a step back and take a look at/ reflect on the vast amount of testing already done.

Or you can ignore validated facts and blindly trust cable vendors.

The choice is yours


----------



## T 1000

I'm not sure if it matters the same in the IT sector as it does in audio


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> I'm not sure if it matters the same in the IT sector as it does in audio


It matters far more in the it sector. See that's what people like you don't understand. Data is data. Audio data is far smaller than it data or video data. Military data is even greater.


----------



## bfreedma (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> I'm not sure if it matters the same in the IT sector as it does in audio



Why would they be any different?  Analog and digital data need to traverse a cable and arrive unchanged..
Given both the much higher potential for EMI and other bugbears in a data enter than a home audio room, we’d be far more likely to encounter problems there if they exist
There is also far more risk in a data center - corrupt data there has a lot more downside potential than home audio.

While I can’t get into too much detail, I can tell you that the control rooms of nuclear plants don’t use “special cables” and I hope we can agree that, given the risks involved, if a special cable was necessary, they would be used in that scenario.

Frankly, it feels like you’re on a fishing expedition.


----------



## bfreedma

chef8489 said:


> It matters far more in the it sector. See that's what people like you don't understand. Data is data. Audio data is far smaller than it data or video data. Military data is even greater.



That seems so obvious, yet…


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> The lack of any proof is what stops us from taking any of those claims seriously.
> IMO it's a real problem and over time it makes those who report such experiences look worse than they are because there never is a clear distinction between those who have genuine anecdotes and those who just suck bad at testing for sound differences. That's only made worse by all those who get one or 2 genuine experience but draw false conclusions about the cause of it. When we notice the cause to be BS like with "the sound of silver cables" for example, we rapidly assume the testimony about audible difference to also be BS. Which is not necessarily true, but once we lose confidence in someone, it's hard to remain open minded about the rest of their claims.
> 
> The single biggest issue in this thread is that too many people expect credibility to emerge from series of empty claims.
> ...


Ok, I can accept this, but I don't imagine my claims, I hear them, if I didn't hear them, I would be in the opposite camp, while the opponent is guided by logic without any real concern for truth. So my credibility would not even have its weight.


----------



## bigshot

Bias affects everyone. It's the garbage that needs to be filtered out so you can make a smart decision.


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Ok, I can accept this, but I don't imagine my claims, I hear them, if I didn't hear them, I would be in the opposite camp, while the opponent is guided by logic without any real concern for truth. So my credibility would not even have its weight.


It's called placebo. If you did a proper double blind test you could not hear a difference. If there was a true difference it would be measurable. I have seen it over and over when proper test were done.


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> You are all right, let the darkness reign
> 
> Because the audiophile strives for auditory nirvana


Since you asked, this is where your posts stray over the line into trolling.


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

castleofargh said:


> The lack of any proof is what stops us from taking any of those claims seriously.
> IMO it's a real problem and over time it makes those who report such experiences look worse than they are because there never is a clear distinction between those who have genuine anecdotes and those who just suck bad at testing for sound differences. That's only made worse by all those who get one or 2 genuine experience but draw false conclusions about the cause of it. When we notice the cause to be BS like with "the sound of silver cables" for example, we rapidly assume the testimony about audible difference to also be BS. Which is not necessarily true, but once we lose confidence in someone, it's hard to remain open minded about the rest of their claims.
> 
> The single biggest issue in this thread is that too many people expect credibility to emerge from series of empty claims.
> ...


No You dont should feel sorry for me, I want to share my wealth, others are to be pitied
I know how Galileo felt about his claims


----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2022)

I'm sure we are all eternally indebted to you for your generosity and for the suffering you endure in bringing these pearls of wisdom to us.

You're firmly in troll territory now.


----------



## T 1000

Hey people, OK believe what you want, I am 100% sure of my claims, with how much certainty can you be convinced of what you claim (without hearing test)


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> I am 100% sure of my claims


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

"Say goodnight, Gracie."


----------



## T 1000

I really don't understand, all of you who entered the discussion with me seem educated...


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Hey people, OK believe what you want, I am 100% sure of my claims, with how much certainty can you be convinced of what you claim (without hearing test)


Then you would be willing to do a properly controlled filmed double blind test if you are so confident.


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
> 
> "Say goodnight, Gracie."


