# Do you really hear differences in cables?



## Langrath

If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever.

 Georg 

 .


----------



## Kirosia

Well in regards to the Senn HD580/600/650, the majority (if not all) notice differences, which appear to be consistent with each cable. Some cables are night and day, some slight. The better the setup, the better the increased perception. I'd consider it valid.


----------



## Blitzula

I too was skeptical, to say the least. But the difference in the HD-650 with the stock cable and the Zu cable was very strong.

 Yes, in some cases, the cable change makes a very significant difference.


----------



## rodbac

This isn't a place to argue about it, for sure, but the question isn't whether there's a difference between, say, a Zu and the stock cable... the question is whether there's an _improvement_.

 It's trivial to introduce coloration with a cable, for instance. The critics maintain that the stock cable will successfully deliver the full signal to the headphones, and that any difference in the sound with another cable is actually a *decrease* in the delivered signal, much the same as you might accomplish with an equalizer.

 The critics would say that you're just doing permanent equalization with the aftermarket cable, so is hardly worth the cost.

 This may be over- or understating both positions, but that's my impression.


----------



## markl

1. Depends on your system. If you have no amp and listen to mp3s on a budget soundcard, spending $150 on a *cable* is a total waste. If you have high-quality associated equipment, then yes, differences are definitely detectable.

 2. Depends on your ears and how you listen. IMO, detecting cable differences, source differences, amp differences is not some mystical thing only some "special" people can do, it's a simple skill that can be learned by anyone. Anyone willing to take the time to do careful comparisons can come to detect differences over time. People starting out who don't know what to listen for in the first place may get discouraged and claim aftermarket cables are bunk-- they're wrong though, but expensive cables just aren't for everyone. People who listen to headphones as background activity while doing other things will have a hard time hearing differences, they aren't on the level that's obvious like that. If you like to listen with eyes closed, focusing on the music, and doing nothing else, you'll get to know your system better as a baseline and be more sensitive to making relatively subtle changes/upgrades like cable swaps.


----------



## chia-pet

There is a big difference between a Zu Mobius and stock cable for the Senn hd650. i'm fairly new to the audio game, but noticed this difference immediately when i put in the zu mobius. I know this has become cliche, but "its like night and day." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I strongly prefer the Zu Mobius over the stock.


----------



## liamk

they are people on this forum (Headphoneus Supremus) who don't hear any difference between hd595 and 555 or hd580 and 600 but they hear a HUGE sound improvement after upgrading cables . . . personaly i think that's funny 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If there is some noticeable improvement than only with ultra supreme sources and ultra fine amps . . . and the difference will be subtile. Sometimes people have a dirty or even verdigris jack so after cable (jack) change they may realy hear a difference


----------



## Kirosia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *liamk* 
_they are people on this forum (Headphoneus Supremus) who don't hear any difference between hd595 and 555 or hd580 and 600 but they hear a HUGE sound improvement after upgrading cables . . . personaly i think that's funny 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If there is some noticeable improvement than only with ultra supreme sources and ultra fine amps . . . and the difference will be subtile. Sometimes people have a dirty or even verdigris jack so after cable (jack) change they may realy hear a difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not true neccesarily. Headphone Supremus is a fairly meaningless title. It's often just a matter of post spamming. There are probably many people (for example) with 2 posts who are wiser than those with 1000.

 But most people CAN hear a difference between those particular phones, even on sub-par equipment. It's just that your ears kinda have to be "trained" sometimes. People often expect a huge difference, when often it's very subtle. Sometimes the differences are noticeable right away. The cable upgrades for the HD family have rarely ever been considered hoaxes. It's similar to that of the Grado family and earpads. Most people don't believe that cutting a hole or changing the pad could make such a drastic difference; until they try it themselves.


----------



## rodbac

I'd like to say again not to confuse "difference" and "improvement"...


----------



## boodi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *liamk* 
_they are people on this forum (Headphoneus Supremus) who don't hear any difference between hd595 and 555 or hd580 and 600 but they hear a HUGE sound improvement after upgrading cables . . . personaly i think that's funny 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If there is some noticeable improvement than only with ultra supreme sources and ultra fine amps . . . and the difference will be subtile. Sometimes people have a dirty or even verdigris jack so after cable (jack) change they may realy hear a difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I disagree the most of things you wrote liamk

 To be brief : the zu , the cardas , the headphile cables ( to name some that i've used up to now ) make a very understandable ( if your ears can grab it ) change , this apply to whatever source you use them with.




 btw the Zu was so much of an overkill app. on one of my previous sources ( not the Shanling s100mkII ) that i questioned myself if there was anything broken in the cable .

 That is : 
 the Zu make so much the heapdhones open and exposed to the signal that they brought to ears many of the flaws of the source signal; this never happens to my ears when i plug hd650 - std. cable to other sources then the Shanling .

 On my ears the Zu and the Stock make the hd650 different cans.


----------



## Kirosia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I'd like to say again not to confuse "difference" and "improvement"..._

 

Improvement is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## bangraman

I don't think I'm getting as big a change with aftermarket cable from the Senn HD650 cables as I thought I was with the HD600 cable. However some of Senn's cables actually have characteristics measurable with very basic equipment... you don't need time domain measurement to figure out that the cables are genuinely mucking with the signal. 


 IC-wise, well... I have my severe doubts. I can't honestly speaking tell a difference worth a damn between my most expensive cable and cheapest cable (47x price differential between the two).


----------



## AuroraProject

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I'd like to say again not to confuse "difference" and "improvement"..._

 

Using the Zu with my HD-650's I noticed it recessed the forward midrange, and opened the highs up a lot. An improvement and a big difference.


----------



## hugz

i always hear of senn cable upgrades. are graddo/alessandro cables okay? why dont i hear of them being upgraded?


----------



## Jahn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hugz* 
_i always hear of senn cable upgrades. are graddo/alessandro cables okay? why dont i hear of them being upgraded?_

 

Actually, the big thing lately is the Grado/Alessandro recabling going on at headphile. The only thing stopping me right now is that my SR-200 is so dead stock perfect condition that I'd hate to mod it. Plus, no complaints about the music coming out of it so far!


----------



## PinkFloyd

I heard an improvement in my perception of the sound with rainbow foil so I'm sure "cable" can stir your placebo emotions ...... if it rocks your boat it's doing a good job..........


----------



## KR...

The difference between the stock 580/600 cable and ANY aftermarket cable is so big that anyone and I mean also non audiophile types can tell the different with little effort. Of course you never ask if this difference was worth the money or made them sound better


----------



## hugz

uh oh, not rainbow foil. MS-2s look a little harder to open up than senns. i wouldn't want to damage my headphones trying to recable them. it's reassuring that people do it though, so at least i know that if i somehow kill my cable i can re-cable it


----------



## Spankypoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_IC-wise, well... I have my severe doubts. I can't honestly speaking tell a difference worth a damn between my most expensive cable and cheapest cable (47x price differential between the two)._

 

It's refreshing to hear someone admit that. We'd all be a lot better off (and spend our money much more wisely) if people would admit that some of our upgrades are complete bunk - or at least don't make a difference which some (if not most) ears spot.

 Thanks for the post.


----------



## Kirosia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hugz* 
_uh oh, not rainbow foil. MS-2s look a little harder to open up than senns. i wouldn't want to damage my headphones trying to recable them. it's reassuring that people do it though, so at least i know that if i somehow kill my cable i can re-cable it_

 

You do know that the sennheisers' (580/600/650) cable can just be unplugged and replaced right? One reason why it's much easier to try different cables with them.


----------



## hugz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kirosia* 
_You do know that the sennheisers' (580/600/650) cable can just be unplugged and replaced right? One reason why it's much easier to try different cables with them._

 

yes, sorry i wasn't thinking when i said open up.. i just meant they were a lot easier than graddo, and even moreso metal graddo


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Improvement is in the eye of the beholder. 
 

 Quote:


 Using the Zu with my HD-650's I noticed it recessed the forward midrange, and opened the highs up a lot. An improvement and a big difference. 
 

Yeah, I should have qualified that a bit- by "improvement" I'm referring to whether 'more' of the signal coming out of the amp is delivered to the phones, not whether it's modified in a way you happen to like.

 Myself, I just want whatever my amp is generating to get to my phones cleanly and completely.

 If the stock cable from Sennheiser can't do that, I think they'd like to hear so.

 If the stock cable does do that and the phones sound shtty with it, I'll get better phones, not spend $200 on a cable to equalize the shortcomings out.

 One man's opinion only- if the cable does the right things to the sound for your ears, I'm completely cool with it.


----------



## Kirosia

You don't have to *preach* your opinion my friend. Not everyone cares about what you like or what you would do. People are free to decide as they wish, beit a purist path or one that of their own personal sonic bliss. I apologize if I appear rude.


----------



## Vedder323

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Yeah, I should have qualified that a bit- by "improvement" I'm referring to whether 'more' of the signal coming out of the amp is delivered to the phones, not whether it's modified in a way you happen to like.

 Myself, I just want whatever my amp is generating to get to my phones cleanly and completely.

 If the stock cable from Sennheiser can't do that, I think they'd like to hear so.

 If the stock cable does do that and the phones sound shtty with it, I'll get better phones, not spend $200 on a cable to equalize the shortcomings out.

 One man's opinion only- if the cable does the right things to the sound for your ears, I'm completely cool with it._

 

You are on the right track man, dont look back


----------



## Vedder323

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kirosia* 
_You don't have to *preach* your opinion my friend. Not everyone cares about what you like or what you would do. People are free to decide as they wish, beit a purist path or one that of their own personal sonic bliss. I apologize if I appear rude._

 


 How is he "preaching" his opinion?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You don't have to *preach* your opinion my friend. Not everyone cares about what you like or what you would do. People are free to decide as they wish, beit a purist path or one that of their own personal sonic bliss. I apologize if I appear rude. 
 

Just stating my thoughts on the subject at hand, kiro. I fully realize not everyone, if anyone, will give two squirts what I think.

 However, if the OP asks "Do you really hear differences in cables?", call me nuts but something tells me he's looking for more than yes or no. As such, I felt it was worth clarifying that I believed there are indeed differences between cables, but that what those differences were actually accomplishing for the end listener seem to get glossed over.

 Something good to remember, too, is that if you feel compelled to apologize, there's probably no "if" about it. No offense taken, though.


----------



## petery83

I was fairly skeptical of differences in cables until I was trying out jerry1130's HD650 with the Zu Mobius. I heard a difference between it and my own HD650s with the Oehlbach cable (mostly tighter bass and a bit more detail), even though I really didn't want to hear a difference (for obvious reasons 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## Kirosia

I know what you're saying, but there seem's to a slight "air" of it. Not on you opinion of cables, but of your sonic preferences. You seem compelled to let everyone know of your "purist" taste, with a slight hint of elitism. I guess preaching is the wrong word, but I can't think of the right one atm. More along the lines of "saying it from the rooftops for all to hear", but not in such a large sense.

 BTW, I'm, really not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just very vocal about stuff. I'm not rude either, I would say closer to stubborn.


----------



## KR...

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kirosia* 
_I know what you're saying, but there seem's to a slight "air" of it. Not on you opinion of cables, but of your sonic preferences. You seem compelled to let everyone know of your "purist" taste, with a slight hint of elitism. I guess preaching is the wrong word, but I can't think of the right one atm. More along the lines of "saying it from the rooftops for all to hear", but not in such a large sense._

 

you really are hellbent on getting banned huh?

 Please stop attacking fellow members and only speak of the topic of this thread.


----------



## aphex944

I heard a genuine, noticeable improvement from a cheap generic IC and a Radio Shack Gold Series IC. 

 I'm really interested in trying a "high quality" power cord to see if I can hear any difference and/or improvement. 

 The best times in audio are when you expect a change to make your system sound worse, only to be pleasantly surprised


----------



## Kirosia

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KR...* 
_you really are hellbent on getting banned huh?

 Please stop attacking fellow members and only speak of the topic of this thread._

 

I'm not trying to attack him. Whatever, I'm out of this thread. Please no one reply to my supposed "attacks". I guess I'm just being an ass. KR, please mind your own business. If I do get banned, it's from my own person idiocy. It's not your problem, after all, I am just a troll right? What's one more on the chopping block.

 Sorry rodbac, for bringing this nonesense up. I'll bow out gracefully.


----------



## AuroraProject

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Yeah, I should have qualified that a bit- by "improvement" I'm referring to whether 'more' of the signal coming out of the amp is delivered to the phones, not whether it's modified in a way you happen to like.

 Myself, I just want whatever my amp is generating to get to my phones cleanly and completely.

 If the stock cable from Sennheiser can't do that, I think they'd like to hear so.

 If the stock cable does do that and the phones sound shtty with it, I'll get better phones, not spend $200 on a cable to equalize the shortcomings out.

 One man's opinion only- if the cable does the right things to the sound for your ears, I'm completely cool with it._

 

Just curious, have you ever tried your Senns with some of the aftermarket cables, or heard someone elses?


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever.

 Georg 

 ._

 

Hmm. Not a single person has _yet_ stepped up to the plate with a valid double blind test or measurements demonstrating a change within known human detection thresholds.....

 If one of these cables _really_ changes the signal to the point that it is audible; this is one very poor(!) cable design.

 -Chris


----------



## hugz

slightly on mostly off topic, can anyone show me a link that displays the discrepancies between a normal blind test and a double blind test? i just figure if it's our holy grail of tests, we should be able to see proof of just how superior it is. 

 i'm not even trying to deny that they dont work.. rather i would have thought a single blind test would do the job perfect, so i was initially supprised to discover the need for a double blind. i just want to see how much better it is.

 also, if a blind is insufficient for reasons i wouldn't have previously ever thought of, maybe so is double. just sayin..


----------



## WmAx

Double-blind test reduces variables that can contaminate the test. For example, a subject may pick up on a tone of voice cues or visual cues/actions by the administrator, etc. Single blind is useful for preliminary testing -- but double-blind is needed if the results are too carry weight in this scope(indirect communication).

 -Chris

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hugz* 
_slightly on mostly off topic, can anyone show me a link that displays the discrepancies between a normal blind test and a double blind test? i just figure if it's our holy grail of tests, we should be able to see proof of just how superior it is. 

 i'm not even trying to deny that they dont work.. rather i would have thought a single blind test would do the job perfect, so i was initially supprised to discover the need for a double blind. i just want to see how much better it is.

 also, if a blind is insufficient for reasons i wouldn't have previously ever thought of, maybe so is double. just sayin.._


----------



## hugz

yeh i know what the theoretical difference is, i'm just wondering if anyone's ever done a test to prove that the difference exists

 eg: blind test one group of people, and double blind another and see if the results vary. maybe reverse blind test a third (make the administrator think he's giving the test subjects coke when they're really getting pepsi) and see if the results are the oposite to the standard blind

 just wondering..


----------



## crazyfrenchman27

Sure, why not? Apparently people can hear the difference between a "burned-in" headphone amplifier and a new headphone amplifier, although I have no idea what exactly you would hear differently after "burn-in" (wires and chips, people? come on...)

 Blind test? Pffffttt. Blind tests are for those crazy empiricists!

 Remember, people, audiophilia is nine parts superstition and one part science.

 Currently listening to: "Punk by the Book" by Anti-flag on my PX-100s.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever.

 Georg 

 ._


----------



## sacd lover

I have the stock cable, oehlbach cable and a Bayley Audio Diamondback cable. I have two pair of the 650's. After listening to the three cables for several months I have a clear preferance for the Diamondback cable. Compared to the stock cable, the diamondback's bass is more extended and punchy. The midrange is richer and smoother sounding and the treble is more refined with a bigger apparent soundscape. The oehlbach is quite good too but sounds more closed in through the treble with a noticeably smaller soundscape vs the diamonback. The oehlbach doesnt have the same rich tone of the diamonback either but the oehlbach does have excellent bass. The stock cable is ok but mutes the treble and the cable seems thin and grainy in comparison to the other two.There is a band of brightness in the upper mid/ lower treble thats the biggest flaw of the stock cable to my ears.

 When I had the gilmore v2-se with its two headphone outputs it was easy to compare the three cables. In fact, since the oehlbach is very similar to the stock cable build wise it was easy to twist the two 650's cables together so I couldnt tell which one was which(especially in the dark). Since each had the identical setup with their own headphone jack I could switch quickly or listen at my leisure. I never failed to pick out the stock cable. The oehlbach's bass response and smooth midrange were to evident. The dull top end and the bright upper mids/ lower treble were equally easy to spot with the stock cable. Because the diamondback is thicker I always know when I am using it. But again, it was easy to tell the diamondback because it more powerful sounding and easily the most enjoyable to me.

 I soon put the stock cables away for months, but I got them out recently just to see what I thought. I was quite suprised how dead the stock cable made the 650 sound. The sound was to dark but still had that annoying band of brightness that I didnt like from the beginning. The bass was still strong but slow sounding and lacking punch. I listened for a few days to see if I adjusted. I could still enjoy the 650's but the sound always seemed congested and made me painfully aware I had headphones on. That dark, dead top end especially wore on me. I regularly forget I have my headphones on with the other two cables and it spawned some long listening sessions once I got the diamonback back on that 2nd pair.

 Are the upgrade cables an improvement? They certainly are to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 They are no doubt atleast different. IMO, I would expect anyone that took the time to listen to them in my system would easily hear their differences. I would also expect both of the upgrade cables to be favored over the stock cable by most people. Finally, I would expect the diamondback to be the clear favorite.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Sorry rodbac, for bringing this nonesense up. I'll bow out gracefully. 
 

No need to on my account- I was serious when I said I took no offense. If anyone thinks I'm being preachy, or anything else you don't think I should be doing, by all means call me on it. I will not take it personally and if I feel it was unwarranted, I'll say so.

  Quote:


 Just curious, have you ever tried your Senns with some of the aftermarket cables, or heard someone elses? 
 

Absolutely not, and I hope I didn't imply that I had.

 I'm speaking purely theoretically and based on what I've read from others about their experiences (and the conclusions I drew from that). 

 In short, I have faith that Sennheiser knows enough about cabling their phones not to saddle their high-end stuff with a cable that's incapable of delivering the signal IN FULL. 

 However, I believe that those who claim to hear a difference aren't lying, AND I know that it's quite easy to alter the signal audibly with a cable. Therefore, I, personally, believe that aftermarket cables that make an audible difference are simply doing just that- altering the signal.

 Those who choose to buy the cables happen to like the alteration and choose to have the sound permanently altered, while I choose to leave that to my source, amplifier, and/or equalizer (in case anyone cares what I do, Kiro 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). I feel that way, if I ever get an amp where the sound isn't so ****** out of my 650s that I need a cable that "recesses the forward midrange", I won't have to switch cables again.

 I'll say again, though, that if someone prefers the way that cable alters the signal, by all means go for it. I have no problem with those who have the means pursuing their own perfection.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Hmm. Not a single person has yet stepped up to the plate with a valid double blind test or measurements demonstrating a change within known human detection thresholds.....

 -Chris_

 

One of the reasons why is because, in this particular case, the change is so obvious. 

 If one listened to the stock cable and then the Zu Mobius cable over time and couldn't tell the difference, I'd recommend a hearing test, something is amiss. You don't need bat or audiophile ears to hear this particular difference, it's substantial.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 One of the reasons why is because, in this particular case, the change is so obvious. 
 

I believe this is true- there's no point DBT'ing a Zu (et al) against a stock cable because there's UNDOUBTEDLY a difference- huge numbers of reasonable people have reported as much and, as I said, it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree.


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_In short, I have faith that Sennheiser knows enough about cabling their phones not to saddle their high-end stuff with a cable that's incapable of delivering the signal IN FULL. 

 However, I believe that those who claim to hear a difference aren't lying, AND I know that it's quite easy to alter the signal audibly with a cable. Therefore, I, personally, believe that aftermarket cables that make an audible difference are simply doing just that- altering the signal._

 

If cables are easily capable of altering the signal, who's to say the the stock cable doesn't alter the signal in a particular way, which the Senn people happened to like, but most others find inferior? Maybe the aftermarket cables actually alter the signal less? I'm just not following your reasoning as to why cables altering the signal implies that the stock cable is probably the cleanest.

 And no, I've not heard anything other than the stock cable, in case anyone's wondering.


----------



## Blitzula

"as I said, it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree."

 Well, it's kind of an interesting thing to discuss. Your implication is that the headphone with the stock cable shows the "true" signal. Maybe the Zu cable isn't messing with the signal, perhaps the stock cable is bad and the Zu shows a truer and more accurate signal. 

 For that matter, who knows if the headphones themselves show a true signal.

 So many variables, heh.


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I believe this is true- there's no point DBT'ing a Zu (et al) against a stock cable because there's UNDOUBTEDLY a difference- huge numbers of reasonable people have reported as much and, as I said, it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree._

 


 But they also (in most all cases) find the Zu a big improvement. Is the Zu messing with the signal or just processing it much better? Remember sennheiser is selling to a pricepoint. They could build a better cable but that raises the price of the headphone.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_One of the reasons why is because, in this particular case, the change is so obvious. 

 If one listened to the stock cable and then the Zu Mobius cable over time and couldn't tell the difference, I'd recommend a hearing test, something is amiss. You don't need bat or audiophile ears to hear this particular difference, it's substantial._

 

Obvious? Just like a stick is _obviously_ bent when it's half-submerged into water?

 Problem with observations is that's all they are...and in themself are not attempting to find the factual cause for the difference(s).

 What you hear has ALOT to do with how your brain processes the signal picked up by your ears -- psychological factors come into play. If this Zu cable is so craptacular(if it's really changing the signal audibly this is the only conclusion I can come to), then where are the measurements demonstrating such? It's not rational do occlude psychological effects unless proper testing demonstrates the Zu cable really is distorting the signal.....

 -Chris


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_there's UNDOUBTEDLY a difference- huge numbers of reasonable people have reported as much ._

 

Since when do large numbers=rightness? If so, why did the Earth persist to be round when nearly all believed it to be flat at one time? Could it be that collective belief on it's own has no bearing on facts?

 -Chris


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_ it's trivial to design a cable that audibly messes with the signal to some degree._

 

Trivial? Yes and no. One can insert a resistor, capacitor or inductor somewhere to bring about audible signal change.....

 However, now the actual cable has nothing to do with the actual signal modification........

 How do propose to 'trivially' induce large enough values of LCR values to change the signal audibly across a short distance cable? Use a 120AWG steel braid cable maybe to raise R to rediculous values? 

 -Chris


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Hmm. Not a single person has yet stepped up to the plate with a valid double blind test or measurements demonstrating a change within known human detection thresholds....._

 

Chris, you are valid in saying that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that cables make a significant audible difference. Since you seem to be familiar with psychological and statistical methods, why don't you design a blind test that can actually be carried out?

 I would be very interested to see this done but noone has been able to come up with a satisfactory test that is impartial to both schools of thought while creating a statistically significant outcome. There have been efforts before on Head-Fi to design such a test but each time the subject has been forgotten. I suggest that we make an attempt to design a valid experiment rather than carry on the classic objective vs. subjective argument. I am willing to help but my knowledge on the subject of experimental design and statistical analysis is limited.


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Since when do large numbers=rightness? If so, why did the Earth persist to be round when nearly all believed it to be flat at one time? Could it be that collective belief on it's own has no bearing on facts?

 -Chris_

 

Since when do we have to provide you proof of what we hear. I dont care why the sound is the way it is. I care what sounds best to me. My brain/ ear mechanism says the upgrade cables sound superior. 

 The question is do you hear differences in cables. After extensive listening I have no doubt I do personally. Go listen to them and you will understand. Then if you have to know why thats so you can investigate why. Is it possible be the large number of people who hear the improvements in the upgraded cables are hearing a superior cable? Sure it is.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Obvious? Just like a stick is obviously bent when it's half-submerged into water?

 Problem with observations is that's all they are...and in themself are not attempting to find the factual cause for the difference(s).

 What you hear has ALOT to do with how your brain processes the signal picked up by your ears -- psychological factors come into play. If this Zu cable is so craptacular(if it's really changing the signal audibly this is the only conclusion I can come to), then where are the measurements demonstrating such? It's not rational do occlude psychological effects unless proper testing demonstrates the Zu cable really is distorting the signal.....

 -Chris_

 

Let me put it this way...if I listen to a Metallica song on my Ipod, pause for as second, and then listen as the actual band plays the song for me, I don't need scientific tests to prove to me that there is a difference. 

 But hey, if you do, I'm not going to hold it against you.


----------



## WmAx

It takes significant time and effort as well as arrangment of suitable subjects and testing environment to produce a perceptual test that that begins to withstand scrutiny. In order to have motivation to begin such a project; I would have to be compelled to produce this test. What, specifically, should compel me to put together such a test? Thats a question that I have no answer for as of this date. As for the 'classic debate' -- what's the problem? It's not me making positive claims --- I'm just a lowly informer of logical process.

 -Chris

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Canman* 
_Chris, you are valid in saying that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that cables make a significant audible difference. Since you seem to be familiar with psychological and statistical methods, why don't you design a blind test that can actually be carried out?

 I would be very interested to see this done but noone has been able to come up with a satisfactory test that is impartial to both schools of thought while creating a statistically significant outcome. There have been efforts before on Head-Fi to design such a test but each time the subject has been forgotten. I suggest that we make an attempt to design a valid experiment rather than carry on the classic objective vs. subjective argument. I am willing to help but my knowledge on the subject of experimental design and statistical analysis is limited._


----------



## WmAx

I suspect, due to the known properties/limitations of headphone playback as well as the physical stimulus of full field sound presented to your body and the headphones on your ears, that you MUST be able to identify such a drastic combination of differences with little effort. But we're not addressing these types of differences or magnitudes of differences in cables....

 -Chris

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_Let me put it this way...if I listen to a Metallica song on my Ipod, pause for as second, and then listen as the actual band plays the song for me, I don't need scientific tests to prove to me that there is a difference. 

 But hey, if you do, I'm not going to hold it against you._


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 If cables are easily capable of altering the signal, who's to say the the stock cable doesn't alter the signal in a particular way, which the Senn people happened to like, but most others find inferior? 
 

You're completely right- could very well be the engineers at Sennheiser that decided they didn't want the full signal getting to the phones.

  Quote:


 Well, it's kind of an interesting thing to discuss. Your implication is that the headphone with the stock cable shows the "true" signal. Maybe the Zu cable isn't messing with the signal, perhaps the stock cable is bad and the Zu shows a truer and more accurate signal. 
 

Again, you're correct- but consider what you're implying.

  Quote:


 For that matter, who knows if the headphones themselves show a true signal. 
 

First, it's immaterial to the discussion. Second, there's NO WAY they show a signal at all- they merely produce a unique sound signature based on the signal they're fed.

  Quote:


 But they also (in most all cases) find the Zu a big improvement. Is the Zu messing with the signal or just processing it much better? Remember sennheiser is selling to a pricepoint. They could build a better cable but that raises the price of the headphone. 
 

I just want the signal that comes out of my amp (or whatever I have the cable connected to) to get to the headphones as intact and unaltered as possible. If the signal needs altering, I can do it much more flexibly and reliably with equipment designed to do it.

 However, maybe Sennheiser IS putting inferior cables on their phones. I know I'd be very interested in hearing what their engineers had to say on the subject.

 Maybe an EE around here can test the signal coming directly out of an amp and compare it to the signal at the end of a typical headphone cable and tell us, between an aftermarket and stock, which cable delivers the signal most intact.

  Quote:


 Since when do large numbers=rightness? If so, why did the Earth persist to be round when nearly all believed it to be flat at one time? Could it be that collective belief on it's own has no bearing on facts? 
 

For pete's sake- I was only stating that I have no reason, out of hand, to doubt what someone says. It's not hard to make a cable sound different, and a lot of people say cable Z sounds different. If you've listened to cable Z and don't think it sounds different, call their bluff. I haven't heard it but I know it's entirely possible, so I'm not going to do so.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I would be very interested to see this done but noone has been able to come up with a satisfactory test that is impartial to both schools of thought while creating a statistically significant outcome. There have been efforts before on Head-Fi to design such a test but each time the subject has been forgotten. I suggest that we make an attempt to design a valid experiment rather than carry on the classic objective vs. subjective argument. I am willing to help but my knowledge on the subject of experimental design and statistical analysis is limited. 
 