Only now I looked more carefully at you Avatar


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Then you would be willing to do a properly controlled filmed double blind test if you are so confident.


I don't need it, My system has progressed from good to Hi-End with only cables, I can hear well, thanks


----------



## bigshot

This one devolved fast.


----------



## chef8489 (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> I don't need it, My system has progressed from good to Hi-End with only cables, I can hear well, thanks


This is exactly our point and why we label you as a troll. Unless your cables were faulty, other than the placebo effect and the possibility of them looking better and making you feel better emotionally about your system, there is no sonic difference.

And you unwilling to even consider any scientific proof or scientific listening experiment proves you are a troll and no point in you being in here.


----------



## T 1000

That's right
Excuse me, I have other commitments
I wish you all -good health and cheerful spirits


----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2022)

Why don't you tell us about the sonic differences you perceive between the orange fuses and the purple ones? (Purple sounds better of course!)



> I have a proposal
> To continue this thread with the exchange of experiences and discussions about cables between those members who hear the differences.
> To ignore the intrusions of unbelievers and persuasion with them in the future
> There are threads to discuss whether or not it has an impact
> I think everyone will give up after a few posts


https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hig...tal-analog-power.937916/page-28#post-17119659

It's not a troll. It's someone who sits all the way on the wrong end of the D/K chart.


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> Why don't you tell us about the sonic differences you perceive between the orange fuses and the purple ones? (Purple sounds better of course!)
> 
> 
> https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hig...tal-analog-power.937916/page-28#post-17119659
> ...


I don't know how Orange sounds


----------



## bigshot

It sounds light and refreshing with a bit of a tang.


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> It sounds light and refreshing with a bit of a tang.


The irony is that you are giving someone a diagnosis


----------



## bfreedma

T 1000 said:


> I really don't understand, all of you who entered the discussion with me seem educated...



To be blunt, all of the participants who entered this discussion seem educated in this area except for you.

No one is going to accept an uncontrolled subjective opinion as a reason to doubt the work of thousands of scientists, acousticians, engineers who have done controlled testing that correlates with known audio science.

That isn’t to say we might not learn more in the future, but one person’s evidence free hand waving is not going to change any minds.  Come back with a specific technical claim,  it’s supporting research, and the results of a statistically viable set of blind test results and we can begin an actual discussion

Yes, that’s a lot of work.  The reason why?  Decades of research by hundreds of scientist have already covered the “easy stuff”

Who knows, perhaps you’ll be one of the very, very few who will actually put in the effort and gain the resultant knowledge.  Most trolls here argue for a while, refuse to do any testing, get mad, and leave in a huff, proclaiming their correctness on the way out.


----------



## bfreedma

T 1000 said:


> I don't need it, My system has progressed from good to Hi-End with only cables, I can hear well, thanks



So you want to have a discussion about science while disavowing all scientific method and well known psychoacoustics and associated biases.

That, in Sound Science, is the very definition of trolling.  Why not head over to a physics form and claim you can fly without evidence - seems absurd, but that’s how you’re projecting yourself here.


----------



## chef8489

bfreedma said:


> So you want to have a discussion about science while disavowing all scientific method and well known psychoacoustics and associated biases.
> 
> That, in Sound Science, is the very definition of trolling.  Why not head over to a physics form and claim you can fly without evidence - seems absurd, but that’s how you’re projecting yourself here.


He has no interest in science or the scientific method just like most who are trolls in here. IT was evident from the first post.


----------



## T 1000

bfreedma said:


> To be blunt, all of the participants who entered this discussion seem educated in this area except for you.
> 
> No one is going to accept an uncontrolled subjective opinion as a reason to doubt the work of thousands of scientists, acousticians, engineers who have done controlled testing that correlates with known audio science.
> 
> ...





bfreedma said:


> So you want to have a discussion about science while disavowing all scientific method and well known psychoacoustics and associated biases.
> 
> That, in Sound Science, is the very definition of trolling.  Why not head over to a physics form and claim you can fly without evidence - seems absurd, but that’s how you’re projecting yourself here.


The solution is very simple, go to an audio equipment store and impartially experiment with cables, if you hear more details or any change in the sound, ask yourself the question who do you trust more, your own ears or science


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

...but I'm curious where the science claims that the quality of the audio signal has nothing to do with the quality of the cable?
When RF interference is mentioned to you, you say it's "fiction", and you refer to science!?


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> The solution is very simple, go to an audio equipment store and impartially experiment with cables, if you hear more details or any change in the sound, ask yourself the question who do you trust more, your own ears or science


Doing a sited test in biased. Your ears and eyes will fool you. Only real way to tell if you truly hear a difference is to do a proper blind /double blind listening test with them. Funny how you guys refuse to accept this fact. Placebo is real and used in almost every industry to fool the consumer into making sales. The food industry, the entertainment industry, the medical industry, music industry and more. You can't get around science and your ears are not magic no matter how much you want them to be.


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> ...but I'm curious where the science claims that the quality of the audio signal has nothing to do with the quality of the cable?


Well as there is no audio going through the cable to begin with that's a start. It's just an electrical signal. Why can't you understand that.


----------



## T 1000

I go to listen to a symphony in virtual space, and you can listen to it in 2D


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> I go to listen to a symphony in virtual space, and you can listen to it in 2D


Think whatever you want. Just go troll somewhere else.


----------



## T 1000

T 1000 said:


> I go to listen to a symphony in virtual space, and you can listen to it in 2D


This was not nice of me, but you are putting yourself out there


----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> ...but I'm curious where the science claims that the quality of the audio signal has nothing to do with the quality of the cable?
> When RF interference is mentioned to you, you say it's "fiction", and you refer to science!?


A cable cannot improve a signal. It can only convey it correctly or in a degraded fashion. RF interference is a form of degradation, and simple shielding solves the problem. It’s easy to manufacture a cable that conveys a signal correctly for under ten dollars. Amazon Basics, Monoprice, just about any inexpensive cable will convey a signal to well beyond our ability to hear. You can make a cable out of silver or gold and it won’t sound any different if it’s properly designed and manufactured. It will only sound different if it’s degrading the signal. I’ve never run across a cable that was deliberately hobbled to make it sound different, but I don’t doubt that purveyors of snake oil have tried that kind of trick in the past.


----------



## The Jester

T 1000 said:


> This was not nice of me, but you are putting yourself out there


You’re really wasting your time here,
The discussion is all about subjective vs evidential and I don’t doubt that you believe you have heard differences, but to try and explain or justify the experience in a “sound science” forum needs at least some sort of verifiable testing that can be repeated by others.


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> This was not nice of me, but you are putting yourself out there


I have used and listened to music on systems that ranged front 50,000.00 usd to 1,000,000.00 both in homes, recording studios as well as touring sound engineer setups. I have also done blind and double blind tests on cables and other audio gear at a couple universities and other venues. Trust me nothing you could say would bother me. Next month I'll be at a location again with some amazing gear as well and yes they specialize in cables. It's a location in North Carolina. I'll see how much testing they allow me to do on their cables.


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> I go to listen to a symphony in virtual space, and you can listen to it in 2D


So you have a multichannel speaker setup?


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> So you have a multichannel speaker setup?


I do. Lol. So when I want to listen to multichannel stuff I can .


----------



## bigshot

That’s the way you listen to a symphony in a virtual space!


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> That’s the way you listen to a symphony in a virtual space!


Yep Mahler sounds great..


----------



## castleofargh (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> ...but I'm curious where the science claims that the quality of the audio signal has nothing to do with the quality of the cable?
> When RF interference is mentioned to you, you say it's "fiction", and you refer to science!?


Science doesn't claim that cables specs have no impact at all on signals, but it does say that the level of confidence in the result of an experiment should be proportional to the quality and controls involved in that experiment.
A casual listening and taking our sweet time to unplug and replug some cables, that provides a very low level of confidence because such conditions have been proved to be open to psychological biases, and memory errors due to too much time between the sound samples.
 I cannot draw any conclusion as to the actual sound on your system being audibly different because of whichever cables, or talk about why as I have zero data about it.  But you being very confident about that type of experience is a mistake. Of that at least I'm pretty confident. Bad testing=low reliability.


----------



## T 1000

castleofargh said:


> Science doesn't claim that cables specs have no impact at all on signals, but it does say that the level of confidence in the result of an experiment should be proportional to the quality and controls involved in that experiment.
> A casual listening and taking our sweet time to unplug and replug some cables, that provides a very low level of confidence because such conditions have been proved to be open to psychological biases, and memory errors due to too much time between the sound samples.
> I cannot draw any conclusion as to the actual sound on your system being audibly different because of whichever cables, or talk about why as I have zero data about it.  But you being very confident about that type of experience is a mistake. Of that at least I'm pretty confident. Bad testing=low reliability.