Well, the first thing Head-Fi needs to do is convince the person designing the 'experiment' that there is no choice in the matter of "DBT or not"... Use DBT or it will be pointless for anything but masturbation. Period.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 For pete's sake- I was only stating that I have no reason, out of hand, to doubt what someone says._

 

Ah, I understand now. I have the inverse position -- I have no reason to accept what someone says(this is especially true on very similar things which have been claimed for extended periods of time with no proofs offered) without supporting data that suggest that their views could be valid.

  Quote:


 If you've listened to cable Z and don't think it sounds different, call their bluff. 
 

What i've heard or not heard is irrelevant. What IF I heard a difference? How do I know this is a real difference of the cable or one that is based on psychological factors? The same could be true of the inverse.

  Quote:


 I haven't heard it but I know it's entirely possible, so I'm not going to do so. 
 

While it is possible for a cable to be so poor as to audibly effect the signal -- I need to see measurements confirming such distortions on something as simple as a cable. It's pretty tough to muck up the LCR parameters of a short length cable carrying audio frequencies to the point where it has audible consequences. Hidden components in the cable somewhere perhaps? Poor solder joints to the connectors? Those are the first questions I'de ask if one of these discussed cables was demonstrated to distort the signal to known humand detection thresholds.

 -Chris


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_I suspect, due to the known properties/limitations of headphone playback as well as the physical stimulus of full field sound presented to your body and the headphones on your ears, that you MUST be able to identify such a drastic combination of differences with little effort. But we're not addressing these types of differences or magnitudes of differences in cables....

 -Chris_

 

Well, you can suspect, conjecture, and theorize all you like, but you have no frame of reference. You haven't heard the combination. And you really have no basis for arguing that I or anyone else here is wrong about our conclusions until you do.

 I'm sensing a troll.....


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_You haven't heard the combination. And you really have no basis for arguing that I or anyone else here is wrong about our conclusions until you do.

 I'm sensing a troll....._

 

Quite the opposite: I have no basis to suspect the differences reported are real(real meaning true audible differnce as opposed to percieved difference). Why? That's already been covered.

 Troll? Maybe a troll to you is anyone who does not _go with the flow_?

 -Chris


----------



## Blitzula

A troll because you've already been told the difference is clear, yet you seem insistent that someone must prove to you something that they find clear before you believe it...despite never hearing the combination yourself!

 But I harken back to the Ipod/Metallica example. If you need graphs and charts to prove every difference to you, that's really your own issue.

 Listen to the combo and report back if you disagree, otherwise you are-again-just going on and on about scientific theory and proof without any frame of reference at all. How silly.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 While it is possible for a cable to be so poor as to audibly effect the signal -- I need to see measurements confirming such distortions on something as simple as a cable. It's pretty tough to muck up the LCR parameters of a short length cable carrying audio frequencies to the point where it has audible consequences. Hidden components in the cable somewhere perhaps? Poor solder joints to the connectors? Those are the first questions I'de ask if one of these discussed cables was demonstrated to distort the signal to known humand detection thresholds. 
 

I believe precisely as you do, wmax. It's SO easy to get the frequency of signal we're talking about across the distances we're talking about that a cable would have to purposefully be designed to alter that signal for there to be any audible difference. I misspoke by declaring how that might be done as trivial- I just meant that I believed it could be done if they intended their cable to sound different.

 Again- getting these signals to a pair of headphones across a few feet of wire is PAINFULLY easy to do, which is why I'm giving Sennheiser engineers the benefit of the doubt on their cord doing the job- they'd have to be a bunch of boobs to fck that up.

 If I work under that assumption, then, and also under the assumption that people aren't lying to me when they say the Zu makes a difference, I can only assume one of two things:

 (1) The Zu was designed to fck with the signal.

 (2) Those who claim to hear a difference are merely reporting the phenomenon (placebo) we'd expect from someone who just dropped 2 bills (or more) on a cable for their headphones and was testing it themselves.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_
 Listen to the combo and report back if you disagree, otherwise you are-again-just going on and on about scientific theory and proof without any frame of reference at all. How silly._

 

As I posted in a prior reply which you must have missed; what purpose does it serve for me to tell you what I percieve? I have no more control over my perceptions then any other human. If I hear something under non-controlled conditions, how does this prove anything?

 -Chris


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_As I posted in a prior reply which you must have missed; what purpose does it serve for me to tell you what I percieve? I have no more control over my perceptions then any other human. If I hear something under non-controlled conditions, how does this prove anything?

 -Chris_

 

Again, not everything in life has to be proven via double blind scientific experiment. I think I'll just use Ipod/Metallica to refute that part of your arguement, since you don't seem to trust your own perceptions, even in clear cases.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever.

 Georg 

 ._

 


 And how about all the recording equipment that use just ordinary wires? Can anyone name CDs recorded with "oxygen free copper" or boutique components? (Actually, I'd like to know. I'm aware that Valve Hearts records with tube equipment. http://www.valve-hearts.com/index.php)


 JF


----------



## rodbac

Our ears are notoriously inaccurate- people regularly fail ABX tests for THD levels of around 1% - sometimes up to 10% - and frequency response errors of over a dB. This is to say absolutely nothing of the psychological aspect of it all.

 He's right that 'taking a listen' would mean nothing.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_And how about all the recording equipment that use just ordinary wires? Can anyone name CDs recorded with "oxygen free copper" or boutique components? (Actually, I'd like to know. I'm aware that Valve Hearts records with tube equipment. http://www.valve-hearts.com/index.php)


 JF_

 

Mapleshade Records uses 'botique' wires for their recordings.

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/index.php

 -Chris


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Our ears are notoriously inaccurate- people regularly fail ABX tests for THD levels of around 1% - sometimes up to 10% - and frequency response errors of over a dB. This is to say absolutely nothing of the psychological aspect of it all.

 He's right that 'taking a listen' would mean nothing._

 

It would mean nothing if your standard for every conclusion in life was double blind or other diligent scientific testing. It depends on how significant the difference is.

 If you're arguing the difference between the cables is limited to the point where only a scientific approach could prove that there is indeed a difference, I respect that arguement.

 I don't respect that arguement coming from someone (the other poster) who's never listened to the combination, and insists on a lecturing tone about scientific theory and evidence. Not one bit.


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Our ears are notoriously inaccurate- people regularly fail ABX tests for THD levels of around 1% - sometimes up to 10% - and frequency response errors of over a dB. This is to say absolutely nothing of the psychological aspect of it all.

 He's right that 'taking a listen' would mean nothing._

 

Given that this whole thread was based on the question," do you hear a difference in cables", I would think listening would mean everything.

 Vision is a sense like hearing. If I compare whether Pam Anderson or Rosanne Barr is better looking wouldnt it help to see what I am looking at? Do I need to do a double blind test because they are both girls? Could psychological factors be influencing me to pick Pam when Rosanne is really the better looking one? How could I know Pam is better looking by trusting my own perception? 

 You guys need to experience reality and mix it with some common sense.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You guys need to experience reality and mix it with some common sense. 
 

Where did THAT come from? Are you under the impression that I (I won't speak for others) am out of touch with reality and lack common sense?

 You're ignoring the evolution of the discussion to justify a pointless recommendation.


----------



## tiberian

this thread is getting hilarious.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_
 I don't respect that arguement coming from someone (the other poster) who's never listened to the combination,_

 

You boldy claim something I've never disclosed one way or the other... interesting. Jumping the gun, per say?

  Quote:


 and insists on a lecturing tone about scientific theory and evidence. Not one bit. 
 

It's just not relevant what I have or have not heard. This does not negate the need for proper methodology to deduct the reason for _percieved_ difference(s). It seems like you come from the standpoint that I must think my perceptions are somehow infallible(more assumptions?) -- that if hear something that I will believe it can only be real -- but nothing could be farther from the truth. I've explained this already. Let me explain it simply: _MY PERCEPTIONS ARE NO MORE VALID THAN ANYONE ELSE'S PERCEPTIONS IN THIS CAPACITY OF COMPARISON THAT YOU PROPOSE._

 -Chris


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Where did THAT come from? Are you under the impression that I (I won't speak for others) am out of touch with reality and lack common sense?

 You're ignoring the evolution of the discussion to justify a pointless recommendation._

 

You ask the question that this whole thread is based on," do you hear a difference in cables" and then you agree that it will do no good for WmAx to hear the cables in question. Does that make any sense? 

 Where did pointless recommendation come from? I have heard the same headphones on exactly the same identical setup in real time, except for the different cables. Can you devise anything better that a single individual like myself can use for evaluation? 

 I HAVE ACTUALLY LISTENED. I can give input as I have experienced the reality of hearing the cables in question. If you have data that says cable A tests better and you hear cable B and it sounds better which would you buy? Whats more important than your own perception? You want data or proof that doesnt exist. Sometimes you have to make decisions based on the information at hand. Disbelieveing everything until its scientifically proven, especially while disregarding your own perception, is foolish IMO. I dont think you lack common sense but your not using it here.


----------



## rodbac

The point, SACD, was that we were discussing the psychological aspects of this ("hearing" what you expect/want to), at which point a person was advised to just go listen. For the discussion taking place at the time, if I didn't misread it (it's late), it was a pointless recommendation.

  Quote:


 I HAVE ACTUALLY LISTENED. I can give input as I have experienced the reality of hearing the cables in question. If you have data that says cable A tests better and you hear cable B and it sounds better which would you buy? Whats more important than your own perception? You want data or proof that doesnt exist. Sometimes you have to make decisions based on the information at hand. Disbelieveing everything until its scientifically proven, especially while disregarding your own perception, is foolish IMO. I dont think you lack common sense but your not using it here. 
 

The fact that you've actually listened means dick unless someone is just asking you whether you can hear a difference, which the OP did, but it wasn't the issue at hand a moment ago when you decided to take everyone to task.

 What's being pointed out in a roundabout way is something that we're all familiar with and I'm sure has been discussed on Head-Fi ad nauseum: psychological factors are VERY strong at altering your perception of sound. As such, depending on your ears is only a good way to determine your purchase if you don't care about reality.

 Disbelieving until it's scientifically proven is foolish? Are you aware there's NO OTHER WAY to "prove" something, especially in situations like this where the fallibility of your perception is well known and well documented?

 For heavens sake, sacd- I think I've been very accepting of the position of "if you like it, so be it", so please don't go all righteous with me.

 Also, if you want to accuse me of not employing common sense, don't write an entire paragraph advocating throwing the scientific method out the window, as it's the only way you're going to truly know whether it's the cable that's making your music sound better or your opinion of said cable.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* 
_Given that this whole thread was based on the question," do you hear a difference in cables", I would think listening would mean everything.

 Vision is a sense like hearing. If I compare whether Pam Anderson or Rosanne Barr is better looking wouldnt it help to see what I am looking at? Do I need to do a double blind test because they are both girls? Could psychological factors be influencing me to pick Pam when Rosanne is really the better looking one? How could I know Pam is better looking by trusting my own perception? _

 

My sentiments exactly. The people who have not heard the combination don't have any real insight except theoretical arguements that aren't as important as, you know, actually having heard said headphone and cable.


----------



## sacd lover

edit


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* 
_What psychological factors? What are they?_

 

Just _some_ factors that subconsciously effect influence: color, smell, name, and feel.


  Quote:


 What scientific method? I dont buy these quick change DBT tests for one. That experience is nothing like how we normlly listen to music. 
 

So you prefer tests where you DON'T get to instantly change the item(s)? Human auditory memory is short and rapidly degrades as additional seconds pass. You must be able to instantly switch between test subjects in order to retain as much memory as possible. To lengthen the switch time would reduce sensitivity of the test.

  Quote:


 . Do we even truely know what measurements are relevant to human hearing? No. I think DBT's are flawed. 
 

No one has shown an 'unknown' variable to exist under controlled conditions that is not already known to exist as far in as measurable audible parmaters such as THD vs. frequency, IMD, frequency response, etc.. Perhaps in the 60's or maybe 70's, your assumption may been true since true since useful measurement sets require digital data aquisition systems to be efficient which were not exactly widespread or affordable in that time period.

  Quote:


 My point here is there is this belief we can scientifically measure this phenomena when I dont think we can. We arent going to get hard data at this point in time with our current technlogy 
 

SHow me a credible peer-reviewed modern controlled(DBT) test that was not able to measure an audible difference, but listeners were able to differentiate.

  Quote:


 If most people find the upgrade cables better from hearing them why dont we look why they are perceived better instead of assuming they are not? 
 

Because anyone can claim anything or be decieved by their perception(s). If you want to establish this as fact as opposed to speculation -- you have to substantiate.


  Quote:


 Pick up your headphones and listen. If you like what you hear isnt that the point of this hobby? 
 

If this is your mantra, and all you care about, then why continue with your baseless accusations/replies?

 -Chris


----------



## Wmcmanus

I cannot always hear a difference in cables but can almost always see a difference. Sometimes at night it is harder to see a difference, and oddly enough, that's when I'm more likely to hear a difference. I tend to like the sounds of the ones that are hooked up at the time, at least as compared to the ones that are not. I know a lot of you won't believe this but it has been my experience after a lot of experimentation. For those of you who do not believe that cables make a difference, you should try it.


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* 
_What reality is there besides what I experience? Again if they say cable A is better and I hear B and it sounds better to me; I buy B. Do you need somebody to test everything to tell you what to think and do? This isnt a life and death matter here, we are talking about a headphone cable. If there were accurate measurements that correlated with our hearing I would seek them out and use them which leads to......_

 

Dude, why are you bashing WmAx, he's the one being reasonable here. 

 After all, we all know that people perceived the world as being flat. What reality was there besides that experience to them? It was obviously the truth, and all the flaws with the flat-world construction could obviously be chocked up to "unknown variables" and "flawed scientific testing," right? So, that means that people shouldn't have even bothered investigating, right? Because, well, those people were foolish, all they had to do was look out the window to see the true truth of the matter. 

 Just because you experience something a certain way does not make it the objective truth. Nor is experience the only important thing.

 Say I decided that I really thought X $1000 amp sounded significantly better than Y $300 amp. If I new that, in fact, the two sounded identical, and that my experience was placebo, I would be GLAD--I'd be saving $700! And, knowing that, I'd be able to enjoy the cheaper amp just as much.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* 
_Tube amps have higher distortion so they must sound worse. Not in my experiences; no correlation._

 

This has no bearing on our current discussion. Tube amps provide a specific type of coloration that many find pleasing. But--and you guessed right!--these differences are measurable! Who'd have thought!? Whether you like thar particular type of distortion, coloration, etc. is up to you. However, in the case of cables, it's being argued that there are no measurable differences. That all you're hearing is placebo.

 Oh, as an aside, I find it very amusing that you suggest that there is an unknown variable that we currently can't measure, a rather scientific idea, while simultaneously dismissing the role of science in this matter.


----------



## sacd lover

edit


----------



## SanS

all these cables manipulations - is a sort of magic (IMO)!
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=75156


----------



## sacd lover

edit


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_How do I know this is a real difference of the cable or one that is based on psychological factors?_

 

Well, that’s easy. In *Real Life* it is like that: 

 If the difference is subtle, it *could* be a psychological effect. 

 If the difference is big, then there *is* a difference.

 BTW, you never answered the topic’s question, just coming for thread crapping.


----------



## CRESCENDOPOWER

You can have an I.Q. of 140, work for N.A.S.A., be a surgeon, lawyer, or even have a doctorates degree, but if you don’t know what to listen for you are never going to hear differences between cables.
 Basically, it all comes down to experience, and whether, or not the equipment used is even good enough to replicate stereo imaging in the first place.
 It seems funny to me that most of the people in this thread that are so skeptical don’t list their equipment in their profile, or some of the ones that do list it have junk.


----------



## photographlondon

Maybe Robdac's initial view has some validity - the aftermarket cables add a different flavour/colour to the sound, whether that is an improvement is probably a matter of taste.

 Many people find the Senns dark and "veiled" (which I take to mean that the highs aren't as pronouced as many people like). Adding a cable that flavours the response towards more pronouced highs is one way of colouring the sound to individual taste.


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I'd like to say again not to confuse "difference" and "improvement"..._

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 The thread starter's question was only about "difference". My reply is: "Yes, I can hear the difference. And I believe anyone has the potential to do so."

 Regarding "improvement": That's obviously a matter of taste. _De gustibus non est disputandum._ That's why some prefer the Zu, others the Cardas or the Equinox. That's what all the reviews on head-fi are about. But logically they presume that differences are in fact audible, and they try to evaluate those differences.

 I prefer the Zu Cable Mobius for my HD 650s. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of head-fiers agrees with me that there is a difference between the Zu cable and the stock cable. It may not be to everybody's taste though.


----------



## boodi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_Thanks for the clarification.

 The thread starter's question was only about "difference". My reply is: "Yes, I can hear the difference. And I believe anyone has the potential to do so."

 Regarding "improvement": That's obviously a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum. That's why some prefer the Zu, others the Cardas or the Equinox. That's what all the reviews on head-fi are about. But logically they presume that differences are in fact audible, and they try to evaluate those differences.

 I prefer the Zu Cable Mobius for my HD 650s. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of head-fiers agrees with me that there is a difference between the Zu cable and the stock cable. It may not be to everybody's taste though._

 

I agree..

 Anyway, again
 I tried side by side the Headphile , the Cardas , the Zu and the SD cables .
 EVERY cable shows a character , being one more detailed , the other more tuneful, the other again a bit more veiled. This are not things one imagine , this are things that one person might need to get ears learned on how to notice suddenly, but everyone _with a normal hearing sense_ can notice in a short or longer period of let's call it adaptation.

 ex.
 Details are things you/you do not hear . You can pick up a 5 sec. orchestra work complex passage and re-run on the a and on the b setup how many time you want, till you know what your a setup is giving out and what your b setup is giving out detail wise. 
 Then you can define and tell the differences clearly.
 This is an easy task and is not an Imo; it is what happen when you want to test the opennes to details.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Trivial? Yes and no. One can insert a resistor, capacitor or inductor somewhere to bring about audible signal change.....

 However, now the actual cable has nothing to do with the actual signal modification........

 How do propose to 'trivially' induce large enough values of LCR values to change the signal audibly across a short distance cable? Use a 120AWG steel braid cable maybe to raise R to rediculous values? 

 -Chris_

 

Hi, Chris, interesting points. Would you accept to comment a bit on the Audiogeek Nitrogen interconnects, which, according to their designers, include exactly an additional element ("ProSink termination", IIRC)?


----------



## markl

It's so funny that it's always the people who have never tried a nice aftermarket cable that always insist they can't possibly do anything! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







 Also, there are cable differences/parameters/electrical properties that *are* currently measurable (i.e. inductance/capacitance). 



 There are also aspects of cables that aren't *yet* measurable (except by the most sensitive measuring device we have-- our ears). Before the invention of the thermometer, cable nay-sayers are the same people who would insist we have no way of knowing that it's getting colder despite the falling snow.



 Enough said.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tiberian* 
_this thread is getting hilarious.



_

 

Don't they all, when it comes to testing? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In a statistical sense, any test of differences that shows a significant difference is designed to do that, but only that. If a DBT shows a difference with a significance level of 0.05, then there's actually a strong probability that the difference is real (nineteen chances out of twenty, actually. It could still be experimental error). However routine statistical analysis says *nothing* about whether or not failure to find a significant difference in a DBT means that no difference is present. That requires an entirely different type of statistical analysis. This lapse in understanding experimental design is where all of these arguments fall apart.

 It gets even more complicated when you consider the capabilities and nature of perceptual systems. For example, inhibitory output from the brain can gate perceptual input. So, there may well be physical differences between stimuli that sensory receptors can detect, and yet don't trigger a response in the brain (and are therefore unheard). Not all real differences are even detected. Makes it complicated, no? You've got to understand a system before you can study it.


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Don't they all, when it comes to testing? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Chris, You've made your argument clear. The subjectivists who don't give a damn have also made themselves clear. 

 The true objectivist will seek to design an experiment in which to test a hypothesis. Do you think that you are going to change peoples' minds who believe that they can hear a difference between cables just because a realistic scientific test hasn't been designed to prove them right or wrong? 

 Further argument is a waste of words unless you are willing to take the initiniative to help organize and design an actual experiment to prove your hypothesis.


----------



## boodi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* 
_Given that this whole thread was based on the question," do you hear a difference in cables"_

 

.. lol 
 i hope this threads ( quite a multitudo of them, and quite always the same typology of debate ) will be over in ...let's say ..some decades ..but who can say ?..
 I'll check back in 2050 on head-fi if there's still so much a big fuss around senn aftermarket cables , one of a thing that lately has assumed exotics traits, and is one of the most debated too.. I would expect some other 5 aftm. cables to be retailed in the next 2 years too..


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_It's so funny that it's always the people who have never tried a nice aftermarket cable that always insist they can't possibly do anything! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sorry, I was just defending WmAx, since I felt he was being unjustly attacked for his opinion. Also, pointing out that tube amps are not really relavent to cables, and that science *does* have a place.

 Now, personally I do believe that there are differences in cables, despite having not heard the different cables. Why? Because otherwise it seems unlikely that people will generally come to the same concensus on silver vs copper cables, even without outsiders telling them those differences. Also, the fact that people perceive more than just 2 cables as all different from each other, and not always just varying degrees of "better" or "worse". 

 However, it would be interesting and useful to run tests to see to what extent the differences are actually placebo, and how much real, and what measurements most accurately reflect hearing differences.


----------



## boodi

I don't know why there's so much trust here in that many can sort opinions off a placebo effect rather then what thay are hearing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I mean , there are many that talk about placebo when it comes to aftermarket cables .. while for examples when changing and saying about tubes or opa in amps, a change that many times give out a _much_ lesser noticeable audio phenomena, there no one talks about placebo


----------



## boodi

Why ? anyone want to try to answer ?
 I figure out maybe it is only a matter of costs involved and emotions bringed by outraugeous costs for suppposed minimal upgrades that brings on debating so much about effectivness of aft. cables , while there's no need to talk on less expensive touch-upgrades ?

 I'm asking because , by the part of who tested and who's sure aftm. cables change the sound, this recurrent happening on head-fi could result somewhat unexplained.. if not weird..


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_A troll because you've already been told the difference is clear, yet you seem insistent that someone must prove to you something that they find clear before you believe it...despite never hearing the combination yourself!_

 

Not silly at all. THE question is: are the perceived differences real? Perhaps they are real. Perhaps they are not. What does it matter if WmAx has heard the combination or not? If he had, THE question would still remain unanswered.



 Regards,


 L.


----------



## Earwax

I am curious to know if anyone has ever taken the after-market cables into a lab to see if there are measuable differences? Of course there will still be arguments about whether those differences are audible, but at last it would be something of substance and easier to accomplish than a real DBT. 

 FWIW, I do hear a differnce between the Oehlbach cable and the stock 600 cable, however, it's not enough of a difference that really justifies the price to me. BUT - the cable seems to be of much sturdier construction than the original, so on that basis it may really be worth aquiring. 

 [edit: the Oehlbach has a darker, but cleaner (less grundge) sound than the original. I like the 'clean' part, but the 600 is already dark enough without a new cable] 

 I'll buy a different headphone before I pay $200 for a cable.


----------



## JaZZ

I really pity people who don't trust their ears. I do. But not unconditionally. Of course to err is human. But after all a basic trust in the own sensual capabilities is essential for surviving. I wonder how many people (such who share our common hobby, which has to do with sensuality in the first instance) are ready to delegate and subordinate their sensual capabilities to measuring technics. I'm tempted to recommend crutches to these people, because the locomotion on two legs, with its constant fight for balance, is a predominantly intuitive process and not so much under intellectual control. Therefore you need a healthy dose of trust in your own senses, primarily the equilibrium sense. 

 Can you imagine a violinist being dependent on an electronic device displaying the deviations of the currently played tone from the intended one? I think everybody would agree that this is an absurd scenario. Of course a musician can rely on his hearing and doesn't need confirmation in the form of measurements or blind tests -- although I know people who can't renounce their electronic tuning devices. Well, catching the right tone and hearing subtle differences in sound are not exactly the same, but the intuitive element is the same in both cases. 

 It's no accident that cables are the subject of such discussions between subjectivists and objectivists. I've never heard of speaker skeptics -- cable skeptics are more common. I guess the main reason is that cables seem to have no right to have a sonic characteristic -- from a physical point of view. Nobody claims for blind tests with speakers or headphones. I have no clue why sonic differences exist with cables (capacitance and inductance are not enough to explain them), but I don't use physics to dictate me which perceived differences are real and which are not. As I see it, the clue is not so much the more subtle differences cables make, but rather the projected impossibility that they can produce any sonic differences. I for one don't differentiate between sound transducers, electronics and cables when it comes to audition hi-fi gear. Sure, the differences become more subtle in the mentioned order, but they're not more or less valid. 

 With the HD 650 the differences between stock cable, Oehlbach, Headphile, Silver Dragon, Zu Mobius and my own magnet-wire design are very clear to my ears. And I'm sure every headphone listener familiar with the HD 650 will notice them. No blind test is necessary. As to better or worse: That's a matter of taste and synergy in this case. It's rather impossible to rate a cable's neutrality. But there seems to be almost unanimity about the Zu Mobius providing clearly more accurate sound and higher transparency than the stock cable. Well, why should a relatively inexpensive cable be more true to the signal, just because the manufacturer has decided to sell it in a package together with the headphone? According to such a philosophy all electronic devices sound best in stock form, and the various modifications do nothing than add euphonic colorations...


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Canman* 
_
 Further argument is a waste of words unless you are willing to take the initiniative to help organize and design an actual experiment to prove your hypothesis._

 

First, as Hirsch has alluded, you can not prove a negative in these tests, at least not one that is universally applicable due to the potential variables.

 Second, a very important bit of information that Hirsch chose to leave out of his response: you don't place the burden of proof into a negative position. That in itself defies scientific reason, since all I'm doing is questioning the claims being made that have not had proofs presented. If I'm to take your advice, then I am to assume unmeasurable differences exist(ignoring the fact that this claim has never been substantiated) when even though no such thing has been observed in a controlled situation....

 I am sorry to burst your bubble, but this is akin to requiring someone to prove that John Edwards is not speaking to the dead. He is the real deal until a negative is proven? Step back for a moment and observe the logical absurdity of placing burden into this order...


 -Chris


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *boodi* 
_there are many that talk about placebo when it comes to aftermarket cables .. while for examples when changing and saying about tubes or opa in amps, a change that many times give out a much lesser noticeable audio phenomena, there no one talks about placebo_

 

This is probably because there are measurable differences that have been shown to affect the sound audibly in those cases. Even if they measure *similarly*, two different op amps or tubes will sound different.

 For cables, on the other hand, no one has shown what differences between them could possibly result in audible differences.


----------



## JohnFerrier

JaZZ,

 Can you hear differences in the wiring used for recording? Any specific CDs recorded with "good" sounding wires? 


 JF


----------



## Jahn

BTW folks I guarantee you that there is a big difference between a starquad cable and my audioquest ones. compared to the diamondbacks, the starquad seemed cottony and congested. it wasn't a small diff. it took some big mods in my amp to reveal shortcomings of the cable going from my source to the amp, but it caught it. even then, lan said my audioquests seemed a bit wonky in the mids. i haven't heard it tho, since i don't have better cables to compare them to here at home. so i'll just be happy knowing that i'm putting together the best combo i have here and i'm liking it.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_Not silly at all. THE question is: are the perceived differences real? Perhaps they are real. Perhaps they are not. What does it matter if WmAx has heard the combination or not? If he had, THE question would still remain unanswered.



 Regards,


 L._

 

Yes, I understood what he was arguing. The original poster asked if one heard a difference in cables. The answer is yes, at least with the HD-650/Zu Mobious.

 I don't need a scientific experiment to prove that a gunshot is louder than a clap. I'm more practical than that. Someone who doesn't believe that there is a difference in cable sound (or will only accept scientific evidence before believing it) AND thinks that never having heard the combination is irrelavant is making a silly arguement.

 No new arguements in this thread for awhile. I suppose those who are willing to listen to the combination can decide for themselves. The "objectivists" can wait until someone funds a study that meets their burden of proof.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 For cables, on the other hand, no one has shown what differences between them could possibly result in audible differences. 
 

 Capacitance. Inductance. Measureable.