?
You convince me that I am in an illusion
Or I don't understand that you are kidding me


----------



## PhonoPhi (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> ?
> You convince me that I am in an illusion
> Or I don't understand that you are kidding me


You are kidding yourself first of all.

I am surprised that the claims like yours are given any attention.
People can start to hear the cable sound  (difference, magic, illusion/delusion linked to the money spent/wasted and associated expectations hyped) by inserting the cables directly into ears and/or other body cavities - absolutely the same type/logic/spirit of subjective unsupported claims....

P. S. The only tangible reason for the multiple absurdous comments can be to boost the # of comments (e.g. T1000 to 1000+); in any other threads, such flood would not be tolerated either by other participants or moderators.


----------



## T 1000

Everything is clear
None of you have any real experience with more expensive cables, and you are referring to science without having informed yourself about the audio chain.
You hide behind quasi-scientific claims and your own logic
You are at a loss


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Everything is clear
> None of you have any real experience with more expensive cables, and you are referring to science without having informed yourself about the audio chain.
> You hide behind quasi-scientific claims and your own logic
> You are at a loss


Lmao I guess you missed my post. Again believe what you want. You are doing the typical deflection that everyone does that refuses to do the proper tests. I was a big cable advocate until I got involved in the industry at university during my military service and after. Again I have done multiple blind and double blind tests with very expensive cables. I have also held studies and tests with groups. 

Just because you believe in the magic since you have a financial biased and refuse to do the proper tests, doesn't mean most of us have not been down the expensive cable rabbit hole. And just as I said I will be at a place in North Carolina next month that is renowned for their cables and will be testing their cables and some pretty expensive gear. Pretty sure it is way more expensive than what is in your setup. 

You are extremely close minded and will never advance, nor are you open to the discovery of truth.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Lmao I guess you missed my post. Again believe what you want. You are doing the typical deflection that everyone does that refuses to do the proper tests. I was a big cable advocate until I got involved in the industry at university during my military service and after. Again I have done multiple blind and double blind tests with very expensive cables. I have also held studies and tests with groups.
> 
> Just because you believe in the magic since you have a financial biased and refuse to do the proper tests, doesn't mean most of us have not been down the expensive cable rabbit hole. And just as I said I will be at a place in North Carolina next month that is renowned for their cables and will be testing their cables and some pretty expensive gear. Pretty sure it is way more expensive than what is in your setup.
> 
> You are extremely close minded and will never advance, nor are you open to the discovery of truth.


We can spin this way to infinity


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> We can spin this way to infinity


Guess you are just in the wrong section of head-fi as we actually require proof and tests in here, unlike the rest of head-fi. If you can't back up your claims with evidence, data, and proper tests it doesn't belong in sound science.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Guess you are just in the wrong section of head-fi as we actually require proof and tests in here, unlike the rest of head-fi. If you can't back up your claims with evidence, data, and proper tests it doesn't belong in sound science.


You are in the wrong hobby if you demand scientific evidence for what your ears hear


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> You are in the wrong hobby if you demand scientific evidence for what your ears hear


Right. I have been doing this for a long time. Just because I don't believe in fairytale cables and other snakeoil, because data and actual tests and science have proved it doesn't make an audible difference, doesn't mean the important things doesn't make this hobby enjoyable.  

This is last time I'm engaging with you as it's just fueling your trolling behavior, and I suggest others do as well. Hopefully mod comes in and cleans up all the useless posts.


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 29, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> Right. I have been doing this for a long time. Just because I don't believe in fairytale cables and other snakeoil, because data and actual tests and science have proved it doesn't make an audible difference, doesn't mean the important things doesn't make this hobby enjoyable.
> 
> This is last time I'm engaging with you as it's just fueling your trolling behavior, and I suggest others do as well. Hopefully mod comes in and cleans up all the useless posts.


If the cables don't work for you after your tests, that's fine, but there's no thread to exchange cable experiences without someone else*s trolling
Let it be deleted, there is no point anyway


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> If the cables don't work for you after your tests, that's fine, but there's no thread to exchange cable experiences without someone trolling
> Let it be deleted, there is no point anyway


Again you are not willing to follow the rules of the sound science and provide proper tests and data. This is not a standard cable thread to share your normal experiences, this is for science and data and proper tests. Go to the regular cable threads not the sound science as you clearly are not interest in sound science or proper testing.


----------



## RADI0HEAD

You mean they don't make a difference?


----------



## chef8489

RADI0HEAD said:


> You mean they don't make a difference?


To your wallet, your ego, and for you to be able to show them off, but for the sound, no.


----------



## bigshot (Oct 28, 2022)

T 1000 said:


> If the cables don't work for you after your tests, that's fine, but there's no thread to exchange cable experiences without someone trolling
> Let it be deleted, there is no point anyway


There. It's been said out loud. His only purpose here is to crap up the thread enough to get it closed. I'm no fan of this thread either, but this is a technique being used by people who are unable to discuss things fairly to try to get sound science threads locked. I think T 1000 deserves a thread ban to keep him from further sullying himself with us.

If this is allowed to continue like this, we should start dealing with these things ourselves like bfreedma suggested a week ago.


----------



## chef8489

Should be like when we suggest a dbx test or actual common sense and facts outside sound science and get banned from those threads and our posts get deleted. They don't like actual facts and ban us every time we use them. 

Unfortunately we actually try too hard in sound science to get them to try and see the light instead of just banning them.


----------



## T 1000

bigshot said:


> There. It's been said out loud. His only purpose here is to crap up the thread enough to get it closed. I'm no fan of this thread either, but this is a technique being used by people who are unable to discuss things fairly to try to get sound science threads locked. I think T 1000 deserves a thread ban to keep him from further sullying himself with us.
> 
> If this is allowed to continue like this, we should start dealing with these things ourselves like bfreedma suggested a week ago.


Shall I get dirty with you!?
You are a phenomenon


----------



## bigshot

chef8489 said:


> Unfortunately we actually try too hard in sound science to get them to try and see the light instead of just banning them.


I agree. You can lead the horse to water one time, two times, three times... but eventually you realize it's not going to drink.

This is my shot across the bow. I don't want to have to deal with this stuff myself, but if no one else will do it, I'm perfectly able to deal with people like this.


----------



## bigshot

T 1000 said:


> Shall I get dirty with you!?


Bring it on.


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

Who refuses to listen, me or you?
Instead, you need scientific proof for what you can determine by hearing
Although science would never confirm something like that without hearing tests


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 28, 2022)

...or maybe you're afraid that you hear  what science told you can't be heard


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Who refuses to listen, me or you?
> Instead, you need scientific proof for what you can determine by hearing
> Although science would never confirm something like that without hearing tests


No again you are ignoring everything said. We are saying you need to do proper hearing tests in the sound science thread or leave as you are trolling. Hearing tests are crucia,, but they have to be done properly. But again you ignore everything that has been said as typical of your kind. Now go troll somewhere else.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> No again you are ignoring everything said. We are saying you need to do proper hearing tests in the sound science thread or leave as you are trolling. Hearing tests are crucia,, but they have to be done properly. But again you ignore everything that has been said as typical of your kind. Now go troll somewhere else.


No, you ignore my every post in which I declare about sound benefits. I'm not fooling myself.
For example; I connected the power Tellurium Q Black to my DAC, and was disappointed because I didn't get anything with it compared to the previous cable, then I connected it to the amplifier, and voila, it was like I bought an amplifier three times more expensive.
I don't need blind tests


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> No, you ignore my every post in which I declare about sound benefits. I'm not fooling myself.
> For example; I connected the power Tellurium Q Black to my DAC, and was disappointed because I didn't get anything with it compared to the previous cable, then I connected it to the amplifier, and voila, it was like I bought an amplifier three times more expensive.
> I don't need blind tests


Then get out of the sound science forum and go with all the other people who refuse to do proper tests.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Then get out of the sound science forum and go with all the other people who refuse to do proper tests.


Sound science? You must be kidding


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Sound science? You must be kidding


Maybe you got lost.


----------



## T 1000

OK, that would be it.
I wish you all the best


----------



## bigshot

I would suggest giving the admins 24 hours to deal with this. Only answer him if you want to engage with him. I don't and I won't until 24 hours are up.


----------



## chef8489

bigshot said:


> I would suggest giving the admins 24 hours to deal with this. Only answer him if you want to engage with him. I don't and I won't until 24 hours are up.