 Not the only factors that can ultimately be measured, but it's not like there's been some huge multi-billion dollar scientific project to crack the mystery of why different cables sound different, like ther was to split the atom.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Can you hear differences in the wiring used for recording?_

 

I'm rather sure I can hear the characteristics of the whole equipment in the recording, thus cables included. But of course I can't differentiate between recordings based on audiophile cabling and others. There are much too many factors in play. See it this way: You have to deal with the given recording anyway, bad cable influence or not. But you can do your best not to degrade the signal any further, by using the best cable you have. On the other hand, it's my experience that every connection between two interfaces counts, independent how short the path. So going for synergy within my system has turned out to be a working strategy. 

 However, I'm not pretending to know how cable sound works. And if I weren't familiar with the subject from personal experience, I would rather think it's voodoo myself.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Hi JaZZ,

 To my understanding, microphones and speakers/headphones color the sound most. I'd have to put wires close to the least influential (but still ahead of case design).


 JF


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 (2) Those who claim to hear a difference are merely reporting the phenomenon (placebo) we'd expect from someone who just dropped 2 bills (or more) on a cable for their headphones and was testing it themselves._

 

LOL! There are people in here using systems costing tens of thousands of dollars. A $200 cable that didn't function too well would either be a very minor irritation or laughable.

 Nope, the psychological problem you address is not common to all humans..





 ...and just my 2 cents...: if you can't hear a _clearly_ audible difference between an HD 650 with Zu attached and one with a stock cable attached then you either need a new source/amp or a doctor.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_To my understanding, microphones and speakers/headphones color the sound most. I'd have to put wires close to the least influential (but still ahead of case design)._

 

Hey, we agree! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's just that I think it's worth to pay attention to them nonetheless. As subtle as the differences are, they can be decisive.


----------



## rodbac

I'll try to make this my last post on this:

 There are a number of ways to make a cable sound different. However, it's extremely easy to get a simple audio signal intact across 10 feet of wire- EXTREMELY EASY. Therefore, any audible differences between two wires are either on purpose or a result of extremely bad design.

 That leaves us with:

 Sennheiser engineers (who designed their cable, with the word "designed" being complete overkill considering a monkey could do it) either (a) have no fcking idea what they're doing and somehow managed to fck up the simplest link in their system, or (b) they purposefully designed their cable to alter the signal.

 I find (a) unlikely because this would require a level of incompetence on their part that would be tough to fathom, and (b) unlikely because there are a thousand variables they could change in the design of the phones themselves that would alter the sound more reliably, as well as the fact that I bet they like the way their high-end phones sound.

 If anyone thinks that either (a) or (b) are likely, that's fair, and we can argue about that (although, it might be pointless- I have no idea how truly competent Senn. engineers are, nor do I know if they might actually prefer to purposefully alter the sound of their phones with something nuts like the cable).

 Also, if anyone wants to argue about the premise that it's no technological marvel to get the signal to the headphones completely intact, we can do so.

 SO, assuming the above, I'm left with two plausible possibilities:

 (1) There is no sonic difference between a stock Senn cable and an aftermarket cable, and the differences noted are because the person claiming to hear it isn't 'testing' it in a way that would eliminate the well-documented psychosomatic effects.

 (2) There is a sonic difference between the cables, and the aftermarket cable manufacturer purposefully designed it to do something to the signal that makes it sound better to most ears ('smooths the highs' or whatever).

 And a couple of possiblities that aren't nearly as likely:

 (1) Sennheiser doesn't know how to design a cable.

 (2) Sennnheiser purposefully designed their cable to mess with the signal.

 It should be obvious that none of this requires me to have heard the cable.

 Also note that the second "plausible" possibility is NOT an indictment of those claiming to hear the difference- if you like the way it sounds, fine. I'd just prefer that we're clear on what's probably happening, and nobody is tossing around accusations that the Senn cable isn't delivering the proper signal or something else equally as unlikely.


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_[size=xx-small]First, as Hirsch has alluded, you can not prove a negative in these tests, at least not one that is universally applicable due to the potential variables.

 Second, a very important bit of information that Hirsch chose to leave out of his response: you don't place the burden of proof into a negative position. That in itself defies scientific reason, since all I'm doing is questioning the claims being made that have not had proofs presented. If I'm to take your advice, then I am to assume unmeasurable differences exist(ignoring the fact that this claim has never been substantiated) when even though no such thing has been observed in a controlled situation....

 I am sorry to burst your bubble, but this is akin to requiring someone to prove that John Edwards is not speaking to the dead. He is the real deal until a negative is proven? Step back for a moment and observe the logical absurdity of placing burden into this order...-Chris[/size]_

 

Chris, You are twisting my argument. I never suggested to place the burden of proof in the negative position. Indeed, as Hirsch suggested, this requires a different type of statistical analysis than the one that YOU originally suggested. 

 It is fully possible that unmeasurable differences exist in cable design. You have presented your argument that there is no evidence that this is in fact the case. In this aspect you are correct. I urge you to use your scientific knowledge to assist the community in helping to work toward some sort of verifiable experiment instead of continually nagging a subjectively based group of people that there is no evidence to their claims.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 (who designed their cable, with the word "designed" being complete overkill considering a monkey could do it) either (a) have no fcking idea what they're doing and somehow managed to fck up the simplest link in their system, or (b) they purposefully designed their cable to alter the signal. 
 

 It was not "designed" by Senn. They don't make the cable, I can virtually guarantee it. They put it out to contract and their requirements are not: "build me the greatest, most high-quality, technologically advanced cable in the universe". Their requirement spec no doubt read: "make me a cable that I can buy in bulk from you at $.02 a piece, so we can hit our target price for the headphones and keep costs down and margins high." The winning bidder was not the company with the best, most kick-*ss cable, but the one could make it cheapest and in bulk to maximize their margins and still make it worth their while in doing business with Senn.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_...(2) There is a sonic difference between the cables, and the aftermarket cable manufacturer purposefully designed it to do something to the signal that makes it sound better to most ears ('smooths the highs' or whatever).

 And a couple of possiblities that aren't nearly as likely:

 (1) Sennheiser doesn't know how to design a cable.

 (2) Sennnheiser purposefully designed their cable to mess with the signal.

 It should be obvious that none of this requires me to have heard the cable._

 

Outch! Why are you so obsessed with the idea that if there is an audible difference at all between stock and aftermarket cable, it's the aftermarket cable which does something wrong? After all Sennheiser isn't specialized in manufacturing cables, and i strongly suspect their cables are manufactured by some subcontractor. So how about the possiblity that Zu Cable knows how to manufacture a good sounding cable when cost is a minor object?

 No, you dont' have to have heard the cables in question to say nothing of worth to the subject except for reminding of the placebo effect.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 It is fully possible that unmeasurable differences exist in cable design. 
 

Not as far as our ears are concerned. I know many of us _want_ this to be true, but it just isn't.

 If two cables are measured to have identical waveforms (within limits), any differences reliably noted are NOT due to any sonic difference, but only to psychological effects. Period.

 Do you honestly believe that there are principles that somehow affect what is heard, while not affecting the readings shown on ANY test instrument ever connected to an audio chain? Cmon.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Do you honestly believe that there are principles that somehow affect what is heard, while not affecting the readings shown on ANY test instrument ever connected to an audio chain? Cmon._

 

Can I hear differences with cables with a sine wave as test tone? Certainly not. The fact that a measuring device is unable to measure any significant difference with a sine wave doesn't prove that there _is_ nothing to be measured. Unfortunately measuring devices don't understand music.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 It was not "designed" by Senn. They don't make the cable, I can virtually guarantee it. They put it out to contract and their requirements are not: "build me the greatest, most high-quality, technologically advanced cable in the universe". Their requirement spec no doubt read: "make me a cable that I can buy in bulk from you at $.02 a piece, so we can hit our target price for the headphones and keep costs down and margins high." The winning bidder was not the company with the best, most kick-*ss cable, but the one could make it cheapest and in bulk to maximize their margins and still make it worth their while in doing business with Senn. 
 

OK, then- the contractor would have to be a bunch of boobs AND Sennheiser would have to be too stupid to test them.

  Quote:


 Outch! Why are you so obsessed with the idea that if there is an audible difference at all between stock and aftermarket cable, it's the aftermarket cable which does something wrong? 
 

Dude, I said it as clearly as I know how.

  Quote:


 After all Sennheiser isn't specialized in manufacturing cables... blah 
 

Pardon my yelling, but THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE. It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact!

  Quote:


 No, you dont' have to have heard the cables in question to say nothing of worth to the subject except for reminding of the placebo effect. 
 

If that's all you think I've brought to the table, I apologize for wasting your time. I hope others might have gleaned something from my posts besides that, though.


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_[size=xx-small]Not as far as our ears are concerned. I know many of us want this to be true, but it just isn't.

 If two cables are measured to have identical waveforms (within limits), any differences reliably noted are NOT due to any sonic difference, but only to psychological effects. Period.

 Do you honestly believe that there are principles that somehow affect what is heard, while not affecting the readings shown on ANY test instrument ever connected to an audio chain? Cmon[/size]._

 

Lets be rational here. Are you suggesting that scientifically we have taken measurement of the audio signal as far as it can go? That no further advancements in understanding can be achieved? You could make a strong argument that the claim isn't likely, but to suggest that our methods of understanding an audio signal is complete is not a rational thought and is against any form of sensible argument.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact!_

 

Really? Can you give us some more insight into your corresponding studies?


----------



## rodbac

No studies needed. Borrowed from one of the 200 discussions I've had on the subject:

 "Transmission line effects are a function of the wavelength of the signals being transmitted. Electrically, a long line is defined as one in which the length equals, or exceeds, the shortest wavelength of the transmitted signal. For 20 kHz audio signals, 6.5 miles is a long line; for 1 kHz tones, 130 miles is a long line. From a transmission line viewpoint, telephone engineers deal with long lines; sound contractors (and home listeners) do not.

 The resistance of the line is not important because it is completely and utterly swamped by the load resistance, that being many tens of thousands of times greater.

 Capacitance IS a concern in pro sound applications where you are dealing with comparatively long lines (several hundred feet) and, possibly, output stages of relatively high impedance. Neither is the case in the home; although it's theoretically true that the cable capacitance + output impedance will conspire to roll off your highs, in practice (in the home) the effects are WAY above the audible band."

 No offense, but if you need more, go talk to an EE (he'll find the conversation laughable) or do some reading. It isn't rocket science.

 Anyway, I'm not trying to be an *sshole. I've said my piece and that's all I can do. If you like them, buy them. Out.


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_No offense, but if you need more, go talk to an EE (he'll find the conversation laughable) or do some reading. It isn't rocket science._

 

There are many electrical engineers who believe that audio cables make a difference. One of them on this board is a good friend of mine. There happen to be many electrical engineers working in the field of high end audio. 

 Again, your arguments are irrational.


----------



## JaZZ

_rodbac..._

 ...no offense meant, but this is one opinion of many, one on the line of a traditionalist/fundamentalist electrician that accidentally fits you own perspective -- and makes it unnecessary to listen for yourself. But one time it is the time to accept that objects heavier than air can fly.


----------



## JohnFerrier

It just seems like an analogy is someone who spends the money to wire their house with fiber-optics, yet has copper going to the house. Just because you have fiber in your house doesn't mean you can go faster than the copper going to the house... 

 And I think the burden of proof lies on the people that believe Loch Ness exists...






 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

This whole business is an illusion. Again, if the illusion isn't good enough, it's because of the end points...microphones and speakers (headphones). The electronics are completely an intermediate form of audio...


 JF


----------



## boodi

Quote:


 It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact! 
 

this seems like one of the best joke I've heard , if you'd like to explain what means "intact" 

 Do you think there would be a cable world market and research for doing something like thousands of different cables for audio trasmission.
 btw..from music recording and music reproduction it's quite all about getting the signal intact from point a to point b

 If it's stupid easy to do and you'd like to enlight me


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_And I think the burden of proof lies on the people that believe Loch Ness exists..._

 

Oh man, this argument is sinking like a concrete block in water.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *boodi* 
_Do you think there would be a cable world market and research for doing something like thousands of different cables for audio trasmission._

 

Of course, if people are willing to spend their hard earned money on cables... I'd like to know why it doesn't seem like these product are targeted to the recording industry (with professionals that know the business of audio).

 The problem I really have is that these replacement cables can cost more than the cost of headphones. I can't help but wonder what Sennheiser engineers must think...


 JF


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_It's stupid-easy to get the signal to the phones intact!_

 

Is this valid for interconnects as well?


----------



## Jahn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_Is this valid for interconnects as well?_

 

I would say just as valid. Amp to Cans. Or Source to Amp. Either way you are dealing with connectors and a wire. How good are the connectors? How good is the wire? Does it make any difference? I would think a discussion of headphone cables would also apply to interconnects.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_If you exchange you original cable from for example HD580. Are you really sure that you hear the difference? Has anybody really made a real blind test? I am an unbeliever.

 Georg 

 ._

 

Langrath,

 Did any of this help?


 JF


----------



## boodi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Of course, if people are willing to spend their hard earned money on cables... I'd like to know why it doesn't seem like these product are targeted to the recording industry (with professionals that know the business of audio).

 The problem I really have is that these replacement cables can cost more than the cost of headphones. I can't help but wonder what Sennheiser engineers must think...


 JF_

 

..the fact is that the audiophile "passion" is quite addictive and obs. too , this justify some large expenses by consumers and therefore also the speculation on cables..
 Give also hi-fi headphones is much more affordable that regular size hifi, gives that head.fi exists blablabllaand bla..

 ( btw I assume you dont' make use of aftermarket cables after yuor last post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







)


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_And I think the burden of proof lies on the people that believe Loch Ness exists..._

 

No, we don't have to prove anything. This forum is made for pretending, not proving. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And BTW, Loch Ness does exist.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *boodi* 
_...( btw I assume you dont' make use of aftermarket cables after yuor last post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







)_

 

I wired my amplifier with silver wire; however, I have not seen any evidence to lead me to believe that the stock cables are in anyway inadequate for the job. Look, the differences between cables will be small changes in resistance and capacitance. Much larger resistors and capacitors are already used in the amplifier. I don't think that our ears are capable of detecting very small changes in electrical parameter in cables. If a person has already chosen headphones and a decent source, spend your money on CDs (and support your favorite artists).


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_And BTW, Loch Ness does exist. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Of course...


 JF


----------



## Earwax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_ And BTW, Loch Ness does exist. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

I'm sure Nessie will be relieved to hear that!


----------



## JaZZ

The final proof:


----------



## cecirdr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_The final proof:_

 



*Bwhahahaha!*


----------



## IstariAsuka

Just a quick question for you guys, maybe I'm being stupid, but it's worth a shot.

 With all this talk about how the Zu Mobius "removes the veil" and "opens up the mids" and all, it seems to me that a Senn outfitted with an aftermarket cable would measure differently on a FR curve than one with the stock cable, right? Because these described differences are the same types of differences seen between different headphones in a basic sense by looking at FR curves. 

 So, if I'm right and not just being completely stupid, why don't we ask Headroom or someone like that to make FR curves for us? Same setup, same headphone, just changing the cables. I know they have the cardas, at least, and I'd think one of them would have to have some others.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_Just a quick question for you guys, maybe I'm being stupid, but it's worth a shot.

 With all this talk about how the Zu Mobius "removes the veil" and "opens up the mids" and all, it seems to me that a Senn outfitted with an aftermarket cable would measure differently on a FR curve than one with the stock cable, right? Because these described differences are the same types of differences seen between different headphones in a basic sense by looking at FR curves. 

 So, if I'm right and not just being completely stupid, why don't we ask Headroom or someone like that to make FR curves for us? Same setup, same headphone, just changing the cables. I know they have the cardas, at least, and I'd think one of them would have to have some others._

 

That is interesting. My guess is that the difference between cable X and cable Y, if measureable, will be much less than the variation between the left and right headphone transducer. Now, how many people can tell that the left and right channels of their headphone transducer don't have exactly the same response curve?

 To illustrate, this represents the difference in frequency response for the left and right channels of a pair of HD 650s.




 Does anyone hear this kind of difference? Recall any posts about differences between left and right channels (unless the headphone is broken)? Cable variation, if measureable, will be *much* less than that.


 JF


----------



## sacd lover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_Just a quick question for you guys, maybe I'm being stupid, but it's worth a shot.

 With all this talk about how the Zu Mobius "removes the veil" and "opens up the mids" and all, it seems to me that a Senn outfitted with an aftermarket cable would measure differently on a FR curve than one with the stock cable, right? Because these described differences are the same types of differences seen between different headphones in a basic sense by looking at FR curves. 

 So, if I'm right and not just being completely stupid, why don't we ask Headroom or someone like that to make FR curves for us? Same setup, same headphone, just changing the cables. I know they have the cardas, at least, and I'd think one of them would have to have some others._

 

I doubt they would measure differently at all. This is just like doing a tube switch. A rca 6sn7gt gray glass tube is much different sounding than a hytron 6sn7gt tall bottle. The sound is clearly different the tubes being almost opposites of one another. If you measure the amp it still measures the same. I have asked Mikhail at singlepower about this specifically. Changing tubes will not alter the amps measurements. Why this is so is a mystery.

 This is one of the main reasons I so oppose this measurement mentality that will not accept that measurements cant convey every difference our ears can perceive. There is more to sound measurement than distortion measurements and frequency response deviations. We just havent discovered what they are and how to measure them yet. It certainly would be interesting to see if there were any measureable changes no matter how small. I have done this same test out of a gilmore v2-se using two senn 650's, three different senn cables and my ears perceive clear differences. How they would measure is anyones guess.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sacd lover* 
_I doubt they would measure differently at all. This is just like doing a tube switch. A rca 6sn7gt gray glass tube is much different sounding than a hytron 6sn7gt tall bottle. The sound is clearly different the tubes being almost opposites of one another. If you measure the amp it still measures the same. I have asked Mikhail at singlepower about this specifically. Changing tubes will not alter the amps measurements. Why this is so is a mystery.

 This is one of the main reasons I so oppose this measurement mentality that will not accept that measurements cant convey every difference our ears can perceive. There is more to sound measurement than distortion measurements and frequency response deviations. We just havent discovered what they are and how to measure them yet. It certainly would be interesting to see if there were any measureable changes no matter how small. I have done this same test out of a gilmore v2-se using two senn 650's, three different senn cables and my ears perceive clear differences. How they would measure is anyones guess._

 

We got a man to the moon and back alive following laws of physics not magic wires and hokus pokus...







 JF


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 There is more to sound measurement than distortion measurements and frequency response deviations. 
 

We're not talking about "sound", we're talking about the signal produced at the amp getting from one end of the wire to the other. It's electricity, not sound, and if anyone thinks that process isn't very, *VERY* well understood, you're dead wrong.

 If anyone thinks it's a tall order (that you can't just slap a stock cable on there and expect it to do the trick) keeping it identical (for all practical purposes) from one end to the other, you're dead wrong.

 Rather than just looking at the reality of the situation, we keep hearing the anthem of the credulous: "There's so much that we don't understand!!!!11"

 Not about this, there isn't...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_We got a man to the moon and back alive following laws of physics not magic wires and hokus pokus..._

 

Not to forget magic tubes, magic transistors, magic capacitors... You really mean we (the human race) are at a point where we know everything that can be known, and the proof for this is the visit on the moon? SACD lover is absolutely right. I also don't expect different cables to measure significantly different, just as little as different amps with obviously different sonic characteristics. I know that awes certain people, whereas I'm just fascinated. I'm rather sure though that it's not hokus pokus, but within the laws of physics.


----------



## tortie

I have tried the headphone replacement cables and silver ICs. When I initially got them, I thought I can hear a difference between the standard-issue cables and the audiophile cables. After months of using them, I tried replacing them with my old standard cables and with MY ears and MY equipment, I cant tell the difference between the two. I think I can sometimes pick up subtle differences between the cables, but I will surely lose a bet if I were made to pick one from the other in a blind test. So I decided to sell them off. But you know whats funny, after a few weeks without the cables, I now think my system is "congested" and I want my old cables back! But if it takes nearly a month for me to pickup a subtle difference, its more likely that its my mind playing tricks on me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The difference for me is surely not night & day, not the same as changing headphones. So do I really hear differences in cables? If you asked me 2 years ago, I would have said NO. If you asked me one month after I joined head-fi, I would have said YES. Last month, my answer would be a NO. Now? I honestly DONT KNOW!


----------



## Blitzula

One thing that I forgot to mention in this thread is that I actually called Sennheiser before I bought the Zu Cable to ask them if it would make a difference in the sound. They admitted that there would be a slight difference (they termed it an improvement) in the sound with the Zu. When I actually got the cable, I found the difference/improvement to be far more pronounced.

 So at least one Sennheiser rep will admit to a cable change/sound difference....


----------



## ILikeMusic

This is an interesting discussion but regarding human perceptual difference in audio, in the end it doesn't matter what theory says, it doesn't matter whether you can measure it adequately or not with test equipment, and it doesn't even matter what an individual _believes_ they can hear... the only proof is a simple blind ABX test. If you can reliably perceive a difference between two different cables under truly blind test conditions then the difference exists, and if you can't reliably resolve a difference under blind test conditions then a difference doesn't exist. It is really no more simple and no more complicated than that.

 Is anyone willing to claim that they performed a true blind test (using short music segments, an entire track, or whatever your preference) and obtained results indicating that they can reliably identify a stock OEM headphone cable vs. an upgrade?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_So at least one Sennheiser rep will admit to a cable change/sound difference...._

 

Well there are a lot of people here that will say that there is a sound improvement, that doesn't mean there *is* an improvement.

 And, again, my problem is that the cable can cost as much as headphones.

 And no one commented on the fact that people don't notice the response curves differences that HeadRoom publishes for many different headphones. These show a rather significant difference in response curves (L and R). Why is something immeasurable a problem, but something obviously measurable go undetected??? 

 Sennheiser HD 650 spec sheet: "Hand-selected, matched headphone systems with very tight tolerances (+/- 1 dB)." 
 Cheap cables and expensive cables will match much closer than +/- 1dB (which, by the way, happens to be +/- 12%).

 Zu Cable's supporting documentation for the improvement their product furnishes: "Under Construction".







 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_This is an interesting discussion but regarding human perceptual difference in audio, in the end it doesn't matter what theory says, it doesn't matter whether you can measure it adequately or not with test equipment, and it doesn't even matter what an individual believes they can hear... the only proof is a simple blind ABX test. If you can reliably perceive a difference between two different cables under truly blind test conditions then the difference exists, and if you can't reliably resolve a difference under blind test conditions then a difference doesn't exist. It is really no more simple and no more complicated than that.

 Is anyone willing to claim that they performed a true blind test (using short music segments, an entire track, or whatever your preference) and obtained results indicating that they can reliably identify a stock OEM headphone cable vs. an upgrade?_

 

ABX testing has been brought up over and over. Google indexes billions of web pages and no one can find a report that supports that you can hear the difference in wires. May it's worth doing a new search. 







 JF


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well there are a lot of people here that will say that there is a sound improvement, that doesn't mean there *is* an improvement._

 

Sure, but I think I'm willing to accept the opinion of the company that manufactures the product, particularly when it wasn't in their best interest to admit that an after market cable improves the sound.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_And, again, my problem is that the cable can cost as much as headphones.._

 

That's another issue...whether it's worth it or not is for each person's taste/budget to decide. I think there's enough debate in this thread on whether the cable makes a difference or not (oddly-or not-primarily from people who haven't heard it) without going into that area, so I'll refrain from comment there.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Google indexes billions of web pages and no one can find a report that supports that you can hear the difference in wires._

 

That was kind of my point. However, I'm willing to listen if someone involved in this discussion is willing to claim that can reliably identify stock vs. upgraded cables under true blind test conditions. Since the difference is felt to be obvious by several contributors this should be an easy task. Anyone..?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_Sure, but I think I'm willing to accept the opinion of the company that manufactures the product, particularly when it wasn't in their best interest to admit that an after market cable improves the sound._

 

That was the opinion of one person within the company, not "the opinion of the company" (and not even an expert opinion from within the company).


 JF


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_That was kind of my point. However, I'm willing to listen if someone involved in this discussion is willing to claim that can reliably identify stock vs. upgraded cables under true blind test conditions. Since the difference is felt to be obvious by several contributors this should be an easy task. Anyone..?_

 

Blind tests are forbidden here. (In the cables forum anyway, where this thread should be in). History shows that DBT doesnt solve anything...it just leads to more heated debate among cable believers and sceptics.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_Blind tests are forbidden here. (In the cables forum anyway, where this thread should be in). History shows that DBT doesnt solve anything...it just leads to more heated debate among cable believers and sceptics._

 

Huh..? A simple method that can help resolve the issue is 'forbidden'..? Why doom everyone to endless subjective arguments when a simple method exists to confirm the claim? It would seem that someone who feels that their latest cable purchase represents a big improvement would be more than happy to help out the group by publishing some simple blind test results. Why wouldn't they..?

 If there's any sense at all around here blind tests should be _required_, not 'forbidden'.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_But you know whats funny, after a few weeks without the cables, I now think my system is "congested" and I want my old cables back! But if it takes nearly a month for me to pickup a subtle difference, its more likely that its my mind playing tricks on me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You have just figured out why people who hear differences in cables don't like DBT/ABX in the way that it's conventionally performed. Some sonic differences simply aren't perceived in a short-term exposure. It can take days, or even weeks, to pick up some aspects of sound. Attention is limited, and if you're focussed on the wrong aspect of the sound, it's easy to miss some really profound effects (I've done this). If you still had the old cable and it relieved the "congestion" you're hearing, you'd know what's going on. You're much likelier to miss key sonic cues in a short-term test than over the long-term. If it takes you a month to pick up on it, that sounds more like perceptual learning than any sort of expectancy effect.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_You're much likelier to miss key sonic cues in a short-term test than over the long-term._

 

What is your basis for making that statement? Every published test I have seen demonstrates the opposite to be true. Quote:


 If it takes you a month to pick up on it, that sounds more like perceptual learning than any sort of expectancy effect. 
 

Maybe, maybe not... bit in any event once the 'perceptual learning' has taken place then one should be able to reliably tell the difference between the two, even without knowing which is in use, yes..?


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_That was the opinion of one person within the company, not "the opinion of the company" (and not even an expert opinion from within the company).


 JF_

 

Well, on the one hand I've got the people who haven't heard the cable arguing there is no proof of a sound difference, on the other hand I've got an overwhelming number of people who have heard the cable (including myself) and noted a difference, and the opinion of at least one Sennheiser employee that was the same.

 I'll go with the people with actual experience and the company itself versus those with no experience on this one. 

 I don't say this to be insulting, but it's amusing to hear those who haven't listened to the combo either:

 A. Insisting we prove that there is a difference.
 B. Insisting there is no difference.

 I said it before and I'll say it again...those with no experience with the HD-650 and the Zu cable really have nothing practical to add to the discussion. Although they can argue theoretical points that aren't as important as-again-actually having heard the headphone/cable in question. 

 It's the height of silly intellectual folly to me for people to vehemently claim that there is no difference or proof of such without having heard the 650/Zu combination!

 This isn't directly addressed to you, but to the whole "I don't trust anything until it's empiracly proven, even if it's common sense and obvious" crowd.

 I can't speak to the difference other headphones/cables make, but the 650/Zu I can.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_Well, on the one hand I've got the people who haven't heard the cable arguing there is no proof of a sound difference, on the other hand I've got an overwhelming number of people who have heard the cable (including myself) and noted a difference, and the opinion of at least one Sennheiser employee that was the same.

 I'll go with the people with actual experience and the company itself versus those with no experience on this one. 

 I don't say this to be insulting, but it's amusing to hear those who haven't listened to the combo either:

 A. Insisting we prove that there is a difference.
 B. Insisting there is no difference.

 I said it before and I'll say it again...those with no experience with the HD-650 and the Zu cable really have nothing practical to add to the discussion. Although they can argue theoretical points that aren't as important as-again-actually having heard the headphone/cable in question. 

 It's the height of silly intellectual folly to me for people to vehemently claim that there is no difference or proof of such without having heard the 650/Zu combination!

 This isn't directly addressed to you, but to the whole "I don't trust anything until it's empiracly proven, even if it's common sense and obvious" crowd.

 I can't speak to the difference other headphones/cables make, but the 650/Zu I can._

 

What about those who are not making any claims as to whether any difference exists or not, rather are merely asking you to demonstrate the existence of a difference in an objective manner (such as ABX testing). Are they also guilty of silly intellectual folly?


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_What about those who are not making any claims as to whether any difference exists or not, rather are merely asking you to demonstrate the existence of a difference in an objective manner (such as ABX testing). Are they also guilty of silly intellectual folly?_

 

I should monitor my words more carefully...I like this site and it's general tone, I don't mean to contribute to lowering those standards; I've been edgier than I like to be from reviewing some of my thoughts in this thread.

 To answer your question, I think objective evidence is useful but not critical when the difference is obvious. If someone asks me to prove the existence of a difference, my first answer to such a person would be...listen to the combination first, and then we can discuss whether the need for further evidence is necessary.

 I do think it's putting the cart before the horse (putting it mildly) to debate the question heatedly if one has no real life experience.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_I should monitor my words more carefully...I like this site and it's general tone, I don't mean to contribute to lowering those standards; I've been edgier than I like to be from reviewing some of my thoughts in this thread._

 

Not to worry, I think everyone's been doing an admirable job of keeping their cool in this thread.

 Back on subject, in my case I've never been able to detect an obvious difference in cables, in fact, I can't detect any at all, and I think that while I probably fall short of 'golden' I've still got a pretty decent set of ears. In fact I've never even known anyone who can tell a difference between headphone cables in a blind test. So I guess under those circumstances it seems reasonable for me to have at least some question as to whether the difference can really be quantified as 'obvious'. Is that fair enough?

 Having hopefully put the cart and the horse in the right orientation, can you easily tell a difference between the stock and Zu cables under a true blind test condition? This is certainly what one would expect in order for the difference to be called obvious. I just want to be sure that I understand you correctly...


----------



## Blitzula

When you speak of cable/headphone combinations, have you heard the Zu/HD-650 in particular?

 Yes, double blind, I could tell the difference. However, I would want to make that double blind judgment after an extended period of time with the same music.

 Give me two hours with each cable with the same music, and then alternate the cables over two hour increments, and yeah, I believe I would be able to tell the difference.

 The difference is clear right away....learning which cable causes that difference and how that difference is shown over time in various songs takes time.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I do think it's putting the cart before the horse (putting it mildly) to debate the question heatedly if one has no real life experience. 
 

Blitz., while I appreciate the civil tone, have you missed everything I've posted?

 To be blunt, if there is any difference between your cable and the stock Senn, one or the other is purposefully designed to alter the signal (you have to *work* to fck up the kind of signal we're talking about over the distances we're talking about).

 I think Sennheiser cares a little bit about what they're sending their $500 phones out with, so I'm going to have to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, and assume Zu/Cardas/Oehlbach/whoever is designing their cable to sound different (if it indeed is different, which admittedly some are claiming is bunk- I'm remaining open for now, though).

 I'd also like to restate that I think if you like the sound the cable gives the phones with that sort of 'permanent equalization', nobody should hassle you about it as long as you don't claim it's doing something it's not.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Well, I've read with interest the posts of the people in this thread and will continue to read their posts with interest.

 Magic *is* involved with audio. But I give *all* credit for the magic to the musicians.

 Someone recommend that I try recordings from Mapleshade Records. I'll give that a try.

 Thanks all.


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Blitz., while I appreciate the civil tone, have you missed everything I've posted?

 To be blunt, if there is any difference between your cable and the stock Senn, one or the other is purposefully designed to alter the signal (you have to *work* to fck up the kind of signal we're talking about over the distances we're talking about).

 I think Sennheiser cares a little bit about what they're sending their $500 phones out with, so I'm going to have to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, and assume Zu/Cardas/Oehlbach/whoever is designing their cable to sound different (if it indeed is different, which admittedly some are claiming is bunk- I'm remaining open for now, though).

 I'd also like to restate that I think if you like the sound the cable gives the phones with that sort of 'permanent equalization', nobody should hassle you about it as long as you don't claim it's doing something it's not._

 

I never claimed the sound wasn't different...I in fact have claimed it was. I never said the Zu Cable isn't designed to sound different. 

 What I've said is that the sound is clearly different than the stock Sennheiser cable. I don't know that we have a disagreement on that point.

 To address your other point, I bought my Sennheiser headphones for $330 from Todd. The RS-1 is $625 or so if you look around. Sennheiser has a very good motivation for shipping a cable that is solid but not necessarily the best....it puts a price point in where they look attractive. I'm sure you've seen many instances where people point out the pricing differential between the RS-1s and Senns, this works to Sennheiser's advantage.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Sennheiser has a very good motivation for shipping a cable that is solid but not necessarily the best.... 
 

If you think the cable that ships with those phones isn't perfectly adequate to deliver the signal in full to the headphones, you don't understand the principles at work.

 I don't know what else to tell you to convince you that your assumption that Senn has a cable that is so bad as to fail at a *monumentally* easy task is bordering on bananas.

 If you're comfortable with that, we don't have to argue further.

 And, as always, I could be wrong- we may find out tomorrow that Sennheiser really did decide they needed to cut costs significantly to compete, so actually just have two strands of rusty chicken wire in their cable, and didn't care that it failed, at least partially, to deliver the signal properly.


----------



## tiberian

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Blitz., while I appreciate the civil tone, have you missed everything I've posted?

 To be blunt, if there is any difference between your cable and the stock Senn, one or the other is purposefully designed to alter the signal (you have to *work* to fck up the kind of signal we're talking about over the distances we're talking about).

 I think Sennheiser cares a little bit about what they're sending their $500 phones out with, so I'm going to have to give them the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, and assume Zu/Cardas/Oehlbach/whoever is designing their cable to sound different (if it indeed is different, which admittedly some are claiming is bunk- I'm remaining open for now, though).

 I'd also like to restate that I think if you like the sound the cable gives the phones with that sort of 'permanent equalization', nobody should hassle you about it as long as you don't claim it's doing something it's not._

 

i just can't agree with the 'alter the signal' part. in my experience the stock cable hide lots of detail (roll-off, collapsed soundstage etc) and zu cable for example, simply allows the previously hidden detail to be heard. 
 on the other hand, *cough*[size=medium]personal experience speaks louder than rhetorical bluff[/size]*cough*. i will try my best to remain civil and not to flame tho.


----------



## rodbac

Tiberian- you could take $10 in parts from RatShack and build a cable that would accomplish the task successfully.

 If you're saying the stock Senn cable doesn't do the job (HF rolloff, which would imply capacitance figures out in left field, etc), you HAVE to assume they designed it that way on purpose.

 I submit they wouldn't do that. That's all.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_If you think the cable that ships with those phones isn't perfectly adequate to deliver the signal in full to the headphones, you don't understand the principles at work.

 I don't know what else to tell you to convince you that your assumption that Senn has a cable that is so bad as to fail at a *monumentally* easy task is bordering on bananas.

 If you're comfortable with that, we don't have to argue further.

 And, as always, I could be wrong- we may find out tomorrow that Sennheiser really did decide they needed to cut costs significantly to compete, so actually just have two strands of rusty chicken wire in their cable, and didn't care that it failed, at least partially, to deliver the signal properly._

 

I think you believe me to be arguing a more minute point that I actually am. All I'm saying is that what I hear from the stock cable is significantly different than what I hear from the Zu Cable. That's it....they're different.

 I'll leave the details of what causes the difference and what exactly is being changed to those who are particularly interested in that discussion. Once I hear a clear difference that I enjoy, I've found the sound that I am looking for, regardless of reason....at least until the inevitable upgrade urge strkes.


----------



## tiberian

if sennheiser believe the stock cable is perfectly adequate, than what's the point of allowing users to detach it? and what about the plugs? they can save more by wiring the cables directly to the drivers.


----------



## swalker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tiberian* 
_if sennheiser believe the stock cable is perfectly adequate, than what's the point of allowing users to detach it? and what about the plugs? they can save more by wiring the cables directly to the drivers._

 

To make it easily replacable? Sony did it with some of their headphones too and I don't think Sony was expecting users to go out looking for upgrade cables for the CD780's


----------



## tiberian

how often do you break a cable?


----------



## swalker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tiberian* 
_how often do you break a cable?_

 

Actually to a clumsy person it happens more than you'd think.. Just ask some of my old headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I seriously doubt Sennheiser made it replacable because the cable was not good enough. Did they make the plastic/metal grill of HD580/600/650 easily replacable because they knew some people would not like the sound of the metal grill and would go out buy woodies to attach in the place instead?


----------



## Blitzula

I hear no difference between woodies and the stock grill. Can you objectively prove that there is such a difference, or is it due to your own psychological factors?


----------



## tiberian

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *swalker* 
_Actually to a clumsy person it happens more than you'd think.. Just ask some of my old headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I seriously doubt Sennheiser made it replacable because the cable was not good enough. Did they make the plastic/metal grill of HD580/600/650 easily replacable because they knew some people would not like the sound of the metal grill and would go out buy woodies to attach in the place instead? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

the stock cable is more than adequate for 90% of the buyers (with cheapo dvd players or sound cards), most people don't have a highly resolving $3000 rig. i guess that's the reason behind...the cable business has been around for a LONG time and sennheiser knows that.


----------



## swalker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_I hear no difference between woodies and the stock grill. Can you objectively prove that there is such a difference. or is it due to your own psychological factors? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Actually that would be very easily proven with a very scientific testing. I'll go do a blind testing with my HD650's with celotape blocking the grill and without it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In seriousness, I'm of the opinion any change in the transducer is far more significant than any change in the electronics given the electronics are of a "good enough" quality. 

 EDIT : forgot the smiley


----------



## stet

could it be that Senn (and any other company with detachable cables) realizes that not all people agree on sonic quality? As a really low-end comparison, how about the choice between Grado pads? What was it, a difference in preference btw. Joe and John Grado whether flats or bowls should be the stock pads? So maybe it's not that Senn engineers were forced to cut back and use chicken wire (LOL!), but that's what was deemed best for the phones.

 Not that I've ever compared such phones/cables myslef, but I'm looking into getting HD25-1s, and I've read a bunch of people who rave about and recommend them just going off stock impressions.


----------



## tiberian

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_I hear no difference between woodies and the stock grill. Can you objectively prove that there is such a difference, or is it due to your own psychological factors? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

i can't help you then, go check your ears.


----------



## swalker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stet* 
_could it be that Senn (and any other company with detachable cables) realizes that not all people agree on sonic quality? As a really low-end comparison, how about the choice between Grado pads? What was it, a difference in preference btw. Joe and John Grado whether flats or bowls should be the stock pads? So maybe it's not that Senn engineers were forced to cut back and use chicken wire (LOL!), but that's what was deemed best for the phones._

 

Grado Pads make indisputable, very significant sonic differences. As far as I know, Sennheiser has maintained their cable is perfectly good enough.

 I think HD580/600/650 have lots of replacable cables available on the market... just because lots of audiophiles use them and the cable manufacturers saw the market. You don't see as many cables available for Koss R80's and Sony CD780's etc even though their cables are replacable. I simply don't think headphone manufacturers make their cables replacable to accomodate cable changes for sonic adjustments (and to make cable companies rich 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ).


----------



## Hunter_Killer

So its safe to say that there are unbelievers here amongst a majority of believers?

 Personally I do believe the cables makle a difference, but there is no point in spending a cent on cables unless your system is top notch. Id would be the last component of the system Id upgrade.


----------



## swalker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hunter_Killer* 
_So its safe to say that there are unbelievers here amongst a majority of believers?

 Personally I do believe the cables makle a difference, but there is no point in spending a cent on cables unless your system is top notch. Id would be the last component of the system Id upgrade._

 

The discussion on the topic of audio cables has been done to death in numerous audio forums... you can do a search in google and spend hours reading epic battles between the two parties. (Don't forget the popcorn!) 

 The problem with the "top notch system" idea is, the definition of "top notch" is hazy at best. How good the system has to be in order to satisfy the "top notch" status? Do they have to cost a certain amount like tiberian said? One's highend will be another's mid-fi.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_What about those who are not making any claims as to whether any difference exists or not, rather are merely asking you to demonstrate the existence of a difference in an objective manner (such as ABX testing). Are they also guilty of silly intellectual folly?_

 

Kind of. Why should members here setup an extensive test costing much time and money in order to prove to someone else something which they have already proved to themselves whilst listening to the cable?

 Just buy it, listen to it, and if it does nothing for your sytem then sell it. If it does to your system what it does to mine, keep it if you like the effect.


----------



## tiberian

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *swalker* 
_The problem with the "top notch system" idea is, the definition of "top notch" is hazy at best. How good the system has to be in order to satisfy the "top notch" status? Do they have to cost a certain amount like tiberian said? One's highend will be another's mid-fi._

 

a poll would be useful in this situation. we can find out the mean, sd and all the sordid details i learned from last semester's stat 1001 class, then there can be an estimation (sorta). bleh i have forgotten most of it already.


----------



## swalker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tiberian* 
_a poll would be useful in this situation. we can find out the mean, sd and all the sordid details i learned from last semester's stat 1001 class, then there can be an estimation (sorta). bleh i have forgotten most of it already._

 

Then there would be the problem of choosing the right sample and that would be pretty much impossible. Is the HD650 highend? (and there have been two threads that I remember on the topic over the last few years) what about a maxed out PPA? These questions are far too subjective and in the world of audio, there hardly is anything objective and polling wouldnt' solve anything.

 I begin to think the cable debate is metaphysical and people will believe what they believe. Is there ghost? Do supernatural powers exist? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT : Hmm.. I just remembered James Randi has included audiophile claims in his million dollar challange. I wonder if anybody will take up the offer?


----------



## tortie

People hear differently, that we all will agree with. We also have different systems, all will also agree to that too. If you want to test something, I believe it should be tested by you, in your own system and in your own listening habits & environment.

 All replacement cables for the HD600/650 have a 30-day warranty. Order them, listen to them, and if YOU dont hear any differences with the cable in YOUR system then, return them. Its that simple folks. Even if the cable improvement on the sound only really works because you believe that it does, so be it. But as long as YOU hear the improvement (whether its real or imagined), then the cable will be worth it. If you dont hear it, return them or sell them, thats what I did.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Langrath,

 Did any of this help?


 JF_

 

No! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I really enjoy reading. I am very interested in psychological placebo effects. These effects are huge. Can move mountains. Every good doctor uses it. 
 I am not saying that there are no differences between cables. I only search for an objective test that is really objective. It should be easy to do. Listen alternative to same music, same equipment but different cables. Nobody knows the right answer until the experiment is done.
 A little parenthesis. Why is nearly always the most expensive equipment judged as the best? Theoretically there should be the possibility that the cheapest material is the best for the purpose. But never.
 The most fun example I have seen is when an audio magazine tested minidiscs 
 "discs". The most expensive won the test. Better bass, more clear sound and so on. The tester had no idea about digital recording obviously, but he showed the placebo effect in a nearly charming way.
 We all have our placebos. I wouldn't like to live without them. I would like to have Sennheiser Orpheus most to stare at the glittering lamps. I am convinced that the sight of them would raise the enjoyment of music.
 So I love the placebo effect in human being and thank God for giving us the possibility to let our imagination live its own life.
 Still. It would be interesting to make the blind test with cables.
 There are no crazier people than we, discussing sound from headphones. And just for that. I love you all.

 Georg


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Why should members here setup an extensive test costing much time and money in order to prove to someone else something which they have already proved to themselves whilst listening to the cable? 
 

The pursuit of knowledge? It really is a worthy cause... Also, because what is being reported appears to be nothing more than a very well known phenomenon.

 As I keep saying though, it wouldn't at all be surprising if Cardas (et al) simply manufactured their cable to sound different... "different" + "expensive" = "better" in the minds of many (to say nothing of the fact that a little less treble (likely what's being done to the sound) usually does sound 'smoother').

  Quote:


 Even if the cable improvement on the sound only really works because you believe that it does, so be it. But as long as YOU hear the improvement (whether its real or imagined), then the cable will be worth it. 
 

Whoa whoa whoa- be careful about using this as justification for the cable! Cardas (et al 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) would NOT appreciate you putting their cables on the same 'effective' level as rainbow colored socks and crystal pyramids...

  Quote:


 Why is nearly always the most expensive equipment judged as the best? 
 

Ding ding ding ding ding ding. See above.

  Quote:


 I would like to have Sennheiser Orpheus most to stare at the glittering lamps. I am convinced that the sight of them would raise the enjoyment of music. 
 

Now you're getting into a legitimate reason to buy expensive sht (truly)- it often looks nicer, and putting fancy cables on your million dollar setup just looks cooler than having a 6.99 RadioShack patch hanging there.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_And, as always, I could be wrong- we may find out tomorrow that Sennheiser really did decide they needed to cut costs significantly to compete, so actually just have two strands of rusty chicken wire in their cable, and didn't care that it failed, at least partially, to deliver the signal properly._

 

Construction of the Sennheiser HD-600 stock cable is a very thin Litz wire braid. I'm talking hair-thin here. Running that cable over 3 m is going to muck with the signal. My guess is that it should be measurable with decent equipment. The outside of the cable for the HD-650 is significantly thicker, indicating that Sennheiser did something different, but I haven't seen the wire itself, and don't know if the wire was changed, or just the shielding/insulation. It's definitely a different cable though, so if the original cable was passing a perfect signal, why would they change it? Unless, of course, that was part of the sonic improvement that Sennheiser was aiming for with the HD-650. Wait a minute, that would mean that they thought one cable is better than the other... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if that's the case, who's to say that someone else can't make it better still?


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Kind of. Why should members here setup an extensive test costing much time and money in order to prove to someone else something which they have already proved to themselves whilst listening to the cable?

 Just buy it, listen to it, and if it does nothing for your sytem then sell it. If it does to your system what it does to mine, keep it if you like the effect. 




_

 

Ah, but if you haven't proven anything, even to yourself, if you haven't blind tested. Until you do it is quite possible that the difference you sense is purely psychological. I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time with this simple concept... it's certainly no shame as susceptibility to subjective psychological influences is a perfectly natural human trait, that's why procedures have been developed to help eliminate it. The only shame is not realizing the need to follow those procedures in order to come to a definitive conclusion (meaning one that is true for all individuals, not just one).

 But I do agree with you in that if, for whatever reason, you truly believe that your Zu really makes a difference then I guess you are getting something for your money.


----------



## cecirdr

Welll said Langrath.

 I've stayed out of this discussion because I haven't tried new cables yet. My headphone/amp kit came with a cardas cable, but it's backordered for now. Right now I really like the sound with my hd650's and the stock cable, plus since the cardas was part of the kit, I don't feel that I have a preference for the cardas cable to be better....or even different for that matter. When it comes in, I'll try it out. If I like it I'll keep it. If I don't hear any difference, I'll sell it to someone who can tell the difference. (or thinks they can)

 Ceci


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_In the cables forum anyway, where this thread should be in_

 

I don't agree. Cable forum is to discuss different cables for those that already are convinced that there is a difference in sound between cables. It would be as asking the pope if he believes in God.

 Georg


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Construction of the Sennheiser HD-600 stock cable is a very thin Litz wire braid. I'm talking hair-thin here._

 

Yep, and that is *more* than adequate. To drive the 600's to 103dB (which will cause hearing damage if listened to continuously), all that is required is 3.3mA. A very tiny 32AWG wire, with a diameter of 0.008", will handle 320mA. Copper is a *very* good conductor of electricity.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

AKG and Sennheiser have researched microphones and headphones for decades. Though there is a lucrative market for something relatively easy to manufacture, they do not sell Zu-style cables for a reason. They *do not* make a difference. It's impossible. Enjoy your systems otherwise.


 JF


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_A very tiny 32AWG wire, with a diameter of 0.008", will handle 320mA._

 

Ah, but will it convey adequate 'soundstage'..? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry, couldn't resist, I'm bad...


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Running that cable over 3 m is going to muck with the signal. My guess is that it should be measurable with decent equipment. 
 

*Absolutely wrong*. Wire that thin most certainly will not muck with the signal, will be WAAAAAY more than adequate, and it will not even be close to measurable.

 If your Cardas cable sounds different, it's purely psychological OR the Cardas cable is fcking with the signal.

 edit: JF beat me to it...


----------



## saint.panda

If headphone cables don't make a difference then how do you explain how two persons can hear the same sonical characteristics of a cable without telling each other beforehand? I've listened to JaZZ own magnet wire cable without ANY knowledge on it beforehand and told him what I heard. He confirmed what I said and I don't see why he would tell anything other than what he's hearing everyday. Did it sound different? Yes. Better? Yes, better than the stock cable.
 From a scientific point of view I did not believe in cable differences. I thought that conductors are conductors and the small differences in their impedances is marginal compared to the input or output impedances of the players/amps. I guess hearing is believing.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_AKG and Sennheiser have researched microphones and headphones for decades. Though there is a lucrative market for something relatively easy to manufacture, they do not sell Zu-style cables for a reason. They *do not* make a difference. It's impossible. Enjoy your systems otherwise.


 JF_

 

The analogy here would be Mercedes and AMG. It's a completely different target group. Sennheiser doesn't specifically aim at the highend audio sector, which is only a relatively small market


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 If headphone cables don't make a difference then can you explain how two persons are hearing the same sonical characteristics of a cable without telling each other beforehand? 
 

 Quote:


 If your Cardas cable sounds different, it's purely psychological *OR the Cardas cable is fcking with the signal*. 
 

Would most people report similar things if the treble knob was cranked a few notches to the left?


----------



## cecirdr

Wasn't the original question if the replacement cables made a *difference*? Perhaps they ARE mucking with the signal, but that would make a difference right? Sure....it'd be like an EQ, but it takes up less space. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I don't think I can speak to improvement (because I haven't tried a different cable yet and because "improvement" is in the eye of the beholder). But as to hearing a *difference*, surely that's easy to discern. ...even without double blind tests.

 Sorry if I'm too new to highend headphones and the audiophile industry to contribute relevant info.

 Ceci


----------



## markl

Quote:


 If your Cardas cable sounds different, it's purely psychological OR the Cardas cable is fcking with the signal. 
 

 rodbac, you seem finally to accept that cables make a difference. You seem to have come to accept that there is an audible difference in the sound between stock cables and the aftermarket cables as reported consistently by listeners the world over year after year. Great!

 But you then make a logical leap *assuming* that it's the aftermarket cables, not the Senn stock cable that is "mucking" with the sound. It's like that that old Dire Straits song: "Two men say they're Jesus / One of them must be wrong." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Either way, each cable is most definitely "mucking with the sound", *including the stock cable*. The only "ideal cable" is the one that's simply not there, as it is, we are limited at this time to using electrical conductors of some kind (copper/silver) of some geometry, with some kind of shielding/jacket, and some kind of connector to transmit the sound. There are hundreds of different aftermarket cable brands, each with a unique combination of parts and design, each unique in its own way, and therefore *different*. All those things are in the signal path, all will leave some footprint, however small, all to some degree audible. 

 In the absence of telepathically beamed audio streams emitted directly from a source to our brains, we are stuck with cables in the signal path. I don't think there is an objective "right" way to design a cable, or 100% "perfect" cable design that is literally "invisible" as if it wasn't there in the material world. There are only varying degrees of "less wrong". Aftermarket cables, in general, can be "less wrong" than cheapie stock cables. Hearing is believing.

 To summarize: you think the aftermarket cables that you've *never heard* are just plain wrong, while people who've heard both cables, feel the stock cable is more wrong. End of debate.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Just buy it, listen to it, and if it does nothing for your sytem then sell it. _

 

System? What System? Those are all entry level minimalism Setups:
 -----------
 rodbac:
 Headphone Inventory:
 Grado SR-80s --> Senn HD-280 Pros --> now looking for Senn HD 580s and an amp 

 Headphone Amp Inventory:
 Super Mini, Corda HA-1

 No source?
 -------------
 ILikeMusic:
 Headphone Inventory:
 Own or have owned: Senn HD-580, Senn HD-590, Sony V900, Sony EX71, Shure E5, Etymotics ER4P, Etymotics ER6i 

 Headphone Amp Inventory:
 Home-built CMOY 

 Source Inventory:
 Creative Zen MP3 player, Sony D-121 'vintage' PCDP 

 Cable Inventory:
 With respect to headphones..? Whatever came with the product, *anything else is a waste of money.
*

 ---------------
 With a Setup like that I would not hear a difference in cables.

*ILikeMusic and rodbac et al: [size=medium]Read the topic![/size] Do you have anything to say about the topics question? If not, stop thread crapping.*


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 rodbac, you seem finally to accept that cables make a difference. 
 

 Quote:


 But you then make a logical leap *assuming* that it's the aftermarket cables, not the Senn stock cable that is "mucking" with the sound. 
 

Have you read ANY of my posts?

  Quote:


 Either way, each cable is most definitely "mucking with the sound", *including the stock cable*. 
 

WRONG. You have to WORK at it to "muck" with the sound.

  Quote:


 The only "ideal cable" is the one that's simply not there, as it is, we are limited at this time to using electrical conductors of some kind (copper/silver) of some geometry, with some kind of shielding/jacket, and some kind of connector to transmit the sound. There are hundreds of different aftermarket cable brands, each with a unique combination of parts and design, each unique in its own way, and therefore *different*. All those things are in the signal path, all will leave some footprint, however small, all to some degree audible. 
 

 Quote:


 I don't think there is an objective "right" way to design a cable, or 100% "perfect" cable design that is literally "invisible" as if it wasn't there in the material world. 
 

You're demonstrating a vapid misunderstanding of the concept that I've repeated over and over and over in this thread. *A wire won't be able to help but get the signal across 10 feet without affecting it in any significant way*. I can't say it any more clearly for you. If you still don't grasp that, I suggest you go do some reading.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Would most people report similar things if the treble knob was cranked a few notches to the left?_

 

You mean my cable sounds darker than the stock cable? That's not the case. It's even more brilliant. For some reason you're so obsessed with the idea that IF any cable makes the HD 600/650 sound different than with the stock cable it must color the sound, whereas the stock cable is absolutely neutral, of course... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Try to read your own posts from a certain distance, and you'll see that your idea has arisen from a biased point of view.


----------



## cecirdr

Are we working on a question of whether the aftermarket cables are "better" than the stock sennheiser or the question of simply whether they're different sonically than the stock cable? 

 I see two questions getting bantered around here. One presupposing that there's a *better* cable design than the stock sennheiser cable and the other simply wondering whether there's any sonic *differences* between the stock and aftermarket cables.

 So...which one are we focusing on here?

 Ceci


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_*A wire won't be able to help but get the signal across 10 feet without affecting it in any significant way*. I can't say it any more clearly for you. If you still don't grasp that, I suggest you go do some reading._

 

Maybe I can ask my physics professor whether he can snatch some of those superconducting wires (plus the magnets and fridge) used for the new accelerator at CERN. Then we could use that as a definite reference point.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cecirdr* 
_Are we working on a question of whether the aftermarket cables are "better" than the stock sennheiser or the question of simply whether they're different sonically than the stock cable? 

 I see two questions getting bantered around here. One presupposing that there's a *better* cable design than the stock sennheiser cable and the other simply wondering whether there's any sonic *differences* between the stock and aftermarket cables.

 So...which one are we focusing on here?

 Ceci_

 

Valid concern.

 I meant to point out earlier that I think I'm different than some in my opinions. I dont' mean to speak for anybody, but I think JF is working under the assumption that cables will sound identically _assuming they're trying to deliver the signal unaltered_. I'm assuming Cardas may be trying to alter the signal to sound different.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Try to read your own posts from a certain distance, and you'll see that your idea has arisen from a biased point of view. 
 

I've never claimed anything else- the question you should be asking yourself is in what my bias is based.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_[Zu-style cables] *do not* make a difference. It's impossible. JF_

 

Ah... now I understand. 

 It's impossible for aftermarket cables to make a difference => they don't make any.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Maybe I can ask my physics professor whether he can snatch some of those superconducting wires (plus the magnets and fridge) used for the new accelerator at CERN. 
 

I'm sorry that I'm getting aggravated, but you're just not getting it. It doesn't have to be a superconducting wire, for the love of mike. A 20kHz signal requires almost NOTHING to get it across 10 feet of wire completely unaltered, un-mucked-with, unchanged.

 Again, I can't say it any more plainly. If you still want to think I'm claiming the Senn stock cable is performing a supernatural feat getting your music to your headphones, so be it.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cecirdr* 
_So...which one are we focusing on here?_

 

Why not both? As to «better»: it means better synergy with the headphone to the ears of the listener in the first instance. The overwhelming majority of HD 580/600/650 owners consider aftermarket cables superior in terms of synergy. I believe they -- or most of them -- also take more care to the signal.