Yes I agree. I should have stopped a long time ago. Hopefully they will clear it up.


----------



## bfreedma

Hopefully after Halloween, the trolls will return to the rest of the forum where science is irrelevant.

This one is a particularly low grade troll - why bother engaging?  It’s not as if his posts are coherent enough to need correcting.  Even the newest of newbs won’t be buying that level of obviously fact free posting.


----------



## redrol

bigshot said:


> What's the distance between the speaker and the listening position?


i suppose about 3-4 feet.


----------



## bigshot

A near field setup. That explains it.


----------



## chef8489

Lmao I just read his thread in the high end cables thread. He is claiming that it is a power cable that is making all these magical audio effects to his system. So the high end power cord did this
"
Ansuz Mainz P --- update
After a couple of days, the low frequencies gained weight and punch, overall the stage is large, transparent, and the abundance of sounds in it are very clear.
This power cable is entry-level, and more expensive than the Marantz HD DAC, but Marantz has completely transformed itself into a stellar device with it.
As I stated, this cabel is of an entry level, but it belongs in the company of the greatest."

This is a magical power cable if it can change the audio properties and you don't even have to change eq settings. Wow and there is absolutely no sound whatsoever anywhere near a power cable. These claims get more and more ridiculous. The delusions and ignorance of how sound and audio equipment actually works is astounding. 

I am in the wrong industry and really need to start making money off these crazies.


----------



## Leonarfd

The local hifi store is has a b sale, 20% of the items is expensive cables people regret buying😅. Up to 50k power cables, imagine buying a cable for the price of a good new car.


----------



## T 1000

Hey, scientists
good day
What are you discussing for 240 pages?
This scientific thread must be full of scientific evidence and psychological disorders that explain the mass illusion of us who claim to hear something that does not exist.
And some of us work for the cable industry and have a percentage of every cable sold to the members of this forum.
Still others, unable to bear the fact that they threw money at the cabal, try to deceive others.
I didn't count on the fact that scientists would read my posts from other threads and thus expose my fabrications
You should be grateful to me, you will eat my flesh for the next 1000 pages.


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> Hey, scientists
> good day
> What are you discussing for 240 pages?
> This scientific thread must be full of scientific evidence and psychological disorders that explain the mass illusion of us who claim to hear something that does not exist.
> ...


Then show me the measurements on how changing the cable changed the frequencies in the music. That is easy to measure. A simple null test would show the difference from before and after the cable switch as well as a frequency graph from before and after. Do it on video without any cuts so there is no messing around with eq.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Then show me the measurements on how changing the cable changed the frequencies in the music. That is easy to measure. A simple null test would show the difference from before and after the cable switch as well as a frequency graph from before and after. Do it on video without any cuts so there is no messing around with eq.


It's you! Hello
And when you come across my post about Furutech Nano Liquid, LOL


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> It's you! Hello
> And when you come across my post about Furutech Nano Liquid, LOL


Lmao of course you aren't willing because you can't as there is no difference. It's all in your head and a placebo effect and just used to sell cables or effect to justify the purchase of cables.


Mods please come in and clean up this thread from the trolls.


----------



## T 1000

chef8489 said:


> Lmao of course you aren't willing because you can't as there is no difference. It's all in your head and a placebo effect and just used to sell cables or effect to justify the purchase of cables.
> 
> 
> Mods please come in and clean up this thread from the trolls.


That is not polite of you, I thought that you would educate me, so that I would see my delusion, and move on purified from self-deception


----------



## chef8489

T 1000 said:


> That is not polite of you, I thought that you would educate me, so that I would see my delusion, and move on purified from self-deception


I'm not wasting my time on you as you are not interested in truth. You are only interested in trolling. You truthfully should be banned from this thread and the sound science section just as anyone who mentionens science or truth in a cable thread outside of the sound science section.


----------



## T 1000 (Oct 29, 2022)

chef8489 said:


> I'm not wasting my time on you as you are not interested in truth. You are only interested in trolling. You truthfully should be banned from this thread and the sound science section just as anyone who mentionens science or truth in a cable thread outside of the sound science section.