----------



## cecirdr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I meant to point out earlier that I think I'm different than some in my opinions. I dont' mean to speak for anybody, but I think JF is working under the assumption that cables will sound identically assuming they're trying to deliver the signal unaltered. I'm assuming Cardas may be trying to alter the signal to sound different._

 

Hmmm, now I see. You might be right. I'm not electronics enough minded to have a clue as to that. I'm willing to consider than an aftermarket cable is a fixed equalizer so to speak. ....that they're changing the signal to create a sonic characteristic that people might prefer. I don't (in that regard) see the sennheiser stock cable as deficient. They probably choose it precisely because it *doesn't* muck with the signal. 

 Is there any way that the frequency response curve at the headphone could be measured with different cables......like you'd see an EQ boost a certain frequency?

 Ceci


----------



## cecirdr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Why not both? As to «better»: it means better synergy with the headphone to the ears of the listener in the first instance. The overwhelming majority of HD 580/600/650 owners consider aftermarket cables superior in terms of synergy. I believe they -- or most of them -- also take more care to the signal. 




_

 

No reason not to pursue both...I was just getting confused. My limitation I guess. 

 I hear many hd650 people describing a mid bass hump to the sound the headphones make. Perchance that's the native unaltered response of the cans to unaltered signal through a cable? If so...perchance the aftermarket cables "fix" this characteristic via design elements that may (or may not be) higher caliber to an EQ? (I can't speak to high caliber...I'm too new here)

 Ceci


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I've never claimed anything else - the question you should be asking yourself is in what my bias is based._

 

No, thanks! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not religious myself and don't want to mess around with someone else's religion. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cecirdr* 
_Is there any way that the frequency response curve at the headphone could be measured with different cables......like you'd see an EQ boost a certain frequency?_

 

Pure cable designs within the frame of the Sennheiser aftermarket cables can't measurably alter the frequency response. You'd need electrical components to do that.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 As to «better»: it means better synergy with the headphone to the ears of the listener in the first instance. 
 

Which I'm perfectly willing to buy.

  Quote:


 The overwhelming majority of HD 580/600/650 owners consider aftermarket cables superior in terms of synergy. 
 

I could propose a number of explanations, but, again, I'm perfectly OK with "I just like it better." (assuming there's a difference designed into the cable).

  Quote:


 I believe they -- or most of them -- also take more care to the signal. 
 

And once again, if you're saying what I think you're saying here (implying the Senn cable struggles with the signal), you don't have any idea how hard it would be for the Senn cable to fck it up.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I'm not religious myself and don't want to mess around with someone else's religion. 
 






 Who's relying on something more in the realm of religion here!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd also like to say again that I agree with JF that if two cables aren't specifically designed with a metric assload of capacitance (or something else bizarre), they will indeed sound identical.


----------



## cecirdr

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Pure cable designs within the frame of the Sennheiser aftermarket cables can't measurably alter the frequency response. You'd need electrical components to do that. 




_

 

Oh...thanks for the education. So...if someone experiences highs being a bit more forward that doesn't reduce to there being any difference in measurable "stuff" such as a frequency response curve? 

 Ceci


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_And once again, if you're saying what I think you're saying here (implying the Senn cable struggles with the signal), you don't have any idea how hard it would be for the Senn cable to fck it up._

 

Actually it's the other way round: the Senn cable does more harm to the original signal. At least that's how it sounds (to my ears -- among others). What do you think is built into those aftermarket cables that can alter the signal in a euphonic or compensating way? And in what _physical/electrical_ design properties is the Sennheiser stock cable more accurate in your opinion?


----------



## markl

Quote:


 And once again, if you're saying what I think you're saying here (implying the Senn cable struggles with the signal), you don't have any idea how hard it would be for the Senn cable to fck it up. 
 

 Yet it's easy for aftermarket cables to muck it up? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So which is it? 

 A) A cable is a cable, doesn't matter how fancy the construction or design, the differences are all in people's heads, they will all measure the same and perform the same. A wire is so simple there's no way to make one "better" than another. 

 *Or* is it:

 B) It's possible for cables to be designed to "muck" with the signal in a clearly audible manner (which leaves it open to interpretation that one *is* "better" than the other). It *is* possible for a cable to *degrade* the sound in some artificial way through careful design. 

 You need to figure out which point you are arguing. You started out arguing A, but lately you're hedging with B. I submit that if you argue B, logically, you have to be open to the possibility that it's the *stock cable* not the aftermarket cable that is mucking with the sound.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I'd also like to say again that I agree with JF that if two cables aren't specifically designed with a metric assload of capacitance (or something else bizarre), they will indeed sound identical._

 

More precisely: they will show identical frequency responses with sine waves. But as other electronic components (digital players, amps) show, flat fequency responses don't mean identical sound.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cecirdr* 
_So...if someone experiences highs being a bit more forward that doesn't reduce to there being any difference in measurable "stuff" such as a frequency response curve?_

 

Most likely not.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Actually it's the other way round: the Senn cable does more harm to the original signal. 
 

And I repeat myself once again: It would cost Senn more money to "do harm" to the signal than to just leave it alone. In this application, *wire almost cannot help but get the signal to the phones unaltered unless it's specifically designed not to do so*.

  Quote:


 What do you think is built into those aftermarket cables that can alter the signal in a euphonic or compensating way? 
 

No idea- I don't design them. I'm only giving you (and them) the benefit of the doubt. (I _have_ conversed with a number of highly educated people in this field who talk about introducing capacitance as-a-matter-of-factly, so I assume it's not terribly hard, but if I get a chance, I'll ask them again exactly how it's done)


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_And I repeat myself once again: It would cost Senn more money to "do harm" to the signal than to just leave it alone. In this application, *wire almost cannot help but get the signal to the phones unaltered unless it's specifically designed not to do so*._

 

And how do you leave it alone? What is "wire"? Do you mean copper, silver, gold, an alloy, berrylium, palladium, or even steel,... there is no simple "wire" that does nothing to the sound.


----------



## ILikeMusic

All of the debate can be ended one way or the other by some simple blind testing. What are those opposed to this concept so afraid of? 

 Of course I'm being disingenuous here... we _know_ what they're afraid of...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_No idea - I don't design them. I'm only giving you (and them) the benefit of the doubt. (I have conversed with a number of highly educated people in this field who talk about introducing capacitance as-a-matter-of-factly, so I assume it's not terribly hard, but if I get a chance, I'll ask them again exactly how it's done)_

 

I have measured stock cable, Oehlbach, Silver Dragon and Zu Mobius. The electrical values are quite close -- no hint of exaggerated capacitance with the aftermarket cables.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 What is "wire"? Do you mean copper, silver, gold, an alloy, berrylium, palladium, or even steel,... there is no simple "wire" that does nothing to the sound. 
 

Yes there is.

 Look, I've said all I can say on this in every way I know how, multiple times. I can't continue to answer "well, why this and why that?" questions- if you say there's no difference between the stock specs and the Zu specs, I have nothing else to offer you but "what is it that you think you're hearing, then?"

 The only explanations I've heard are akin to pixie dust and magic. If you want to drink the kool-aid, please do so.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_I submit that if you argue B, logically, you have to be open to the possibility that it's the *stock cable* not the aftermarket cable that is mucking with the sound._

 

No, since he's outed himself to be a Sennheiser stock-cable believer.


----------



## tiberian

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_All of the debate can be ended one way or the other by some simple blind testing. What are those opposed to this concept so afraid of? 

 Of course I'm being disingenuous here... we know what they're afraid of..._

 

why don't you buy a aftermarket cable and do a DBT yourself smartass? you are one of those who brought out the question.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_...if you say there's no difference between the stock specs and the Zu specs, I have nothing else to offer you but "what is it that you think you're hearing, then?"_

 

Sonic differences. I don't have the explanation how they would appear in measurings, but I'm sure they can be measured with existing equipment -- with the right (complex, dynamic) signals, but not with sine waves. Because that's what measurings are based on today. 


  Quote:


 _The only explanations I've heard are akin to pixie dust and magic. If you want to drink the kool-aid, please do so._ 
 

I see your problem. You think it's physically impossible for cables to cause sonic differences -- with a traditionalist electric world view in mind --, so you're not even ready to try it yourself. That's the difference between our approaches. I'm open to the matter, you're not, as you've said yourself. It's not so much the subtleness of the expectable/reported effects that calls for blind tests, but the matter itself. Nobody would call for blind tests with headphones -- sonic differences among them are easily explainable. 

 How about amps and CD players? Like cables, they show more or less identical frequency responses and very low harmonic distortion, but they don't sound the same anyway.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I see your problem. You think it's physically impossible for cables to cause sonic differences 
 

No, Jazz- it's not *ME* who thinks it (realistically*) impossible for an adequately designed cable- it's the whole of science.

 It's not me who's in the vast, vast minority here, despite what the credulous nature of many here may lead you to believe.

  Quote:


 I don't have the explanation how they would appear in measurings 
 

No offense, but I know you don't have an explanation- because there is none (unless you retreat to something along the lines of "I KNOW WHAT I HEARD!!!" and ignore all scientifically valid explanations for your report)!

 * I say "realistically" because it can happen if we were talking about headphone cables that were pushing 10km long or some other such bizarre scenario. I'll preemptively mention, though, that if you think that because there is a difference at 10km, that there could be a smaller, but detectable, difference at 10ft, you're incorrect.


----------



## JaZZ

How about amps and CD players?


----------



## Len

Get a cheap db meter at Radio Shack and play test tones. There is a difference in frequency response from cable to cable, I assure you. 

 In some gear more then others, cables can make a big difference. For example, if you're using a passive preamp, you better be sure the cables aren't effecting the impedance/capacitance/resistance since anyone with any scientific understanding will tell you it will impact the sound. 

 I agree that there are only marginal differences between respectably engineered cable of the same conductor material and geometry/design. But if you're telling me a solid core copper cable sounds like a litz braided silver, then I'd argue you have poor auditory accuity.


----------



## NeilPeart

I work at Lockheed Martin and these men of science do believe that cables make a difference. In fact the principle designer of ABL (my current project) is a staunch believer in quality cabling (he designs and builds his own - a PhD in EE from MIT and another in optics helps too). We were comparing (ABX) my HD650/stock to his HD650/Zu Cable and another colleague’s (who is not a cable believer, but he was using the first guy’s spare Cardas) HD650/Cardas and all three of us identified the different cables every time. Our source was my DAC1 and we used the built-in amp. Sometimes the differences were obvious and other times they were very subtle - the recording quality was a large factor. While the differences were obvious the question of improvement is another. I clearly preferred the Zu while conducting the ABX while he and the other guy both preferred the Cardas (no one preferred the stock, as it really sounded a bit grainy up top and the bass was clearly less articulate).


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_I work at Lockheed Martin and these men of science do believe that cables make a difference. In fact the principle designer of ABL (my current project) is a staunch believer in quality cabling (he designs and builds his own). We were comparing (ABX) my HD650/stock to his HD650/Zu Cable and another colleague’s HD650/Cardas and all three of us identified the different cables every time. Our source was my DAC1 and we used the built-in amp._

 

Thanks for your test, Neil! So I think we can end the discussion now...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_...despite what the credulous nature of many here may lead you to believe._

 

You're mixing things up. My belief in cable sound is the consequence of my listening experience, not of any ideology or religion -- this in clear contrast to your approach. I've been an unbeliever myself.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_I work at Lockheed Martin and these men of science do believe that cables make a difference. In fact the principle designer of ABL (my current project) is a staunch believer in quality cabling (he designs and builds his own - a PhD in EE from MIT and another in optics helps too). We were comparing (ABX) my HD650/stock to his HD650/Zu Cable and another colleague’s (who is not a cable believer, but he was using the first guy’s spare Cardas) HD650/Cardas and all three of us identified the different cables every time. Our source was my DAC1 and we used the built-in amp._

 

I predict that nothing short of a two decade consensus from all of the world's top scientists, after extensive experimentation and testing, will convince the most vehement of those in this thread.

 Actually, that still might not be enough...


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 How about amps and CD players? 
 

You include a rolleyes like that's some kind of comeback? Also, did I not call that you would again retreat to "well what if this and what about that?"

 I have no idea about CDPs and amps- they're infinitely more complex systems, and as well, I don't know two squirts about how their ouput is analyzed and I'm not talking about sound, I'm talking about electricity.

 All I can tell you is that the same 20kHz signal that enters a wire meeting a very basic level of design will be identical (realistically) at the other end.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_And I repeat myself once again: It would cost Senn more money to "do harm" to the signal than to just leave it alone. In this application, *wire almost cannot help but get the signal to the phones unaltered unless it's specifically designed not to do so*._

 

I don't understand this argument from either perspective. The stock cables aren't doing "harm" to the signal, nor are aftermarket cables. They merely impart differences to the signal, and it's up to the consumer to decide which they prefer. It's illogical to assume the stock cable is the "pure" and "accurate" sound. It's simply the sound Senn engineers wanted (which takes into account sonics as well as cost:benefit analysis).


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_I work at Lockheed Martin and these men of science do believe that cables make a difference. In fact the principle designer of ABL (my current project) is a staunch believer in quality cabling (he designs and builds his own - a PhD in EE from MIT and another in optics helps too). We were comparing (ABX) my HD650/stock to his HD650/Zu Cable and another colleague’s (who is not a cable believer, but he was using the first guy’s spare Cardas) HD650/Cardas and all three of us identified the different cables every time. Our source was my DAC1 and we used the built-in amp. Sometimes the differences were obvious and other times they were very subtle - the recording quality was a large factor. While the differences were obvious the question of improvement is another. I clearly preferred the Zu while conducting the ABX while he and the other guy both preferred the Cardas (no one preferred the stock, as it really sounded a bit grainy up top and the bass was clearly less articulate)._

 

Do you hear difference between the left and right transducers in your headphones? They represent a *much* larger difference in any kind of quality that relates to sound than the difference between stock and expensive cables. Look at the HeadRoom charts. All brands of headphones show a difference. Actually, quite large differences.

 Regarding differences in cables, people fail ABX tests, you will fail an ABX test.

 The headphone market is quite competitive. Why on earth would Sennheiser use inadequate cables? They don't.


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_All I can tell you is that the same 20kHz signal that enters a wire meeting a very basic level of design will be identical (realistically) at the other end._

 

Yes, and this will also be the case with CD players and amps -- and they show (almost) perfectly flat frequency responses within the audio band. Do they sound the same because of this?


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_All I can tell you is that the same 20kHz signal that enters a wire meeting a very basic level of design will be identical (realistically) at the other end._

 

This statement fails to address the complexity of music which carry signals of 20kHz, 20Hz, and everything in between .... being conducted at the same time.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_
 The headphone market is quite competitive. Why on earth would Sennheiser not use adequate cables? 

 JF_

 

That's not tough or baffling...I discussed market reasons in a prior post.

 I don't think anyone is arguing that the cable is inadequate, the question is if there is a cable that is better (for that part of the discussion).


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Yes, and this will also be the case with CD players and amps -- they show (almost) perfectly flat frequency responses within the audio band. Do they sound the same because of this? 
 

Well, let's see- since "frequency response" is SOUND and the signal we've been discussing is pure ELECTRICITY, I don't give a sht about CDPs or amps right now. Why is this so hard to get?

 If you are actually meaning the electricity, and not the sound, are you trying to argue that the same signal that goes into an amp comes out the other end? Do you realize there is NO signal going 'into' a CDP, that it only generates a signal? Do you not see the difference between three items with wildly varying levels of complexity? Do you not see that you're arguing about apples and oranges?


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tiberian* 
_why don't you buy a aftermarket cable and do a DBT yourself smartass? you are one of those who brought out the question._

 

Hey, no need to get frustrated, it's not _my_ fault that a blind test will reveal that there are no audible differences... you would have to blame that on physics.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 This statement fails to address the complexity of music which carry signals of 20kHz, 20Hz, and everything in between .... being conducted at the same time. 
 

Ok- this is my last post on this.

 20kHz, being the top end, is the toughest to transmit (and I use "tough" very, very loosely). Go do some reading.

 This is a perfect example why you shouldn't enter into these discussions when you don't know what you're talking about.

 We have people bringing up amps, like they have anything to do with it.
 We have people bringing up lower frequency signals, like they're going to confound the problem.
 We have people suggesting the wires in a garden variety cable are inadequate to completely (realisitically) transmit a 20kHz signal, which isn't just wrong, it's egregiously so.

 Last post- do some reading. I'm getting frustrated and it's not fair to you guys if I start acting like a dick- sorry.


----------



## NeilPeart

The point is not whether or not Sennheiser uses adequate cabling - of course they do! However, better cabling design/material/implementations do exist, and the biggest reason Sennheiser doesn't adopt such cabling is due to cost. Why add another $75-100 worth of materials to an already expensive headphone when not even 5% of the high-end headphone enthusiasts even own headphone amps (and these are audio enthusiasts - imagine the average user who scoffs at the $350 of the HD650 and then add another $100 for the cable cost/labor). The main reason why Sennheiser uses the cable they use is because it's "good enough" to not limit the 'phones too much and costs no more than $10-15 to manufacture. The Zu cable costs at least $75 to manufacture and therefore such a cable would add to the already high cost of the HD650. However, for the headphone enthusiast with a highly resolving system (great source and amplification) an upgrade cable can and usually does make a noticeable (though still relatively small in the scheme of things) difference. I urge you to at least try a used Cardas cable to determine whether you personally can hear something. It's easy to argue a point using antiquated science theory but at least hear the damn thing before you forsake it in your mind.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Well, let's see- since "frequency response" is SOUND and the signal we've been discussing is pure ELECTRICITY, I don't give a sht about CDPs or amps right now. Why is this so hard to get?

 If you are actually meaning the electricity, and not the sound, are you trying to argue that the same signal that goes into an amp comes out the other end? Do you realize there is NO signal going 'into' a CDP, that it only generates a signal? Do you not see the difference between three items with wildly varying levels of complexity? Do you not see that you're arguing about apples and oranges?_

 

Not at all. You consider perfect sine waves the Alpha and Omega of accuracy. Both cables and electronics are accurate when it comes to sine waves. But they don't sound identical anyway. You see what I mean?


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_I don't agree. Cable forum is to discuss different cables for those that already are convinced that there is a difference in sound between cables. It would be as asking the pope if he believes in God.

 Georg_

 

If your talking about cables, it _should_ be in the cable section. Were not talking about difference in headphones here, but differences that cables make in a headphone. Im surprised no mod has transferred this thread yet.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Ok- this is my last post on this.

 20kHz, being the top end, is the toughest to transmit (and I use "tough" very, very loosely). Go do some reading.

 This is a perfect example why you shouldn't enter into these discussions when you don't know what you're talking about.

 Last post- do some reading. I'm getting frustrated and it's not fair to you guys if I start acting like a dick- sorry._

 

It's equally frustrating for many of us who are reading your condescending, arrogant posts as if we all haven't done our share of research and only you're the enlightened one. Be frustrated and make it your last post. The community certainly doesn't appreciate know-it-alls like you.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_ We were comparing (ABX) my HD650/stock to his HD650/Zu Cable and another colleague’s (who is not a cable believer, but he was using the first guy’s spare Cardas) HD650/Cardas and all three of us identified the different cables every time._

 

Please provide the full test data. In cases of positive results where theory does not predict one, additional data is required to eliminate extaneous variables. Unfortunately, it is easy to miss a pertinent detail that can contaminate the testing and produce a false positive. It is nesecarry to provide full data for peer review.

 -cable measurements/parameters of the actual cables used in the test

 -interface connections confirmed to be making proper contact and free from contamination?(oxidation, dirt, etc.)

 -output and load impedance measurements of the devices under test(for mathematical analysis of the circuit reactance with the measured cable parameters)

 -full details of test methodology(how the DBT was performed / how switching system was implemented(how was the ABX protocol executed?), listener/adminstrator procedures; how was the stiffness/weight/feel difference between cables attached to headphone unit remedied? -- basicly ALL details of the test)

 -test subject scores

 -selections of music used in test; specific time markers of tracks of parts that were most noticable would be helpful

 The test requires reproduction in order to verify it's validity -- this data is required to be published in order to allow this to be accomplished.

 Thank you.

 -Chris


----------



## markl

Quote:


 The test requires reproduction in order to verify it's validity -- this data is required to be published in order to allow this to be accomplished. 
 

 OK, we'll put it in respected International Journal For The Scientific Study of Audio Cables.


----------



## Jahn

Might I reiterate that, for the most part, due to the difficulty of recabling a grado versus just popping out a cable in a Senn, I'm glad the Grado Nation doesn't have to deal with discussions like this much. Thank goodness for homegrown grado cables!

 Versus if i even had a HD25, I'd be killing myself deciding if aftermarket was the way to go, and if so, which one, taking in consideration my rig, and future upgrades, syngergy, etc etc etc, defending my decisions, etc etc etc - argh! 

 Perhaps I'm just not up to debate like I usually am, but for some reason today I find this thread a tad annoying. If you hear a diff, and you like it, buy it, be done with it. If you have a Senn, but dont hear any diffs, great, you saved yourself money. If you dont have a senn and never will, what are you doing in this flamewar? Seacrest, out! *removes self from flamewar and hugs his grados with possibly inferior cabling*


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kurt* 
_System? What System? Those are all entry level minimalism Setups:

 ---------------
 With a Setup like that I would not hear a difference in cables._

 

Such assumptions you make --- almost sounds like an 'elitist' attitude. Certainly not based on logical examination of the situation(s) and the known limits of human auditory perception system.

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Jahn,

 The interesting thing to me is that if small changes in cable characteristics did make a difference, I would expect that low impedance headphones, like Sony and Grado, would benefit from this more. I have a personal suspicion that Sennheiser has continued using the same connectors (which used to be unreliable after time) because they know historically that people like to use Sennheiser because they can upgrade the cables. It differentiates them in a small way from others (Sony and AKG hasn't reverted to this because they know it doesn't make a difference. In fact, the Sennheiser connector itself is more likely a sonic problem than the wiring...)

 You don't happen to work for Grado do you?

 I hope that everyone gets as much enjoyment out of his, or her, system as possible and think that a better understanding (rather than marketing confusion) aids enjoyment. Obviously, audio offers a lot of enjoyment...seek out more good music (the source of the magic emanates from the other end of the audio chain).


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Please provide the full test data. In cases of positive results where theory does not predict one, additional data is required to eliminate extaneous variables. Unfortunately, it is easy to miss a pertinent detail that can contaminate the testing and produce a false positive. It is nesecarry to provide full data for peer review.

 -cable measurements/parameters of the actual cables used in the test

 -interface connections confirmed to be making proper contact and free from contamination?(oxidation, dirt, etc.)

 -output and load impedance measurements of the devices under test(for mathematical analysis of the circuit reactance with the measured cable parameters)

 -full details of test methodology(how the DBT was performed / how switching system was implemented(how was the ABX protocol executed?), listener/adminstrator procedures; how was the stiffness/weight/feel difference between cables attached to headphone unit remedied? -- basicly ALL details of the test)

 -test subject scores

 -selections of music used in test; specific time markers of tracks of parts that were most noticable would be helpful

 The test requires reproduction in order to verify it's validity -- this data is required to be published in order to allow this to be accomplished.

 Thank you.

 -Chris_

 

um....yeah. I'm sure he'll jump right on that for you.....

 I think this post just perfectly sums up the lack of practicality (I don't need to hear the combination!) coming from some in the no impact camp.


----------



## NeilPeart

First of all our ABX testing was just for fun and not for the posterity of Lockheed Martin or any other group/persons/etc.

 1.All the cables (stock, Cardas v2 and Zu Mobius) were 10’ in length.
 2.All interfaces were cleaned with alcohol prior to testing.
 3.No measurements of any kind were taken – we were strictly using our inherently flawed ears.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 4.The DAC1’s HPA-2 headphone amp features 2 0ohm outputs identical in every regard to each other. We connected 2 HD650s to the DAC1 and we used a glass TOSLINK to connect to the Meridian 588 (no interconnects of any kind were used; we were simply using the 588 as a transport for the DAC1). Power regeneration was provided by my PS Audio P300 with Multiwave II, setting 3 enabled. The 588 and DAC1 were plugged into separate outlets on the P300 (kitty corner to one another). The P300 hovered at ~ 25 Watts and it was connected to a Power Port outlet using a PS Audio Prelude power cord.
 5.One man functioned as the proctor while the other two listened (and the roles rotated). The proctor held the cable at its junction to reduce the psychological effect of cord mass/dimension. We used the following media: “Kind of Blue” by Miles Davis, “Bach: Solo Suites for Solo Cello” by Janos Starker, “Wish You Were Here” by Pink Floyd and “Post” by Bjork.

 Remember this test was very informal and more musical variety would have yielded more tangible results. It was unanimously agreed that Janos Starker’s use of chords and Bjork’s “Hyperballad” bass intro were the easiest way to identify the differences between cabling. I must admit that the difference between the Cardas and stock was not always apparent and did require more time to identify (though it was identified after more extensive listening, especially when highlighting the pieces mentioned above) than the Zu Mobius, which was almost always identifiable (this could be due to the use of a silver/copper hybrid approach). I’m certain this amateurish testing will not satiate the die-hard engineers among you but it was a fun weekend and damnit I just don’t care – I really enjoy and appreciate my HD650/Zu Mobius and it enables me to enjoy my music more than ever. If you skeptics want to reproduce this test go ahead – but please at least listen to the different cables before dismissing their legitimacy.


----------



## Blitzula

You jumped right on that for him! lol

 Figures...Rush fan.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_3.No measurements of any kind were taken – we were strictly using our inherently flawed ears.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Unaccounted variables.

  Quote:


 5.One man functioned as the proctor while the other two listened (and the roles rotated). The proctor held the cable at its junction to reduce the psychological effect of cord mass/dimension. 
 

Further expansion of this would be useful(how do you switch these cables for a DBT or ABX?) -- but referring to item '3' is the 1st issue that needs to be resolved. Additionalllly, was this a DBT, if so how was it accomplished(both testee and tester are not in knowledge of the variable in a DBT)?

 How was the ABX protocol implemented? ABX, specifically, is a DBT that allows known items to be listened too(A or B) with the variable (X) being unknown, but randomly assigned from A or B to the X state, allowing subject to match A or B to X.

 -Chris


----------



## Jahn

Ok, Seacrest in. I bet working for Grado would be mucho fun, and afterwards I could have some of Mama Grado's home cookin' downstairs. But if it came down to recabling, I bet I'd have better luck having my own set of cans recabled by Larry at Headphile (imho, to great effect) than to convince John that "swappable cables are the future!" Anyhow I get the sense that he likes the cables that are on his cans anyhow, seeing as how he makes them himself (or designs them) and even makes interconnects too. I don't think it's a pricing thing with him, but rather a preference thing. But that's another discussion entirely whether the grado cables stack up to aftermarket alternatives, in ICs or headphone cabling. Is it the prestige and signature lines? Edit - or even if cables have to stack up at all, if cables truly do all sound the same, which in my opinion they do not.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_I’m certain this amateurish testing will not satiate the die-hard engineers among you but it was a fun weekend and damnit I just don’t care – I really enjoy and appreciate my HD650/Zu Mobius and it enables me to enjoy my music more than ever. If you skeptics want to reproduce this test go ahead – but please at least listen to the different cables before dismissing their legitimacy._

 

Your test may not satiate the die-hard engineers but to me it sounds like an excellent attempt to verify what you were hearing. I have to be honest and say that I still have some doubts about the results, but you did make an honest effort to try to get at the truth of the matter... and that behavior is very distinct from those here who flame anyone who even suggests that such testing is beneficial. Regardless of how the results turned out I think you should be congratulated on your effort.


----------



## Len

Ultimately, does it matter? If you like what you hear and don't mind supporting the product with your wallet, there's really not much that needs to be verified. Even if it's all psychological, why rain on someone else's parade?


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_If your talking about cables, it should be in the cable section. Were not talking about difference in headphones here, but differences that cables make in a headphone. Im surprised no mod has transferred this thread yet._

 

I don't want to be impolite. I respect your opinion. You have your and I have mine opinion. But I don't understand your opinion. Do you really mean that cable isn't a part of the headphone?

 Georg


----------



## IstariAsuka

Ok, one of the most unknown things here has to do with Sennheiser, why they include that cable they do. Do they believe the cable makes a difference, and are only use this particular one for cost reasons? Do they not believe it makes a difference?

 I've thought up what I feel to be a legit solution to find the answer. Find out what the cable material/geometry is on the orpheus! If it's basically the same, then we can conclude they don't believe it makes a difference, and I'd be pretty willing to trust them on this. If, however, it is markedly different than then HD650 stock cable, and not just to make it more sturdy, then we can probably conclude that they actually do believe it makes a difference.

 Anyone know anything about the orpheus cable?


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_Ah, but if you haven't proven anything, even to yourself, if you haven't blind tested. Until you do it is quite possible that the difference you sense is purely psychological. I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time with this simple concept... it's certainly no shame as susceptibility to subjective psychological influences is a perfectly natural human trait, that's why procedures have been developed to help eliminate it. The only shame is not realizing the need to follow those procedures in order to come to a definitive conclusion (meaning one that is true for all individuals, not just one).

 But I do agree with you in that if, for whatever reason, you truly believe that your Zu really makes a difference then I guess you are getting something for your money._

 

LOL! This would be like me bringing my knee up hard between your legs and then asking you if you are certain the sensation you are now feeling down there might not be a placebo effect....and then suggesting that perhaps you might like to set up a DBT to make absolutely certain that the pain you are now experiencing is not imaginary.


----------



## Len

IIRC, the Orpheus has a ribbon type cable reminescent of Nordost cables. I can't imagine it being a litz braid.


----------



## markl

Orpheus has a totally different kind of cable as it's an electrostat phone, different connectors, too.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_LOL! This would be like me bringing my knee up hard between your legs and then asking you if you are certain the sensation you are now feeling down there might not be a placebo effect....and then suggesting that perhaps you might like to set up a DBT to make absolutely certain that the pain you are now experiencing is not imaginary. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

So I would take this to mean that you believe the audible difference between a stock cable and a Zu cable to be as obvious as a kick in the groin? Now _that_ is funny..!


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_Even if it's all psychological, why rain on someone else's parade?_

 

AFAIK, it's called jealousy. About other peoples equipment or their hearing capability.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kurt* 
_AFAIK, it's called jealousy. About other peoples equipment or their hearing capability. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm jealous of genius like Tori Amos and Pierre Boulez.

 Again, I wired my amplifier with 17AWG silver wire, but am perfectly happy with my free RCA cables--they sound just fine. If someone gave me a pair of Zu-cables, I doubt that I would try them. People should not have to think that there is something wrong with stock headphone cables. (If someone spent a lot of money on cables, you may rest assured that you have the best there is, but sonically they are *no* different than stock cables.)


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_ I have to be honest and say that I still have some doubts about the results, but you did make an honest effort to try to get at the truth of the matter... and that behavior is very distinct from those here who flame anyone who even suggests that such testing is beneficial._

 

I see few posts that claim that testing isn't beneficial. The claim is that if one has heard the combination, one might not be so insistent on testing, or at least would be coming from an informed position.

 I think one of the reasons you hear heated responses is that many people are making judgements without having heard the combination, and in some cases smugly replying to those who have about how they're wrong.

 Smug ignorance inspires flaming in some.


----------



## MD1032

My personal belief is that there is a certain line below which cables do make a difference and actually cannot fully carry the electronic stream without causing impedance, but above that line, you can't hear a difference.

 I also know for a fact that sheilding makes a huge difference. Depending on where you're running the wire, like near computer and magnetic stuff, you might get a bad hiss or hum from your cables. In this respect, I think cable quality is important.

 I have yet to hear a huge 2" thick power cable improve my system over my other 2" thick cable that cost less.


----------



## cecirdr

What luck! My cardas cable just arrived! I'm going to listen to it quite awhile to night. I'll put the stock cable back in tomorrow and listen to the same music and let you know if I can tell the difference and what it is that I hear if I do. FWIW, I haven't read any reviews about what a cardas cable should cause me to hear, so that's a bit of a control. 

 I do notice that the cable is constructed quite a bit differently from stock. It's twisted pair construction. Each wire is wrapped in insulation, then twisted around it's pair at a certain constant turn rate terminating at the ear piece connector. Those twisted pairs (now left and right lines) are put into another sheath, (and are probably twisted at a certain turn rate again by the feel of the cable) then the whole two pairs of twists are encased in a final sheath. In telephone cable, this type of construction is used in cat 5 line. It provides better sheilding and thus you have less crosstalk between signals on each wire. I could also see that a certain frequency of twist/turns could effect transmission of a certain frequency of signal. But that theory is way over my head....just something I recall from my school days way, way back.

 So...we'll see, but I make the caveat that my source component fairly well stinks compared to a good cd/sacd player. I have a portable cd player or line out on my ipod. The only reason I even have this cable is that it was part of a kit where the headphones, amp, and cable were sold as a unit. The cost of the cable boiled out to about $50 in the kit price. 

 Ceci


----------



## StevieDvd

Has anyone tried aftermarket ears?

 Does earwax improve or degrade?

 Is DBT wearing 2 blindfolds and does the material matter?

 Am I joking?

 Are you less pent up now?


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_I don't want to be impolite. I respect your opinion. You have your and I have mine opinion. But I don't understand your opinion. Do you really mean that cable isn't a part of the headphone?

 Georg_

 

YGPM


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_People should be happy with their headphones without thinking that there is something wrong with the cables._

 

ROTFLMAO. How nice of you, to tell us what we should and should not do. 

 You would feel even better if you could order us to.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kurt* 
_ROTFLMAO. How nice of you, to tell us what we should and should not do. 

 You would feel even better if you could order us to. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Do you have anything related to audio equipment to write?


 JF


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_So I would take this to mean that you believe the audible difference between a stock cable and a Zu cable to be as obvious as a kick in the groin? Now that is funny..!_

 

Finally! LOL! Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. On my system: source = Arcam FMJ CD33t, amp = Larocco Full Monty (see sig for specs) feeding the HD 650s via the stock cable and the Zu cable will result in two completly different sounds, as obvious to me as a swift kick in the groin. Yep, that's a fact.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_ I’m certain this amateurish testing will not satiate the die-hard engineers among you but it was a fun weekend and damnit I just don’t care <snip>_

 

But then you perhaps should not use specific concepts like 'ABX'. You may not care but others may.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I am perfectly happy with my free RCA cables--they sound just fine. If someone gave me a pair of Zu-cables, I doubt that I would try them. People should not have to think that there is something wrong with stock headphone cables. (If someone spent a lot of money on cables, you may rest assured that you have the best there is, but sonically they are *no* different than stock cables.)

 JF_

 

You are reiterating your philosophy already shown earlier in this thread: it's impossible for cables to make a difference, therefore they won't make one. I have rarely seen such certitudes. 

 Pssst... advice: try that pair of Zu, then say that you haven't heard any difference towards stock interconnects. This would give you much more credibility


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_You are reiterating your philosophy already shown earlier in this thread: it's impossible for cables to make a difference, therefore they won't make one. I have rarely seen such certitudes. 

 Pssst... advice: try that pair of Zu, then say that you haven't heard any difference towards stock interconnects. This would give you much more credibility 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The electronics involved works just like a lot of the electronics you are used to: your car radio, your computer, your TV, your lights in the house, your cell phone, etc. Wiring either connects things or not. There is no sounds better, looks better, lights better, transmits better because of the wiring. It either works or does not. Why does audio require special wiring? It doesn't. The transducers are basically either connected to the amplifier or not.

 Again, the headphone transducers are the most mis-matched components in most systems. Sennheiser "hand matches the HD 650 transducers to +/- 1dB." If people haven't heard that, then they will not hear differences in wires (which may differ 0.01dB). I would also like to restate that the Sennheiser connectors likely perturb the signals more than choice of wires.

 If a person has time, an ABX test is simple. This is what cable A sounds like, this is what cable B sounds like, now this is cable X (randomly selected by someone else), which one is it? Do this 25 times. No one will correctly determine which cable is which 17 out of 25 times.

 One's mind plays tricks. Of course there are many optical illusions. Here is one. Do the follow lines look parallel? 







 JF


----------



## Len

Would you disagree that different wiring geometries will have differing transmission capabilities? Or that different conductor material has a physical effect on how free electrons behave? Or that wire has impact on the impedance, inductance, conductance, and resistance of the associated gear? 

 Differences in cabling used for digital transmission (computer products, for example) will yield measurable differences in data rate transmission. Or when you connect a premium power cord on your amp and measure the wattage only to find out the amp is now drawing 20% less power. Ad naseum. How, then, is a wire a wire?

 If you'd like to argue that human perception isn't acute enough to pick up on these differences, I'll go along with the ride. But to say all cables yield the same results is erroneous.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_If a person has time, an ABX test is simple. This is what cable A sounds like, this is what cable B sounds like, now this is cable X (randomly selected by someone else), which one is it? Do this 25 times. No one will correctly determine which cable is which 17 out of 25 times._

 

I can determine 25 out of 25 times the difference between Straightwire Rhapsody and Silver Audio Appassionata. A RCA 3-way splitter and a twist of my preamp's source dial permits me to A B effortlessly. The difference isn't a subtle "I think I heard it" magnitude neither.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_I can determine 25 out of 25 times the difference between Straightwire Rhapsody and Silver Audio Appassionata. A RCA 3-way splitter and a twist of my preamp's source dial permits me to A B effortlessly. The difference isn't a subtle "I think I heard it" magnitude neither._

 

You've had *someone else* *randomly select* these two cables and you've correctly identified the cables 25 of 25 times? (If possible, I would like to stick with stock versus expensive replacement headphone cables.)

 BTW: unless you scroll up and down (measure) did the lines look parallel?


 JF


----------



## Len

Yes, my brother did the switching. The same audio track (one that I am intimately familiar with) was used. No, we didn't do it 25 times. But I determined which cable was right 100% of the time (I'd guess close to a dozen times). Put another way, the difference between the Straightwire and Silver Audio wasn't even close.

 I know this doesn't have to do with stock versus premium headphone cables. But if ICs can make a significant difference IME, it's not a momentous leap to conclude speaker/headphone cables can as well. 

 edit: I would like to mention that there wasn't as big a difference between my stock Senn cables and my StefanArt as there was between the two ICs. I actually found it pretty subtle. Just my personal observation, of course.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_BTW: unless you scroll up and down (measure) did the lines look parallel?_

 

What lines are you referring to?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_What lines are you referring to?_

 

The link broke. There is another one a few posts back (#270). What do you think?

 Okay, here:






 You can "measure" by scrolling up and down the top (or bottom) edge of your screen.


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

That's more practical research than others have done with the actual headphone/cable that people are discussing.

 Have you listened to the 650/Zu? Are you one of the few naysayers to really have practical, vs theoretical, insight?


----------



## Len

Nope, they don't look parellel, but I know they are. There are lots of optical and auditory illusions. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it certainly doesn't discount real differences may exist. All it says is human senses are easily fooled, and I agree.

 On a philosophical tangent, what does it matter if it's all merely psychological? It's no different then self esteem, no?


----------



## Blitzula

I think that the illusion is interesting from a visual point of view, but auditorily we're talking about something much different that isn't easily explained in the same manner.

 Of course, for the umpteenth time, one has to hear the combo to understand that.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_That's more practical research than others have done with the actual headphone/cable that people are discussing.

 Have you listened to the 650/Zu? Are you one of the few naysayers to really have practical, vs theoretical, insight?_

 

I'm not sure if this was addressed to me. Is this concerning my comment that the difference between the StefanArt and stock cables was subtle? I honestly couldn't make out a huge difference. But unlike auditioning the ICs with a mere twist of a knob, there was a lot more time used to swap headphone cables in between comparisions. When you can toggle between cable A and cable B in a matter of milleseconds, the difference is a lot more pronounced.


----------



## Blitzula

That was addressed to John, sorry about the confusion.

 It would be nice if there was a "reply to" specific posts button....


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_Have you listened to the 650/Zu?_

 

No. I'm afraid that Zu-cables are a scam.


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts if you ever do. Zu offers a money back guarantee...only shipping costs are really at risk.

 It's not a scam from the perspective that the sound is clearly different. Now what is done to make the sound different...that's another matter.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_No. I'm afraid that Zu-cables are a scam._

 

The chance for this is minor. I suppose you resort to Head-Fi to benefit from others' experiences (what other reason is there?). If so, this is probably one of the safest bets. I think 95% of the people who have tried the Zu Mobius are very satisfied with it. You'll have a hard time to find any other product with a comparable acceptance.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I suppose you resort to Head-Fi to benefit from others' experiences (what other reason is there?).



_

 

Maybe in another life, but thanks guys.

 (Man oh, man...I thought the reason to post here is to see how much trouble one could stir up....hehehe... no, I actually visit to learn and share...)


 JF


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


 Again, the headphone transducers are the most mis-matched components in most systems. Sennheiser "hand matches the HD 650 transducers to +/- 1dB." If people haven't heard that, then they will not hear differences in wires (which may differ 0.01dB). I would also like to restate that the Sennheiser connectors likely perturb the signals more than choice of wires. 
 

This is a good example of a simple explanation why many of us find claims of an ability to reliably differentiate between two cables as less than credible. Sennheiser maintains their +/- 1 dB transducer matching because a 1 dB difference is very difficult for the human ear to resolve, thus this is not likely to cause audio quality issues in their product. That makes sense. But without some type of components in line it is virtually impossible to come even close to a 1 dB loss (at any audio frequency) in a straight wire of a few feet length by such trivial differences as whether the conductor happens to be copper (be it high or low oxygen copper 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





), silver, or whatever. As was said, the figure may be more like 0.01 dB, if that, which is so far below human audibility as to make it _impossible_, yes, impossible, to resolve, no matter what you may wish to imagine. Likewise, there isn't much you can do in terms of a capacitive difference that could have any audible effect at audio frequencies in such a short length of wire. In amplifiers, CD players, compression software, yes... but in wire... no. This is simple fact.

 Yet, we are told that there is a night-and-day difference in these cables, and when asked for some logical explanation of how this could possibly be so the ususal response is something on the order of 'well, there just is...'. And as for the need to aquire these gimmick cables and do testing... if someone claims that they can reliably tell the difference between two objects that weigh 200.00 and 200.01 grams I don't really need to heft the objects myself to know that this is impossible.

 As to the point whether any of this really matters if the subject truly believes that there is a difference worth paying for, well, I guess not... if you really believe that it sounds better then I suppose you have gotten something for your money... but on the other hand I sure hope that person sticks to listening to music and doesn't try their hand at designing airplanes or testing new drugs...


----------



## Len

Bottom line is nearly all people who actually try cable auditioning perceive noticable differences. Then there are those that simply refuse to find out for themselves because they refuse to believe it can possibly make a difference.

 BTW, short runs of cables can significantly effect capacitance by great magnitudes. Do a search in Audio Asylum; People have measured and gone through extensive explanations as to why cables sound different. Of course, you may choose to invalidate these measurements as being unscientific, but I'd argue you're doing it for the sake of maintaining your dogma (just as people who wish to invalidate everyone's personal blind tests because of small procedural flaws).

 FWIW, I too used to believe cables made no difference. I got over my preconceptions when I actually listened for myself.

 You humor me by stating your opinions and conjectures as "simple fact."


----------



## Len

FWIW, I personally don't believe there's a "night and day" difference between properly designed cables. And there's even less of a difference between cables of the same conductor material and geometry. But there is a difference.

 Yes, people are prone to exaggeration. Happens all the time.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_ And as for the need to aquire these gimmick cables and do testing... if someone claims that they can reliably tell the difference between two objects that weigh 200.00 and 200.01 grams I don't really need to heft the objects myself to know that this is impossible._

 

That's true...you need to acquire the gimmick cables so that you can then realize how specious it was comparing the difference in sound to 200 and 200.01 grams in weight.

 By the way, up until a couple of years ago, bees flying seemed to violate the rules of aerodynamics also. Many of us-the ones who don't try to argue from a position of practical ignorance-are able to see the bees flying in this issue.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_. Do a search in Audio Asylum; People have measured and gone through extensive explanations as to why cables sound different._

 

I did take a look at Audio Asylum. I'm afraid that I didn't get much further than the cable FAQ entry discussing 'whether or not speaker cables need to be kept up off of a wood or carpeted floor for better sound.' I learned all about carpet, wood, and concrete holding moisture that could 'short out the electric field'. To be fair I'll keep looking around, though, maybe the rest of the site isn't quite this ridiculous.

 Here's another link of interest: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...les/cables.htm


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_That's true...you need to acquire the gimmick cables so that you can then realize how specious it was comparing the difference in sound to 200 and 200.01 grams in weight._

 

Yeah, maybe you're right. A few friends and I just tried it and found we could identify the heavier object 25 times out of 25 tries. And if my claim isn't proof then I don't know what is...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Recordings using a very natural and minimal recording approach and made with the very best equipment available, including our Linear Structured Carbon ® cables for all connections. 

http://www.vandenhul.com/recordings_...rbon/index.htm
 Nice sounding samples.






 If anyone knows or can figure out where to order these (from the US), I'd be interested...


 JF


----------



## AuroraProject

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_No. I'm afraid that Zu-cables are a scam.


 JF_

 


 Riiiiight. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 I see this debate is still chugging down the track.


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_Yeah, maybe you're right. A few friends and I just tried it and found we could identify the heavier object 25 times out of 25 tries. And if my claim isn't proof then I don't know what is..._

 

Well at least you have some real world experience now, albeit experience having nothing to do with the topic.

 If you eventually actually get to the real world experience point with the headphones/cable at hand, you could have an opinion not diluted by practical ignorance.

 As always, I speak ONLY to the 650/Zu, the one I've heard.

 Bees....


----------



## Len

I'm not trying to prove anything. You can do that on your own by auditioning a few cables instead of all this academic, futile debate. It's really no skin off my back if people want to cling to fuzzy concepts without practical application.


----------



## Blitzula

I sent an e-mail directly to Sennheiser headphone technical support to solicit their input on the issue. Here is my e-mail and their response...

Original e-mail  

 Quick question....I'm thinking of replacing my current HD-650 headphone cable with a high quality aftermarket cable. Can this actually affect the sound of my headphones?

 I have a healthy audio budget, so price isn't a concern to me. Please let me know your thoughts.

 By the way....great headphone.

Response from Sennheiser headphone technical support

 Hi John, 

 An upgraded cable on the HD650 can make a difference in the sound quality of the headphone. There seems to be some debate over the amount of change to the sound quality that it will create. Some people claim that it makes a huge difference in the sound quality while others claim the difference is minimal and is more of a mental belief it is actually better. The truth probably is somewhere in between the two, so it should make a difference in the sound quality. 

 Sincerely, 
 Adam Goyette
 Associate Product Manager
 Sennheiser Electronic Corp.

 This is the second time for me that Sennheiser has-unlike the practical ignorance camp-acknowledged that an upgraded cable can make a difference. His reply also encompasses all cables, I'm quite certain that the Zu/650 users are the ones that see more of the "night and day (or at least very significant)" difference.

 I'm done with the arguement....the practical experience supports the sound difference in Zu/650, Sennheiser themselves acknowledge a cable can make a difference. Those who claim otherwise without trying the combo are just practically ignorant. Which isn't bad until they then try to claim the intellectual high road.

 Bees.....


----------



## breadnbutter

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_By the way, up until a couple of years ago, bees flying seemed to violate the rules of aerodynamics also. Many of us-the ones who don't try to argue from a position of practical ignorance-are able to see the bees flying in this issue._

 

Sorry, but I just want to state that it is a complete myth. Nobody in the world can actually calculate wether bees can fly or not from physical laws, this would be much to complicated. I think one engineer once came up with a toy formula for airplane aerodynamics and according to this a bee cannot fly. But this forumula is even further away from a "rule of aermodynamics" than a bee from a concorde. 
 Just had to say this, because this story is still used far too often.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Echos of desperation...




_

 


 Know what you mean. I feel sorry for Blitzula too.


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *breadnbutter* 
_Sorry, but I just want to state that it is a complete myth. Nobody in the world can actually calculate wether bees can fly or not from physical laws, this would be much to complicated. I think one engineer once came up with a toy formula for airplane aerodynamics and according to this a bee cannot fly. But this forumula is even further away from a "rule of aermodynamics" than a bee from a concorde. 
 Just had to say this, because this story is still used far too often. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

My only point was that it couldn't be scientifically proven, but was clear. You don't have to read more into it than that.


----------



## WmAx

With no supporting evidence or a rational explanation that fits within the established science of electrical signal transmission, the word of Sennheiser has little meaning in this matter. Perhaps the Senn cables degrade the sound audibly(which would require purposeful or very POOR cable design). But I find it doubtful that Sennheiser would purposely degrade the signal transmission or be so incompetant as to end up with a cable that had the suitable parameters to effect audible change over this distance with the transmitted frequency bandwidth and respective loads at subject here.

 -Chris

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_I sent an e-mail directly to Sennheiser headphone technical support to solicit their input on the issue. Here is my e-mail and their response...

Original e-mail  

 Quick question....I'm thinking of replacing my current HD-650 headphone cable with a high quality aftermarket cable. Can this actually affect the sound of my headphones?

 I have a healthy audio budget, so price isn't a concern to me. Please let me know your thoughts.

 By the way....great headphone.

Response from Sennheiser headphone technical support

 Hi John, 

 An upgraded cable on the HD650 can make a difference in the sound quality of the headphone. There seems to be some debate over the amount of change to the sound quality that it will create. Some people claim that it makes a huge difference in the sound quality while others claim the difference is minimal and is more of a mental belief it is actually better. The truth probably is somewhere in between the two, so it should make a difference in the sound quality. 

 Sincerely, 
 Adam Goyette
 Associate Product Manager
 Sennheiser Electronic Corp.

 This is the second time for me that Sennheiser has-unlike the practical ignorance camp-acknowledged that an upgraded cable can make a difference. His reply also encompasses all cables, I'm quite certain that the Zu/650 users are the ones that see more of the "night and day (or at least very significant)" difference.

 I'm done with the arguement....the practical experience supports the sound difference in Zu/650, Sennheiser themselves acknowledge a cable can make a difference. Those who claim otherwise without trying the combo are just practically ignorant. Which isn't bad until they then try to claim the intellectual high road.

 Bees....._


----------



## JaZZ

Echos of desperation...


----------



## WmAx

Do you have anthing of substance to contribute?

 -Chris

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Echos of desperation...




_


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_I sent an e-mail directly to Sennheiser headphone technical support to solicit their input on the issue. Here is my e-mail and their response...

Original e-mail  

 Quick question....I'm thinking of replacing my current HD-650 headphone cable with a high quality aftermarket cable. Can this actually affect the sound of my headphones?

 I have a healthy audio budget, so price isn't a concern to me. Please let me know your thoughts.

 By the way....great headphone.

Response from Sennheiser headphone technical support

 Hi John, 

 An upgraded cable on the HD650 can make a difference in the sound quality of the headphone. There seems to be some debate over the amount of change to the sound quality that it will create. Some people claim that it makes a huge difference in the sound quality while others claim the difference is minimal and is more of a mental belief it is actually better. The truth probably is somewhere in between the two, so it should make a difference in the sound quality. 

 Sincerely, 
 Adam Goyette
 Associate Product Manager
 Sennheiser Electronic Corp.

 This is the second time for me that Sennheiser has-unlike the practical ignorance camp-acknowledged that an upgraded cable can make a difference. His reply also encompasses all cables, I'm quite certain that the Zu/650 users are the ones that see more of the "night and day (or at least very significant)" difference.

 I'm done with the arguement....the practical experience supports the sound difference in Zu/650, Sennheiser themselves acknowledge a cable can make a difference. Those who claim otherwise without trying the combo are just practically ignorant. Which isn't bad until they then try to claim the intellectual high road.

 Bees....._

 

You will not correctly identify headphone cables in a blind test.


 JF


----------



## Blitzula

I do too! Oh....


----------



## Len

I don't understand why naysayers don't simply give cables an audition before they pontificate the impossibility of sonic differences. It's zero risk ("full money back if not satisfied" policies) and isn't time consuming or labor intensive.

 WmAx,
 Sennheiser's stock cables are engineered with two key criteria: achieving their engineers' design goals within fiscal cost-benefit perimeters. No one is questioning their competance. The fact they use different cables in different headphone models suggests to me they believe there is a difference in cable quality. The fact they design headphones with detachable cables is also highly suggestive to me.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Do you have anthing of substance to contribute?_

 

Not at the moment. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just enjoy the discussion.


----------



## Len

Whoa, a few post order got shuffled around all of a sudden! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now we have people quoting stuff that seemingly were posted after their quote!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_I don't understand why naysayers don't simply give cables an audition before they pontificate the impossibility of sonic differences. It's zero risk ("full money back if not satisfied" policies) and isn't time consuming or labor intensive.

 WmAx,
 Sennheiser's stock cables are engineered with two key criteria: achieving their engineers' design goals within fiscal cost-benefit perimeters. No one is questioning their competance. The fact they use different cables in different headphone models suggests to me they believe there is a difference in cable quality. The fact they design headphones with detachable cables is also highly suggestive to me._

 

Why can't Zu provide supporting evidence that their product does what people think it does?


 JF


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Why can't Zu provide supporting evidence that their product does what people think it does?


 JF_

 

Why don't you listen to one?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Why can't Zu provide supporting evidence that their product does what people think it does?_

 

Why doesn't Sennheiser provide supporting evidence that the HD 650 sounds better than the HD 600?


----------



## NeilPeart

A fairly well executed ABX with three scientists (2 with PhDs dealing with acoustics, physics and EE) and Sennheiser themselves acknowledging the improvement potential and still complete dismissal? Not all audiophiles are tweak-crazy, uber-wealthy nuts who'll believe anything. Just because Sennheiser's stock cable is limiting the HD650's potential doesn't mean it was poorly designed; Sennheiser simply concluded that most users of the HD650 won't have issue with the cable and their systems won't be resolving enough to warrant extra expense on the cable – the OFC cable is good enough for most people (and the HD650 does sound damn good with the stock cable). With a 'phone that approaches $500 MSRP padding another $100 or so for a better cable is simply bad business, even for a high-end audio product like the HD650. I'm inviting you to visit the Bay Area and we can do any manner of testing with my HD650 - I'll have the Zu Mobius, Cardas, Oehlbach and the stock cable available for any testing you want to conduct. I’m an anti-tweak guy and I’m skeptical regarding most things audio but listening to a stock HD650 next to a Zu’d HD650 makes the difference (and improvement, IMO) that much more obvious. I realize you’ll never admit such a possibility and maintain your strict dogma but it’s a sad ignorance – your complete dismissal is no better than the loon who spends $50,000 on a power cable for his toaster to achieve more even browning (OK, maybe a little better
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Why doesn't Sennheiser provide supporting evidence that the HD 650 sounds better than the HD 600?_

 

Again, apples and oranges. We're not talking about two different headphone models (which indeed will probably sound different), or amplifiers, or compression algorithms, or PCDPs, we are talking about... wire.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_Whoa, a few post order got shuffled around all of a sudden! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now we have people quoting stuff that seemingly were posted after their quote!_

 

I can figure out how things work. I'm trying to organize things a bit because it seems that people are ignoring salient points (and alternatively bringing up less important points).

 * There is no technical reason that cables should sound different.
 * No one hears that the headphone transducers do have a rather large measureable difference.
 * No one will correctly identify stock versus Zu-cables in a blind (ABX) test.

 Yes, it is difficult for the naysayers. It's like asking people who don't believe in Loch Ness to prove it. The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim that there is something there...


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *saint.panda* 
_Why don't you listen to one?_

 

There is absolutely no reason for me to do so.


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_A fairly well executed ABX with three scientists (2 with PhDs dealing with acoustics, physics and EE) and Sennheiser themselves acknowledging the improvement potential and still complete dismissal?_

 

What fairly-well executed ABX test? Are you referring to the one you posted earlier? It had several procedural problems as well as insufficient data disclosure that in sum make this incident extremely questionable. I don't even see how you can claim it was using ABX methodology from the description. On a side note, it's probably not a good idea to crutch on the degress of someone when mentioning these things; a credential does not validate a test.

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_sad ignorance..._

 

Well, I think we all are stubbling around in the dark much more than we are willing to admit. Fortunately, there are glimmers of light that help us occasionally.

 Look I'm not here to sell anything. Like many people, I visit here to learn. I have learned more about this by taking a stance on this. Sorry, but I'm now more certain that there is no audible difference between stock and expensive cables.