I'm sorry to leave you, it was a pleasure to hang out with people from science.
When I am in a dilemma about the usefulness of something, I will first consult with you on this thread, there are very few people who realistically approach this hobby, as you do.
I am an incurable case, but you could lead others out of delusion so that the light of scientific facts will spread to you on other threads.
DEATH BY CABLES


----------



## bfreedma

T 1000 said:


> Hey, scientists
> good day
> What are you discussing for 240 pages?
> This scientific thread must be full of scientific evidence and psychological disorders that explain the mass illusion of us who claim to hear something that does not exist.
> ...



Why so dramatic, Mr. October?  “Eat your flesh” -  how childish and desperate sounding.

Perhaps it’s a defense mechanism as the reality of the money you threw away on cables sinks in.


----------



## gregorio

T 1000 said:


> It is important that you investigate whether it has an effect or not, don't be guided by logic or other people's claims


Exactly, so why don’t you investigate whether it has an effect or not? Don’t be guided by what you think you’re perceiving or by other people’s claims, investigate the actual facts!


T 1000 said:


> I don't imagine my claims, I hear them, if I didn't hear them, I would be in the opposite camp, while the opponent is guided by logic without any real concern for truth.


This one sentence encapsulates the fundamental issues with so many audiophile claims:

Firstly, many audiophiles do not understand the fundamental difference between hearing and perception. You do not know what you hear because the sense of hearing does not occur in your ears, it occurs in your brain. Your brain creates a perception of hearing which differs significantly from what you’re actually hearing. If it didn’t and if perception were not different from hearing then you would not be able to perceive any soundstage (the stereo effect is an illusion) and music wouldn’t exist.

Secondly, your division into “camps” is false. I have heard differences in cables and in various other comparisons/situations where in fact no differences exist. So by your criteria I should be in the camp of “cable believer” but I’m not, precisely because I have real concern for the actual truth and not just what I think I’m perceiving. 


T 1000 said:


> Hey people, OK believe what you want, I am 100% sure of my claims, with how much certainty can you be convinced of what you claim (without hearing test)


Further to the above, your claims are based on what you are perceiving and therefore, you cannot be 100% sure they are correct. Personal perception dictates the claims that the earth is flat, that the planets/stars rotate around the earth, that most of the time your heart isn’t beating and numerous other examples.  Are you equally “100% sure” of these claims as well? Of course, no rational person believes these claims because science demonstrates/proves the truth, not our personal perceptions!

If you only want to go by your personal perceptions and don’t want to investigate the actual facts, then you are being hypocritical and you’re the one “_without any real concern for truth_”!

G


----------



## T 1000

Me again
you are somehow close to my heart


bfreedma said:


> Why so dramatic, Mr. October?  “Eat your flesh” -  how childish and desperate sounding.
> 
> Perhaps it’s a defense mechanism as the reality of the money you threw away on cables sinks in.


Mr. October?-if I write a post in November, will you call me Mr. October & November.
You scientists are such literalists, I didn't think you would really gnaw my bones, relax.


gregorio said:


> Exactly, so why don’t you investigate whether it has an effect or not? Don’t be guided by what you think you’re perceiving or by other people’s claims, investigate the actual facts!
> 
> This one sentence encapsulates the fundamental issues with so many audiophile claims:
> 
> ...


I will reply later when I have time to read, you have written an entire novel


----------



## T 1000

gregorio said:


> Exactly, so why don’t you investigate whether it has an effect or not? Don’t be guided by what you think you’re perceiving or by other people’s claims, investigate the actual facts!
> 
> This one sentence encapsulates the fundamental issues with so many audiophile claims:
> 
> ...


Yes, so when I see a street leading to the right, I should stop and ask myself if it really leads to the right or if my eyes are deceiving me, and when someone says good morning to me, I will only continue because it is possible that I am hallucinating.
Thank you for opening my eyes
I looked at science differently, but that's only because I was in a deep illusion.
Thanks again


----------



## bfreedma

T 1000 said:


> Me again
> you are somehow close to my heart
> 
> Mr. October?-if I write a post in November, will you call me Mr. October & November.
> ...



Of course no one took your absurd rant seriously.  Just highlighting your childish attempts to avoid a factual discussion.

If anyone needed evidence that the site wide mods treat Sound Science differently, the last week certainly provides it.


----------



## T 1000

Can any of you scientists tell me if the quality of the wire has an effect on the conductivity?
Even if I go into technical details about which I know very little, I will not go into such discussions in the future


----------