 JF


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Blitzula* 
_By the way, up until a couple of years ago, bees flying seemed to violate the rules of aerodynamics also._

 

Oh no, oh please... is this lamest of the lame urban legend ever going to die?


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I can figure out how things work. I'm trying to organize things a bit because it seems that people are ignoring salient points (and alternatively bringing up less important points).

 * There is no technical reason that cables should sound the same.
 * No one hears that the headphone transducers do have a rather large measureable difference.
 * No one will correctly identify stock versus Zu-cables in a blind (ABX) test.

 Yes, it is difficult for the naysayers. It's like asking people who don't believe in Loch Ness to prove it. The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim that there is something there...


 JF_

 

I was actually referring to the posting order (post indexing) of this thread that got out of time alignment. For example, people look like their quoting other posts, but those posts came sequentially after their quote. Very weird.

 I don't think I've disregarded any salient points. All I hear from naysayers is something to the effect of "I haven't read data that supports the possibility of sonic differences in cables, so I refuse to try it myself." What other points have been made? OTOH, I think you have ignored good deal of my responses for the sake of maintaining your position. I think as the argument progresses, you're more entrenched in your opinion. That's dogma.

 As to you point #1:
 There is plenty of technical reasons why cables should sound different. Do a simple search for the word "capacitance" in AA's cable forum and you'll find a plethora of technical mumbo jumbo. Again, if data rate and accuracy can effect computer cabling, why should we assume it can't affect audio signals?

 As to your point #2:
 Who says they can't hear a difference between driver or enclosure mismatch? I know this has to isn't fully pertinent to headphones, but I've heard identical speakers sound different from one production to the next. Same thing for vacuum tubes. You've made an unfair assumption and a specious correlation (i.e., if you can't hear differences in drivers, you can't hear differences in cables).

 As to your point #3:
 Pure biased and unsubstantiated conjecture. I could claim the antithesis of your opinion and it would be just as valid (which is to say not valid at all).


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_
 WmAx,
 Sennheiser's stock cables are engineered with two key criteria: achieving their engineers' design goals within fiscal cost-benefit perimeters. No one is questioning their competance. The fact they use different cables in different headphone models suggests to me they believe there is a difference in cable quality. The fact they design headphones with detachable cables is also highly suggestive to me._

 

Len, providing an option to change the cable does not conclude audible difference. Neither does Sennheiser's opinions unless backed by verifiable data. There is no evidence to suggest a special(costly) cable design is required to transfer the signals in question.

 -Chris


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_A fairly well executed ABX with three scientists (2 with PhDs dealing with acoustics, physics and EE) <snip>_

 

Where? Please give us the details. I hope you do not mind my asking this, but: are you quite sure you are not confusing the ABX methodology with something else?


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## NeilPeart

Quote:


 a credential does not validate a test. 
 

I just used that to point out that we're not a bunch of clueless music nuts - we're skeptical engineers who want to arrive at a solid conclusion regarding an after-market cable's validity, but unlike you folks we actually listened to the products before sullenly dismissing the possibility of improvement.

  Quote:


 Sorry, but I'm now more certain that there is no audible difference between stock and expensive cables. 
 

You say that with such authority for someone who's never even heard the products in question!


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_But I find it doubtful that Sennheiser would purposely degrade the signal transmission _

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_There is absolutely no reason for me to do so.
 JF_

 

Keep your doubts and your ignorance. 

 As long as:

 We have the fun. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 .


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Len, providing an option to change the cable does not conclude audible difference. Neither does Sennheiser's opinions unless backed by verifiable data. There is no evidence to suggest a special(costly) cable design is required to transfer the signals in question.

 -Chris_

 

I agree. I was merely stating that all signs suggest Sennheiser believes cables do make a difference. Now whether or not their opinion is valid is open to debate. I suggest you audition a few cables and find out for yourself. What's there to lose?


----------



## tiberian

Quote:


 * No one will correctly identify stock versus Zu-cables in a blind (ABX) test.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_There is plenty of technical reasons why cables should sound different. Do a simple search for the word "capacitance" in AA's cable forum and you'll find a plethora of technical mumbo jumbo._

 

Now, really... This would be like asking about the validity of astrology on an astrology forum.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_ Again, if data rate and accuracy can effect computer cabling, why should we assume it can't affect audio signals?
_

 

The two signals are not comparable for their cabling requirments. Audio uses relatively low frequencies, and in case of headphone signal, at relatively high signal levels as well that are basicly immune to the problems that occur for high frequency data transmission(s). As far as capacitance, the only effect such things as excessive capacitance or inductance would result in is frequency response difference. Easily measureable. Unlikely to occur in the situation considering the respective loads and lengths of a headphone amplifier mating to a headphone unless drastic measures were taken to intoduce this effect.

 -Chris


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, I think we all are stubbling around in the dark much more than we are willing to admit. Fortunately, there are glimmers of light that help us occasionally.

 Look I'm not here to sell anything. Like many people, I visit here to learn. I have learned more about this by taking a stance on this. Sorry, but I'm now more certain that there is no audible difference between stock and expensive cables.


 JF_

 

John, you're trolling, give it a rest, eh?


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_John, you're trolling, give it a rest, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The dissidents are always trolling.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_The two signals are not comparable for their cabling requirments. Audio uses relatively low frequencies, and in case of headphone signal, at relatively high signal levels as well that are basicly immune to the problems that occur for high frequency data transmission(s). As far as capacitance, the only effect such things as excessive capacitance or inductance would result in is frequency response difference. Easily measureable. Unlikely to occur in the situation considering the respective loads and lengths of a headphone amplifier mating to a headphone unless drastic measures were taken to intoduce this effect.

 -Chris_

 

Chris, differences in frequency response has been measured for my ICs using a simple dB meter and incremental test tones. Is there a reason why ICs' low level signals could significantly effect freq response but the (relatively) high level signals of speaker/headphone cables can not?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_Again, apples and oranges. We're not talking about two different headphone models (which indeed will probably sound different), or amplifiers, or compression algorithms, or PCDPs, we are talking about... wire._

 

So what? A product is a product. No manufacturer is obliged to proof that his product is better than any competitive product, or its own predecessor, resp.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_The dissidents are always trolling.


 Regards,

 L._

 

Not at all, I can be quite a dissident myself... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 However, IMO, John is trolling.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_* No one hears that the headphone transducers do have a rather large measureable difference.
 * No one will correctly identify stock versus Zu-cables in a blind (ABX) test._

 

[exception to DFTT on]

 Where is the verifiable data?

 [exception to DFTT off]


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_The dissidents are always trolling._

 

I don't think dissidents are always trolling, although I'd argue comments like "Fortunately, there are glimmers of light that help us occasionally" are trollish.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_Now, really... This would be like asking about the validity of astrology on an astrology forum._

 

I understand your perspective, but it's a logical fallacy. You're discrediting information offered up by 'believers' because you hold an opposing viewpoint. All that matters is the argument is reasonable (or better yet, the science is good).


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_





 However, IMO, John is trolling._

 


 Define trolling.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kurt* 
_[exception to DFTT on]

 Where is the verifiable data?

 [exception to DFTT off]_

 






 Sennheiser datasheet: "Hand-selected, matched headphone systems with
 very tight tolerances (+/- 1 dB)."

 Can *anyone* state that they hear this difference?


 JF


----------



## Len

Again, who says people can't hear the difference? We always listen to headphones in stereo, so it's really hard to compare the two drivers, especially when the stereo signals are unique to the channel. And there's simply nothing we can do about this difference.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_Chris, differences in frequency response has been measured for my ICs using a simple dB meter and incremental test tones. Is there a reason why ICs' low level signals could significantly effect freq response but the (relatively) high level signals of speaker/headphone cables can not?_

 

SIgnal level has nothing to do with the frequency response; I was only referring to signal level in reference to extraneous source noise immunity.

 As far as measuring a frequency response difference in an IC -- if this difference exists with known just noticable differences within the audio band, then it will certainly be audible. But that is not something i've ever contended. However, it's important to note that is not normal for ICs to have an effect on frequency response except in unusual load situations such as passive volume controls used in non-ideal circumstances, where excess capacitance can have consequential effect on frequency response. But if the difference occurs it is hardly a mysterious factor, and is modelable with standard lumped sum parameter calculations. I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing that extreme enough values of L,C or R in the right circuit will cuase audible differences.

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_Again, who says people can't hear the difference? We always listen to headphones in stereo, so it's really hard to compare the two drivers, especially when the stereo signals are unique to the channel. And there's simply nothing we can do about this difference._

 

The point is that *no one* does notice.

 For comparison, pretend that that blue line is cable A, now pretend that the blue line is cable B. How can one hear the difference? That is not much of an exaggeration. Cables will measure *much* less than the difference between the blue and red lines.


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Sennheiser datasheet: "Hand-selected, matched headphone systems with very tight tolerances (+/- 1 dB)."

 Can *anyone* state that they hear this difference?_

 

The difference between left and right ear? To detect it, the difference has to be rather large, larger than this deviation. Part of it likely is caused by the measuring array/the fit. And again, the only difference you have in mind is frequency response. I don't think this is the (main) cause for the perceived sonic differences. Think of electronics. Most of them measure as flat as they can be. But they do sound significantly different.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_





 Sennheiser datasheet: "Hand-selected, matched headphone systems with
 very tight tolerances (+/- 1 dB)."

 Can *anyone* state that they hear this difference?


 JF_

 

I believe it is important to note that the headroom graphs are taken on a dummy head that has interferrance on the measurements, especially in the upper midrange and treble bands. A slight physical position difference between channels or even a non perfect ear pad symmetry between L and R will have effects on the frequency response measurements. If you wish to measure and compare the drivers, it must be done in a manner that eliminates this variable.

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_The difference between left and right ear? To detect it, the difference has to be rather large, larger than this deviation. Part of it likely is caused by the measuring array/the fit. And again, the only difference you have in mind is frequency response. I don't think this is the (main) cause for the perceived sonic differences. Think of electronics. Most of them measure as flat as they can be. But they do sound significantly different.




_

 


 Why is there some unknow quality that only applies to audio electronics? In order to understand how to manufacture 3.2Ghz microprocessors with 125 million transistors, the understanding of electronics has to be relatively complete.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_I believe it is important to note that the headroom graphs are taken on a dummy head that has interferrance on the measurements, especially in the upper midrange and treble bands. A slight physical position difference between channels or even a non perfect ear pad symmetry between L and R will have effects on the frequency response measurements. If you wish to measure and compare the drivers, it must be done in a manner that eliminates this variable.

 -Chris_

 

I agree. That is why I also include Sennheiser's statement (of +/- 1 dB matching). It's not hard to imagine that less expensive headphones don't even meet a +/- 1 dB specification.


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Think of electronics. Most of them measure as flat as they can be. But they do sound significantly different._

 

If the electronics measure the same, that is, within tolerances that are not known to be perceptable by human hearing; their is no reliable data to suggest that the devices will sound different in a proper level-matched double-blind test. 

 -Chris


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Why is there some unknow quality that only applies to audio electronics? In order to understand how to manufacture 3.2Ghz microprocessors with 125 million transistors, the understanding of electronics has to be relatively complete._

 

Really? But not in terms of audio phenomena. You haven't even tried to explain why electronics components -- such as amps -- with virtually identical measurements (frequency response!) sound significantly different. Can you? Can anybody?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_If the electronics measure the same, that is, within tolerances that are not known to be perceptable by human hearing; their is no reliable data to suggest that the devices will sound different in a proper level-matched double-blind test._

 

Sorry Chris, I can't take this serious!


----------



## WmAx

That is, of course, your privelage.

 -Chris

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Sorry Chris, I can't take this serious! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







_


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Really? But not in terms of audio phenomena. You haven't even tried to explain why electronics components -- such as amps -- with virtually identical measurements (frequency response!) sound significantly different. Can you? Can anybody?




_

 

Relatively speaking: an audio cable is like a tricycle; an Intel processors is like a Ferrari.






 Imagine 125 million transistors in something about the size of your thumbnail.

 How many magic audio cables do you think they use? None.


 JF


----------



## Len

Chris, 
 Certainly, cabling matters a good deal in passive preamps (I've actually had people argue with me before about how cables dont' matter at all in any application). In my active pre system, it made a significant difference too, and that's what I'm reporting.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_ In my active pre system, it made a significant difference too, and that's what I'm reporting._

 

If it did, then the lumped sum parameters will reflect this mathematically as well and can be modeled if the input impedance, output imedance and cable LCR parameters are known. 

 -Chris


----------



## Spankypoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Really? But not in terms of audio phenomena. You haven't even tried to explain why electronics components -- such as amps -- with virtually identical measurements (frequency response!) sound significantly different. Can you? Can anybody?_

 

I think they _would_ sound the same if, and only if, you were listening to them performing the measured task. I.e., if they measure exactly the same on a sine sweep, they'll probably sound pretty close on a sine sweep.

 The problem with measurements is they don't take into account transient response, what happens when the driver is asked to perform very complex movements (Fourier-type stuff), which is what's involved in reproducing music, not tones.

 We have to remember that measurements only measure how something performs in a given situation - not real-world.

 Has anyone tried using an algorithmic way to measure an entire song played through a system, and compare the data against the original? Could be useful. (Could be worthless!)


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_If the electronics measure the same, that is, within tolerances that are not known to be perceptable by human hearing; their is no reliable data to suggest that the devices will sound different in a proper level-matched double-blind test. 

 -Chris_

 

Likewise there is no reliable data to suggest that the devices will sound the same.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Really? But not in terms of audio phenomena. You haven't even tried to explain why electronics components -- such as amps -- with virtually identical measurements (frequency response!) sound significantly different. Can you? Can anybody?
_

 

Please reference proper dbt, level matched tests demonstrating identically measuring devices being identified in a statisically significant manner? Can you? Can anybody?

 -Chris


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Relatively speaking: an audio cable is like a tricycle; an Intel processors is like a Ferrari.

 Imagine 125 million transistors in something about the size of your thumbnail.

 How many magic audio cables do you think they use? None._

 

Interesting! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But you haven't answered my question.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Canman* 
_Likewise there is no reliable data to suggest that the devices will sound the same._

 

So true. Of course it is the burden of the postive claimant. In this case, one has to substantiate the claim of_ mysterious_ differences in order for these to be accepted formally. No different than proving ghosts exist. Simply provide substantiation that they exist.

 -Chris


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Please reference proper dbt, level matched tests demonstrating identically measuring devices being identified in a statisically significant manner? Can you? Can anybody?_

 

I'm imagining you in a situation where you hear your baby crying. Of course you don't know if it's a cry of joy or a cry of fear or of pain. So you're hurrying with your tape recorder to do an ABX test with some reference cries...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Really? But not in terms of audio phenomena. You haven't even tried to explain why electronics components -- such as amps -- with virtually identical measurements (frequency response!) sound significantly different. Can you? Can anybody?




_

 


 No, I can not explain why they sound differently. I don't know that they do sound differently. I am not going to make any statements about the sound of amplifiers. I will say that sound differences in cables and cable burn-in are bogus.


 JF


----------



## spwal

if oyur gear is top notch it matters tremendously. for 90 percent of the head fiers out there, it matters not at all. get the acoustic research from best buy and go home happy.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Define trolling.


 JF_

 

posting statements or comments designed to illicit a given response.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_posting statements or comments designed to illicit a given response._

 

Well, what response had I designed to illicit?


 JF


----------



## greenhorn

John, you're right. Cables don't make a difference.

 I therefore close this thread.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spankypoo* 
_I think they would sound the same if, and only if, you were listening to them performing the measured task. I.e., if they measure exactly the same on a sine sweep, they'll probably sound pretty close on a sine sweep.

 The problem with measurements is they don't take into account transient response, what happens when the driver is asked to perform very complex movements (Fourier-type stuff), which is what's involved in reproducing music, not tones.

 We have to remember that measurements only measure how something performs in a given situation - not real-world._

 

Good points! I agree completely.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, I think we all are stubbling around in the dark much more than we are willing to admit. Fortunately, there are glimmers of light that help us occasionally.

 Look I'm not here to sell anything. Like many people, I visit here to learn. I have learned more about this by taking a stance on this. Sorry, but I'm now more certain that there is no audible difference between stock and expensive cables.


 JF_

 

 I was once like you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was certain cables of any kind made no difference or virtually no difference. I would never believe that they did until I saw the results from a valid DBT. Then I upgraded my headphone amp and components and tried an aftermarket cable on 30-day return, only because my stock cable was too short and my headphone extension cable broke. I discovered that there was a rather apparent difference between the stock Sennheiser HD-600 cable and the aftermarket Sennheiser headphone cables. I subsequently discovered, much to my astonishment, that the diffierence between stock power cords and interconnects and aftermarket power cords and interconnects (all of which I had on trial and was prepared to return if there was no difference) was also striking. 


 My take on your position now and those who assert blindly (pun intended) that cables cannot possibly make a difference is as follows. First, your position is not very persuasive, since it appears you have not tried the aftermarket cables. (Pardon me if I missed something.) Someone who has tried them in a quality audio system and says he hears no difference has a point of view that is worthy of considering, but someone who hasn't tried them, says they can't possibly make a difference, and refuses to consider the possibility that they might make a difference (claiming things like "I don't have to hear them") really adds nothing and is just arguing for the sake of argument. (Again, I was once like you.) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Second, it you don't want to try the aftermarket cables, fine. Your system, assuming it is of a certain quality, will not sound as good as it could. That will be your loss, and I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm enjoying my system, which has been fine tuned with my cables of choice, and if others like to laugh at the rest of us idiots while they listen to music from their stock cables that is sibilant, or harsh, or has no bass, etc., well that it is their choice. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spankypoo* 
_
 The problem with measurements is they don't take into account transient response,_

 

Of course, as you know, transient response is a function of frequency/phase response....

  Quote:


 Has anyone tried using an algorithmic way to measure an entire song played through a system, and compare the data against the original? Could be useful. (Could be worthless!) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

If you search around, you'll find various attempts and proposals of such things. However, if you want a complex signal, just use a low frequency square wave...nothing simple about a square wave reproduction; the device must reproduce every odd harmonic from the fundamental at equal amplitude and in correct phase......

 No one has shown the correlation of inadequacy you suggest, that is, that current measurements are insufficient. Can you point to a properly controlled and verified, repeatable dbt, level matched listening test where conventional(THD sweep into real load at practial amplitude, IMD, signal:noise and frequency response) measurements on two devices were identical but the objects were identified in a statistically significant manner?

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I would never believe that they did until I saw the results from a valid DBT._

 

And again, Google indexes billions of web pages, if someone could link a valid study on the differences in the sound of cables, that would be interesting (preferably an independent study). This comes up over and over. Nobody has posted anything that lends me to think that there is a difference.

 (And I did fall for this thread is closed...I hoped it had.)


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Good points! I agree completely. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







_

 


 Geez, JaZZ. He didn't say anything. Wires have absolutely no effect on any complex waveforms. The frequency response of wire is *ruler flat*. Transducers are the *only* thing that make a significate difference in the sound of headphones.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Nobody has posted anything that lends me to think that there is a difference.

 JF_

 

 I'm curious. If someone said, for example, they had several CD's that they could not stand to listen to because of sibilance and other harshness, and then they changed nothing in their system other than cables, and this removed and altered the sibilance and harshness to a point where they could readily enjoy those CD's again, would you find that persuasive at all or even somewhat probative, or would you say it is obviously a placebo effect?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm curious. If someone said, for example, they had several CD's that they could not stand to listen to because of sibilance and other harshness, and then they changed nothing in their system other than cables, and this removed and altered the sibilance and harshness to a point where they could readily enjoy those CD's again, would you find that persuasive at all or even somewhat probative, or would you say it is obviously a placebo effect?_

 

I say the mind is easily tricked and it's an auditory illusion to think that cables make a difference. You will realize this if you take a blind test. I maintain that it is impossible for a person to hear the difference in stock and expensive headphone cables. When a person is removed from *all* cues to know which cable is being used, you will realize that it is too difficult to tell. And the reason is is that it is impossible to tell.

 (I'm going to have to tune out for a while...have fun...)


 JF


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, what response had I designed to illicit?


 JF_

 

nope, won't pass over that bridge....there's a troll under it...


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I agree. That is why I also include Sennheiser's statement (of +/- 1 dB matching). It's not hard to imagine that less expensive headphones don't even meet a +/- 1 dB specification.
_

 

Your *ears* probably don't meet a +/- 1 dB specification.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I say the mind is easily tricked and it's an auditory illusion to think that cables make a difference. You will realize this if you take a blind test.

 JF_

 

Then there's no point in discussing the matter, because your response indicates that you have already made up your mind (and without any first hand experience with the matters under discussion) and you are just arguing for the sake of argument. This probably explains others' use of the "t" word.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Your *ears* probably don't meet a +/- 1 dB specification. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

They certainly wouldn't meet the Rainbow councils specs


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_There is absolutely no reason for me to do so.


 JF_

 

Wow.

 So the doubters aks the believer to the DBT test. We did and Neil even took the time to give a detailed report. And you still can't even consider the possibilty that cables might maybe, probably, perhaps have an influence on the sound?

 How does physics work, how does chemistry work, how does any science work? Make up a theory and either verify or falsify. In fact, one philosophy of sciences states that there is no verfication, only falsification. In any case, the burden of proof is now yours.

 Unless you are willing to actually try a cable, this debate is utterly useless from my point of view.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *saint.panda* 
_Unless you are willing to actually try a cable..._

 

This line of thinking includes a sales pitch.

 Could you post the detailed report?


 JF


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_This line of thinking includes a sales pitch.

 Could you post the detailed report?


 JF_

 

Sales pitch? There's a 30 day money back guarantee. Why not just get it, try the cable. You don't need to keep it.

 The detailed report can be found a few pages back. Neil Peart posted it.

 In any case, I really don't want to be impolite and I do respect anybody's opinion but, please, why don't you just try a cable yourself? If the cable doesn't work, then it doesn't and you can come back arguing that it didn't. I think people will take your opinions more seriously then. And if it does, your musical enjoyment might be enhanced greatly - and isn't that the goal of everything here? We're not believers of a religion. Why would I try to convince somebody of something that doesn't work? Certainly not to justify my purchase. We just try to share our experience.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *saint.panda* 
_The detailed report can be found a few pages back. Neil Peart posted it._

 

Okay. Well, I guess I could have missed something.

 (Hi PinkFloyd. It's good to see your familiar avatar.)


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *saint.panda* 
_So the doubters aks the believer to the DBT test. We did and Neil even took the time to give a detailed report. And you still can't even consider the possibilty that cables might maybe, probably, perhaps have an influence on the sound?_

 

Well it was a 'report'. But as can be seen in the prior posts in response to that report, it did not take measures to remove extraneous variables.


  Quote:


 How does physics work, how does chemistry work, how does any science work? Make up a theory and either verify or falsify. In fact, one philosophy of sciences states that there is no verfication, only falsification. In any case, the burden of proof is now yours. 
 

Be careful not to confuse science with psuedo-science.

 -Chris


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Be careful not to confuse science with psuedo-science.

 -Chris_

 

It doesn't really matter here. It's about a test to falsify or verify a theory (which is that cables make an improvement). Unless you have the evidence that it does yield a difference, the fact that it makes a difference will remain because we did the experiment.


----------



## The Rover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Then there's no point in discussing the matter, because your response indicates that you have already made up your mind (and without any first hand experience with the matters under discussion) and you are just arguing for the sake of argument. This probably explains others' use of the "t" word._

 

I haven't read the whole thread but anyway, has any head-fier done a DBT. I mean, it's ridiculous to call someone a troll and keep saying "I definately hear differences", if the differences hasn't been prooved with a D*BT* (Why? because of the placebo effect).

 So if there's results of a headphone-cable DBT available, I'd be interested to see those.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *The Rover* 
_I haven't read the whole thread but anyway, has any head-fier done a DBT. I mean, it's ridiculous to call someone a troll and keep saying "I definately hear differences", if the differences hasn't been prooved with a D*BT* (Why? because of the placebo effect).

 So if there's results of a headphone-cable DBT available, I'd be interested to see those._

 

 The placebo effect is real, I concede. But when you've listened to the same song 100 times and you know it like the back of your hand, and then you upgrade a particular cable in your system, and the S's sound like S's and don't sound like "SHZHSHZSSXXHHSHXHH!!!!!," and there is an obvious difference in the sound of bass instrument, for example, that you can clearly hear, you hardly need a blind test to tell that there is a difference. I mean, some things are subtle and some are not. In any event, I too would like to see DBT results on some of these things, as they would be quite interesting and relevant to this debate. But I feel no need to even consider trying such a thing, given the obvious hassle and set up issues, because I know what I hear in my system. I mean, I'm not going to do a blind DBT to see if my car radio sounds as good as my audio system either. Nor am I going to do a blind DBT to see if fresh fish really tastes better than three-day old fish. The differences are not subtle, IMO. (And again, I am a former complete skeptic in this area, and I have no interest in marketing cables. Everyone else can listen to krappy sound if they want.)


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_The placebo effect is real, I concede. But when you've listened to the same song 100 times and you know it like the back of your hand, and then you upgrade a particular cable in your system, and the S's sound like S's and don't sound like "SHZHSHZSSXXHHSHXHH!!!!!," and there is an obvious difference in the sound of bass instrument, for example, that you can clearly hear, you hardly need a blind test to tell that there is a difference. I mean, some things are subtle and some are not. In any event, I too would like to see DBT results on some of these things, as they would be quite interesting and relevant to this debate. But I feel no need to even consider trying such a thing, given the obvious hassle and set up issues, because I know what I hear in my system. I mean, I'm not going to do a blind DBT to see if my car radio sounds as good as my audio system either. Nor am I going to do a blind DBT to see if fresh fish really tastes better than three-day old fish. The differences are not subtle, IMO. (And again, I am a former complete skeptic in this area, and I have no interest in marketing cables. Everyone else can listen to krappy sound if they want.)_

 

Even if it clear for you, I found it remarkable that nobody has made a blind test. If for no other reason at least to convince the nonbelievers. My theory is that the cable enthusiasts don’t dare to do it. If they have done it in secret they find that the nonbelievers are right, and therefore they don't publish the test.

 Georg


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Even if it clear for you, I found it remarkable that nobody has made a blind test. If for no other reason at least to convince the nonbelievers. My theory is that the cable enthusiasts don’t dare to do it. If they have done it in secret they find that the nonbelievers are right, and therefore they don't publish the test.

 Georg_

 

People have (a few mentioned in this thread and of course elsewhere). Nonbelievers simply discredit these tests for procedural flaws. As I've mentioned, I have accurately identified one IC from another 100% of the time in my system in a single blind test.


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_My theory is that the cable enthusiasts don’t dare to do it. If they have done it in secret they find that the nonbelievers are right, and therefore they don't publish the test.

 Georg_

 

Well, some dare:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70277


----------



## NeilPeart

I find the difference between the stock Sennheiser HD650 cable and the Zu Mobius is much more apparent than any interconnect difference I've ever heard.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_I find the difference between the stock Sennheiser HD650 cable and the Zu Mobius is much more apparent than any interconnect difference I've ever heard._

 

Perhaps system dependant. I find the difference between stock and StefanArt much more subtle then ICs in my SET system.


----------



## NeilPeart

the difference between the stock cable and the Zu Mobius was very subtle, but noticeable (especially in the treble) with my RME soundcard, but the difference between the stock and Zu with the DAC1 is quite noticeable and much more apparent.


----------



## IstariAsuka

Since we're on the topic of cables in general it now seems, I have a question.

 How/why in the blazes do people make directional cables? I mean, come on, they're just wires, with insulation, braided in all sorts of pretty patterns that the electrons flow down, how could the orientation possibly affect it, or be made to affect it without some weird voodoo? It just doesn't make sense to me, so could someone explain please? It's been buggin me for quite some time.


----------



## martindemon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_Since we're on the topic of cables in general it now seems, I have a question.

 How/why in the blazes do people make directional cables? I mean, come on, they're just wires, with insulation, braided in all sorts of pretty patterns that the electrons flow down, how could the orientation possibly affect it, or be made to affect it without some weird voodoo? It just doesn't make sense to me, so could someone explain please? It's been buggin me for quite some time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

As an electrical engineer, I have never seen a directional cable and it makes no sense to me. The headphone drivers are just connected in serie with the "resistance" of the cable. Changing the order of the voltage drops over the cables and drivers does not affect the results. Changing the direction of a conductor does not change its behaviour. Or perhaps I've learnt it all wrong at my university, or perhaps some companies are taking advantage on the fact that not everybody study electrical engineer for several years... I remember seeing, when I was young (12 years old) a spec on a very cheap worthless speaker sold at 1$ that said 20-20,000Hz. And there was other false specs on it; it was obvious for me when I was 12, but I knew already all about frequencies and dB because I was programming music in computers: a texas instrument TI/99/4A 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What I mean is that I think many companies write what they want to sell their products and technical specs are hard to prove in the case one sue a company because the sold material is not what was written on the box. There are those who already know that some products are ridiculously expensive and will simply not buy them.

 But wait, I'm not saying that cables are all the same! I'm just saying that, to my ear, if I choose a good cable that is enough think (and insulated in the case of low power signal cables), there should not be any difference if I buy a more expensive cable. My Denon amps and Klipsch speakers (RF3, RC3, RB5, RS3...) are all hooked with ordinary bare ended copper 12 gauge cables. No need for the 1300$ cable that I saw at a Hi-Fi store! If I disconnect a cable and the cable was plugged for a long time, I just cut one inch (the bare end) and I make it bare again with my tool. I have several feet in reserve for that. There is no oxidation there and the connection is always very good (screwed is very good IMO.) My signal cables are digital for now and they are of correct quality. Hey, ones are ones and zeros are zeros and I never hear discontinuities in my music. Well, the exception is when I forget to put wool scarf under my DVD player when I play my system at its full 960W RMS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The other important thing is insulation for my subwoofer cable. I have a 70$ cable and when I plugged my system for the first time, the TV cable was passing near the subwoofer cable and I swear I could hear the internet (cable modem) into my sub 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I moved the TV cable and it was ok but I was surprised.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *saint.panda* 
_
 In fact, one philosophy of sciences states that there is no verfication, only falsification. In any case, the burden of proof is now yours.
_

 

Popper, huh?

 Anyway, I cannot see how the burden of proof would be on me. So far there has been no new evidence presented that would require us to abandon the "no differences" stance. Your attempt at blind testing was laudable indeed, but I have a feeling that the test you conducted was not a DBT, let alone an ABX test. (I have a hard time imagining what kind of a setup would be required for testing headphone cables in ABX manner!)


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martindemon* 
_As an electrical engineer, I have never seen a directional cable and it makes no sense to me._

 

Some of my cables are directional, and the manufacturer of the best ones I have gave the following explanation: It's got nothing to do with signal flow, but with the way the shield of the cables is made. The stereo system should have one central point where it is grounded, e.g. the amplifier. All other components are connected to that central point by signal wires. His cables are shielded, but the shield is connected only to one of the connectors, not to the other. That connected plug should point towards the central grounding point. Consequently these cables have an "earth end" and "the other end". If you choose the amplifier as central grounding point, the cable's earth end must be connected to the amp. If you choose the source (CD player or whatever) as central grounding point you must connect the cable's earth end to source component. I find that quite convincing.



 EDIT: WHY IS THIS THREAD IN THE HEADPHONE FORUM AND NOT IN THE CABLE ONE?


----------



## becomethemould

i heard a difference in the cardas cable for the hd600, must be real!


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_EDIT: WHY IS THIS THREAD IN THE HEADPHONE FORUM AND NOT IN THE CABLE ONE?_

 

Someone wanted to know if expensive cables make headphones sound better. Though shocked at first, people are slowly realizing that cables make absolutely no difference (see rest of thread). We've waited for a new person to convert. Welcome!


 JF


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_We've waited for a new person to convert. Welcome!_

 

I have no idea why you refer to me as a "convert", and I do not want to be drwan into this silly heated thread, but I do want to make sure that you are aware of this post.


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_WHY IS THIS THREAD IN THE HEADPHONE FORUM AND NOT IN THE CABLE ONE?_

 

It's not in the cable forum because if it were it wouldn't be allowed to continue because the cable forum is DBT free. 

 I believe these debates are brought on by two types of people, those too caught up in their science to actually be objective and those that hide behind their science to mask the fact they couldn't hear a difference anyway. Yes people, here's a shocker for you, not all people hear the same, some actually hear better than others. We also all hear differently as well, not only is the frequencey response of each persons ears different but we each percieve sound differently on a psychological level. I personally don't fully trust anyones ears other than my own and a few people whose ears through experience I've learned to at least partially trust. 

 I personally don't subscribe to ABX or any style thereof for testing audio equipment. I believe it may allow for certain differences to show through but other differences are masked. This is a personal belief from my own experiences. I've been involved in audio long enough to know some differences are subtle and some quite apparent. Sometimes the subtle differences are meaningless but other times they can make all the difference in the world when it comes to musical enjoyment. 

 The naysayers will try to poke holes in everything I say and that's fine. I'm not here to debate the issue with people who already have their minds made up, hide behind their science and refuse to actually listen. I'm in this hobby for the musical enjoyment of it, organizing ABX tests with procedures that would satisfy someone like WmAx would only take the fun out of it for me and wouldn't prove anything to me regardless of the outcome. I'm a big boy, I know what I hear, I'm on a tight budget so I'm not about to jump on a bandwagon for a minimal difference that may or may not be an improvement. I went for years using the same IC's, not because I didn't hear a difference but because those differences to me didn't justify the cost. Were those subtle differences placebo? I have no idea. Recently I went through two interconnect upgrades both of which were not so subtle that made differences on the same level as just about any other equipment upgrade I've made, as such if I were to ABX test only to find I didn't hear a difference between my old cables using this "scientific" method then according to the "science" every other equipment upgrade I've made would have to be thrown into question which just seems silly to me. I'm confident enough in my own hearing ability to trust what I hear myself without the need for rigorous tests that in my view can't even tell the whole story anyway. Remember people, it wasn't all that long ago that one audio magazine took the scientific approach that because there wasn't measurable differences between amplifiers they all should sound the same. Science is ever advancing, what may be true today may not be tomorrow.

 I suggest that people actually try *objectively* listening before passing judgement. Go ahead and do whatever tests you require but also try living with an upgraded cable for a couple of weeks and then switch. If at that time you still don't hear a difference or feel the differences are too subtle to matter then you've proven something to yourself, and only yourself. This is the important factor here, you've only proven something for yourself not everyone else but you can only prove this if you actually try, otherwise posting in debates like this makes you nothing better than a troll.


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_I have no idea why you refer to me as a "convert", and I do not want to be drwan into this silly heated thread, but I do want to make sure that you are aware of this post._

 

That's a great post that you linked to.


----------



## MuzlL0dr

After reading some of the posts, I start to wonder if I'm the only person who's ready this thread, from start to finish, in one sitting at the time of my writing. Being a relative newbie to this field, I feel like I can say certain things without a) worrying about reparations, and b) be farily neutral about my comments simply because I'm not steeped in myriad traditions or beliefs. So, since I took the time to read through this whole thing, I might as well make some observations.

 First, 3 years ago, I argued with someone that there was no difference between 160kbps mp3 files and 256kbps. *I* was the one claiming their was no difference. I think it's fairly preposterous in retrospect, and I think anyone visiting these forums would agree with that synopsis. I have a hard time believing that there is someone visiting THESE forums that wouldn't recognize the difference in quality. If they honestly don't, I'm not sure what they're doing HERE of all places. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That having been said, I have to say that I am EXTREMELY skeptical when someone tells me that a $100 (or however much) cable makes a huge difference in an audio system of any type. I remember once reading an article on an audiophile website in which someone reviewed some horrifyingly expensive cables. I can't remember the price - it's really not relevant. I read through it and read his remakrs, and I remember thinking "he's nuts. There is no way a person can notice something like that due to a _cable_." So, I have some experience only in my skepticism.

 THAT having been said, here's my thoughts on this long and tired thread. I've come to the conclusion that for some people, it absolutely must be possible to hear a difference in some cables. At first I thought it was bogus, but I started to think about what little I knew about signalling. For example, I know that when routing 2-way radio antennas, it's important not to coil any slack remaining in the intallation because it introduces resistance into the line, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the radiated signal.

 As I thought about that, it wasn't a long jump to realize that audio cabling probably has some similar characterizations. And I'm not an electrical anything, I'm just going on what little I know of the beast. But, I'm not here to make a point in favor of those who say the expensive cables make a difference. No, I'm not in a position to do that.

 However, I'm also not here to speak in favor of those who say that there IS no difference, and that the idea is absurd. To those who have tried, I say, if you don't hear a difference, more power to you, you can (and should!) leave your remarks with pride, knowing that you know better for yourself.

 What concerns me from this group, is those who will not try the very thing they claim to be denouncing. Personally, I do not believe that I would hear a difference with a different cable. I also believed I wouldn't hear a difference encoding to 160kbps mp3... and then to 192kbps. But I did. And the _reason_ that I did was simply because I was willing to try. If someone were to offer me now a chance to try different combinations of cables with 650s or any other cans, I would gladly jump on the chance - EVEN THOUGH I wouldn't expect there to be an audible difference.

 I guess my encouragement is this: try it before you bash it. Even if everything in your vast wisdom says that something doesn't make sense, what's the hurt in trying? You aren't hurting yourself or anyone else. It's not immoral or illegal. What's the problem?

 Someone here mentioned at some point in this thread something about the world being flat. I don't even recall which camp brought it up, but it has merit. There was a time when people would not sail beyond the realms of their knowledge because there was "nothing there" and they would fall off the edge of the earth. Everything they knew pointed to the world being flat. So why would they possibly want to explore new horizons? Then someone decided, heck, why not? And suddenly their whole world was turned upside down. (Almost literally, in fact.) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So I guess I come back to my original position. Do I invest in the idea that a $10, $100, $1,000 cable makes a difference? Not at the moment, but I would sure like to find out FOR MYSELF whether it does or not. I think a lot of people who won't try new things simply don't wish to because it would shift their paradigm and suddenly they would know the difference. And, that means investing money. If a person DOES NOT want to know for this reason, great! But, do not knock those who believe otherwise simply due to your fear of discovering truth and fact.

 It's sad to think of how long a man could live in darkness, if he never believed in flipping on the light switch. Granted, once he flipped the switch, he'd be stuck with the electricity bills forever. haha. Maybe candles really are better for some of us! I hope you get my meaning.

 I will say one more thing, only because it bothers me. I'm sorry to those who this offends. Someone in this thread claimed to having done a blind test - they tested to see if they could tell the difference between several cables moderated by a third party. Maybe it's not a perfect, scientific experiement, but if they could tell, they could tell. Don't criticize someone for proving their own success.

 Geez, I guess I'm just saying to ALL the non-believers (myself very much included) - just try it! You aren't hurting anything. No baby seals will be harmed if you choose to break out of your shell of disbelief long enough to explore that maybe the other side is right. (Your wallet may suffer, though, that much has been proven.) And, we all may find that "Hmph. 192kbps really does sound better.... well what do you know about that?"


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MuzlL0dr* 
_
 I guess my encouragement is this: try it before you bash it. Even if everything in your vast wisdom says that something doesn't make sense, what's the hurt in trying? You aren't hurting yourself or anyone else. It's not immoral or illegal. What's the problem?
_

 

The problem is that no one is denying the sincerity and honesty of the perceptions about differences between cables. But that - perception per se - is only a starting point for this debate.


 Regards,

 L.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MuzlL0dr* 
_As I thought about that, it wasn't a long jump to realize that audio cabling probably has some similar characterizations. And I'm not an electrical anything, I'm just going on what little I know of the beast. But, I'm not here to make a point in favor of those who say the expensive cables make a difference. No, I'm not in a position to do that._

 

No, not really, without a better understanding of the theory. Coiling antenna transmission lines does not increase their resistance. It may generate some inductance but that may or (more likely) may not have any real effect on the signal. And that is at RF frequencies... we are talking about audio frequencies, two very different things when it comes to cable performance. I enjoyed your post and am not trying to make fun of anything, but have to point out that partial understandings of the knowledge behind all of this is what contributes to the belief that all these night-and-day headphone cable differences are possible. With a more complete understanding you will know that they are not.

 And with respect to your MP3 bitrate epiphany, again, apples and oranges. It is certainly within the range of possibility (although rather difficult) for someone to resolve the difference between 160 and 192 kbps, no one ever said otherwise. There are sound (no pun intended) reasons why this is so, but none of them have anything to do with cables. As has been stated (how many times so far?) comparing cables is not the same as comparing amplifiers, players, compression algorithms, etc. 

 Sorry if this seems to have an edge on it which is not my intention, just trying to get a message across.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_The problem is that no one is denying the sincerity and honesty of the perceptions about differences between cables. But that - perception per se - is only a starting point for this debate._

 

Very well said.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 That having been said, I have to say that I am EXTREMELY skeptical when someone tells me that a $100 (or however much) cable makes a huge difference in an audio system of any type. 
 

1. I don't know who people think is arguing that cables make a HUGE monumental, earth-shattering, mind-blowing difference in the absolute, objective sense. I think *almost all* people who can hear the differences in cables wouldn't exaggerate the actual differences they make to anywhere near that degree. They are on the level that they could easily be missed by inexperienced listeners who don't know what to listen for, aren't familiar enough with their own system to have an accurate baseline to measure differences to begin with, who have entry-level gear not really capable of revealing differences as subtle as that from cables, or who listen as a background activity, while doing other things.

 2. When people do rave about, "wow, I can't believe how much difference this cable swap made! Holy cow!", they mean it in terms of the range of differences that typical audio upgrades make. This is a different scale than some objective, absolute measure. Remember there are people who can't hear diffreences betwen source upgrades, amp upgrades, speaker upgrades, etc etc. Most of us hear them on this site, the average guy on the street is nonplussed. After lots of listening and lots of upgrades, and lots of component swapping, we get a sense for how much difference various upgrades can actually make, we become sensitized. *On an audiophile scale*, one can say, "holy cr*p, this new amp is twice as good as my old one!" which he means sincerely, and may be an accurate description on an *audiophile scale of things*, wheareas the guy off the street could barely hear any difference at all, because he has no idea what to listen for. 

 3. How do you quantify the difference you hear in an audio upgrade? What does a 50% improvement mean to me, vs. what it would have to mean to you? What is "10 times better" to you, and what is it to me? We just don't have the same scale by which to communicate these things. What would one headphone have to sound like to be "2 times better" than another one? Would the lower-grade headphone have to be broken or damaged to be only "half as good" in an objective sense? We can both listen to the same thing where one person will say, "yeah, it's maybe 10% better", where the next guy will say "are you kidding me? It's at least 80% better". Yet they are both hearing the exact same change but describing it differently. People who read reviews and comments made here about the differences between gear, need to place it in context of an audiophile scale of things, not an absolute scale. But until you have some experience with different gear and upgrades, it's hard to figure out exactly what that audiophile scale really is and decipher what people really mean, and the actual differences you can expect to hear. 

 4. The more you upgrade, the more you try new gear, the more you become aware of how much this or that upgrade is capable of altering the sound, the more you just plain *listen*, the more you'll be able to detect these differences, it's NOT some some mystical special voodoo skill only a few with ESP can develop. As you progress, it gets easier and easier to spot the differences in audio gear. But again, until you have developed your ears, these differences are harder to spot right away.

 5. I don't think very many cable believers would recommend you upgrade to $500 cables in place of swapping out your $40 sound card, your $25 headphones, or your non-existent amp first. It's foolish to apportion massive amounts of money for fancy cables in a system that isn't capable of revealing differences in the first place. Complete waste! Expensive cables just aren't for entry-level systems, period, they are a tweak, the icing on the cake, nowhere near the most important componnet in the signal path. I wouldn't blame someone at all if they spent $150 on a pair of cables for an entry-level system and came back all enraged that "you lied to me, cables don't make a difference!" Well, no, probably not in a system like that, you budgeted your money unwisely.

 6. In polls here on the site asking how many CDs people have, I'm always amazed at how many people have fewer than 100 or even 50 in their collections. I suspect many people here are only casual listeners to begin with, who maybe got sucked in by the fun of the board and the chat, are into the idea of electronics more than the music. I suspect they don't really listen that much, that long, or with full concentration. I suspect they listen to their phones while they are surfing the web, doing homework, playing video games, reading, or whatever, and then get put away after a few minutes or a couple songs. For people like this, I can easily understand why you can't hear cable differences, you aren't really even listening in the first place. For these kinds of listeners, most high-end gear is a total waste from the go. Differences like that brought by cables just aren't big enough to go noticed by this kind of listener.

 *phew* That's it for me. Later!


----------



## GlowWorm

I would say with my HD580's there is a 10% overall sonic improvement with the Blue Dragon over the stock cable. The BD seems to move the soundstage of the 580's slightly more forward and wider, increases detail retrieval, and tightens the bass considerably. Also, the Blue Dragon makes the 580's midrange sound smoother, and the treble has a bit more "sparkle". In all, the Blue Dragon basically eliminates the few minor weaknesses that the HD580's have IMO. Is it worth putting a $150 cable on a $150 pair of headphones?

 ABSOLUTELY!


----------



## Langrath

In some messages they say: Why not try and see yourself. The resistance against trying is obvious. Which of all cables should you try? And how to get motivated buying a cable for $200 if you are not believing in what you do. Ok Perhaps you can send it back and only pay freight. But a lot of hard works and costs for something you don’t even believe in. You must have a hypothesis first before you are willing to try it.
 That was the reason I searched for a reliable blind test. That should proof the thing. But every person who has tried blind tests comes to the opposite conclusion, namely that there is no audible difference between cables.
 The most disturbing thing for objectivity in this subject is that if a person has paid say $200 for a cable he must decide that there is an improvement in sound. Otherwise he appears as a fool to himself.


----------



## martindemon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_Some of my cables are directional, and the manufacturer of the best ones I have gave the following explanation: It's got nothing to do with signal flow, but with the way the shield of the cables is made. The stereo system should have one central point where it is grounded, e.g. the amplifier. All other components are connected to that central point by signal wires. His cables are shielded, but the shield is connected only to one of the connectors, not to the other. That connected plug should point towards the central grounding point. Consequently these cables have an "earth end" and "the other end". If you choose the amplifier as central grounding point, the cable's earth end must be connected to the amp. If you choose the source (CD player or whatever) as central grounding point you must connect the cable's earth end to source component. I find that quite convincing._

 

Given that the resistance of the ground in the cable is really low, connecting the shield at only one end or at the two ends should not make any difference, well perhaps it could save money to the cable maker. If it does make a difference, then the ground is not of appropriate gauge.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_The most disturbing thing for objectivity in this subject is that if a person has paid say $200 for a cable he must decide that there is an improvement in sound. Otherwise he appears as a fool to himself._

 

OK, guys, I just don't get this. There are obviously some disturbed beings in this thread who apply their own weaknesses to everyone around them. 

 Allow me to explain: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If I buy a $200 (or $500 for that matter) cable or any other audio component in order to tests it's "ability" within my individual system and consequently find the synergy to be "bad" or the component does not perform as well as I expected or as well as it was advertised to do, I simply send it back or resell it. Do I feel like a fool? Not at all!! I feel much better for having the knowledge, one way or the other.

 All you guys who seriously lie there on the floor beating yourselves for being so imbecilic as to order a component that didn't work within your system must have some serious psychological issues....

 Langrath, with all due respect, your argument is null and void, IMO.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Langrath, with all due respect, your argument is null and void, IMO._

 

Yes you are perhaps right. Especially today, when you really can send things back after testing it. That makes my argument weak, I admit.
 But I have experienced similar things myself. I had a SPeaker that costed me about $4000 in that money value of today. My neighbour had a speaker for one third of the cost. Even if I heard that his speakers sounded better to my ears, it took me about a year to admit it to myself.

 Georg


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_But every person who has tried blind tests comes to the opposite conclusion, namely that there is no audible difference between cables._

 

Huh!? Have you actually followed your thread?


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_1. I don't know who people think is arguing that cables make a HUGE monumental, earth-shattering, mind-blowing difference in the absolute, objective sense._

 

Someone earlier talked about the difference being equal to a swift kick in the groin. I would actually describe the difference between being kicked in the groin and not being kicked in the groin as "earth-shattering". I would even go as far as to say that it wouldn't require special training to immediately know the difference.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Yes you are perhaps right. Especially today, when you really can send things back after testing it. That makes my argument weak, I admit.
 But I have experienced similar things myself. I had a SPeaker that costed me about $4000 in that money value of today. My neighbour had a speaker for one third of the cost. Even if I heard that his speakers sounded better to my ears, it took me about a year to admit it to myself.

 Georg_

 

LOL! Hi Georg! Well, we all have our quirks, I just don't think it's fair to lump us all in the same basket and then use that as a valid argument..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I'm sure you're not completely alone on that particular quirk, though..


----------



## markl

Quote:


 Someone earlier talked about the difference being equal to a swift kick in the groin. I would actually describe the difference between being kicked in the groin and not being kicked in the groin as "earth-shattering". I would even go as far as to say that it wouldn't require special training to immediately know the difference. 
 

 Dane, you failed to quote the next sentence:
  Quote:


 I think *almost all* people who can hear the differences in cables wouldn't exaggerate the actual differences they make to anywhere near that degree. 
 

 Clearly this person is exaggerating to make his point. There is obviously no audio upgrade in the world that is clear as a kick in the groin. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I also talked at length about the impossibility of knowing exactly what another person means when he raves about the "unbelievable difference" an upgrade makes:
  Quote:


 2. When people do rave about, "wow, I can't believe how much difference this cable swap made! Holy cow!", they mean it in terms of the range of differences that typical audio upgrades make. This is a different scale than some objective, absolute measure. Remember there are people who can't hear diffreences betwen source upgrades, amp upgrades, speaker upgrades, etc etc. Most of us hear them on this site, the average guy on the street is nonplussed. After lots of listening and lots of upgrades, and lots of component swapping, we get a sense for how much difference various upgrades can actually make, we become sensitized. *On an audiophile scale*, one can say, "holy cr*p, this new amp is twice as good as my old one!" which he means sincerely, and may be an accurate description on an *audiophile scale of things*, wheareas the guy off the street could barely hear any difference at all, because he has no idea what to listen for.

 3. How do you quantify the difference you hear in an audio upgrade? What does a 50% improvement mean to me, vs. what it would have to mean to you? What is "10 times better" to you, and what is it to me? We just don't have the same scale by which to communicate these things. What would one headphone have to sound like to be "2 times better" than another one? Would the lower-grade headphone have to be broken or damaged to be only "half as good" in an objective sense? We can both listen to the same thing where one person will say, "yeah, it's maybe 10% better", where the next guy will say "are you kidding me? It's at least 80% better". Yet they are both hearing the exact same change but describing it differently. People who read reviews and comments made here about the differences between gear, need to place it in context of an audiophile scale of things, not an absolute scale. But until you have some experience with different gear and upgrades, it's hard to figure out exactly what that audiophile scale really is and decipher what people really mean, and the actual differences you can expect to hear.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_I believe these debates are brought on by two types of people, those too caught up in their science to actually be objective and those that hide behind their science to mask the fact they couldn't hear a difference anyway._

 

Only two types? This is generalizing; not a very accurate generalization at that. Tell me: what do you think is the entire point of the scientific methodology? It's a system designed to have the highest level of objectivity to examine/explore physical phenomena.Your statement: "too caught up in their scient to actually be objective" is illogical. Maybe you are referring to those that claim absolute certainties and _act_ as if they are being objective? You won't find such statements from me if you care to read my posts. As far as someone's hearing ability; the discussion is academic; it would not matter if the person debating was deaf unless they were making personal claims based upon their hearing.



  Quote:


 Yes people, here's a shocker for you, not all people hear the same, some actually hear better than others. We also all hear differently as well, not only is the frequencey response of each persons ears different but we each percieve sound differently on a psychological level. I personally don't fully trust anyones ears other than my own and a few people whose ears through experience I've learned to at least partially trust. 
 

Yet scientific research of human auditory ability has shown common limit boundaries for auditory sensitivity of explored issues dealing with sound reproduction. While anything that is established via science is tenative, and can be revised when better data comes along(if you will research the actual basis of science you will see it's objectivity), one has to actually have credible experiment data that demonstrates a contradiction with the established knowledge and is repeatable under controlled circumstances.

  Quote:


 I personally don't subscribe to ABX or any style thereof for testing audio equipment. 
 

You reject listening methods that do not rely on sighted listening conditions? You fail to remove critical variables if you hold this position. Too be fair, I did not notice where _you_ claimed to be objective.

  Quote:


 I'm not here to debate the issue with people who already have their minds made up, hide behind their science and refuse to actually listen. I'm in this hobby for the musical enjoyment of it, organizing ABX tests with procedures that would satisfy someone like WmAx would only take the fun out of it for me 
 

It's important to distinguish between musical enjoyment and physical analysis of what makes audible differences. I do not involve scientific procedure into my recreational listening. I would not expect you to do that either. I agree THAT would RUIN the experience. Who ever suggested that one should involve such complex procedures into general listening? It is only critical to use a scientifically valid procedure when attempting to find actual sonic differences and their true degree of effect. This is not nesecarrily important to general listeners if they do not mind spending extreme amounts for things and/or have no reason/time to objectively consider the situation(s).

  Quote:


 and wouldn't prove anything to me regardless of the outcome. 
 

This sounds like an extreme anti-objective position. Again, it's only fair to note that I failed to notice you claiming objectivity. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 I suggest that people actually try *objectively* listening before passing judgement. 
 

Huh? It's a bit perplexing; you fail to recognize what is required for an objective analysis of only the sonic attrributes. Why do you require to know the identity of the device under test? You suggested that you trust your own hearing. But how can this be if you must know the identity of the device under test(you denounced ABX or any other type of test such as this that removes knowledge of the device under test)?

 Your reply was not very coherant. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not pay much attention to the specific phrasing used in your reply or perhaps you typed your reply while simultaneously watching a movie..... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Why would audio wire have some special quality for which there is absolutely no technical explanation? It doesn't. That is why there may be a perceived difference, but no actual difference if you do a blind test.


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Leporello* 
_[size=medium]The problem is that no one is denying the sincerity and honesty of the perceptions about differences between cables. But that - perception per se - is only a starting point for this debate.


 Regards,

 L.[/size]_

 

Well said.

 -Chris


----------



## markl

BTW, I also find it ironic that people who dismiss cables as snake-oil, yet agree that amplifiers, and high-quality sources can make a big difference seem not to be aware (or conveniently ignore) that the vast majority of audiophile equipment used by people on this site has this same form of fancy snake-oil wiring inside them. The amp builders, pre-amp makers, DIY-ers and source makers that they love and respect for the wonderful products they've made that have clearly improved their systems do not use the shabby, low-purity tinsel-thin Sennheiser stock cabling in their audio devices. They're all using some kind of "special" high-quality aftermarket cabling in their gear, in fact it's often the very same Cardas cabling or other recognizable cable brand names we all know and some lampoon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are they all dupes too? If they're so incompetent and have no knowledge of electrical engineering, how were they able to make that amp you like so much? Accident?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* 
_BTW, I also find it ironic that people who dismiss cables as snake-oil, yet agree that amplifiers, and high-quality sources can make a big difference seem not to be aware (or conveniently ignore) that the vast majority of audiophile equipment used by people on this site has this same form of fancy snake-oil wiring inside them._

 

Headphone transducers make the largest difference in a playback system. The source is important. Different amplifiers may make a difference. Your stereo's enclosure and the headphone cables don't make a difference.

 This is a business world. Notice which products real companies--i.e. Sennheiser and Sony--manufacture.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Dane actually linked the results of one test that a Head-fier posted. The method used was fast switching. I think that fast switching is the only way a person may hear a difference. With this method the mind is able to hear cable A and cable B instantaneously.

 What was the conclusion of a fast switching test? “The result? Zero difference” “I easily have $2,500 invested in interconnects and... well, this is bad news.”

 See: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70277


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Headphone transducers make the largest difference in a playback system. The source is important. Different amplifiers may make a difference. 


 JF_

 

Any difference, if present, will be measurable. 

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

"In God we trust, all else bring data."


 JF


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_LOL! Hi Georg! Well, we all have our quirks, I just don't think it's fair to lump us all in the same basket and then use that as a valid argument..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I'm sure you're not completely alone on that particular quirk, though.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, and I just admitted that it wasn't fair in last mesage. I am nearly a perfect person, but there are some details... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Georg


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Huh!? Have you actually followed your thread?




_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Well, some dare:

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70277_

 

Perhaps it was only one message that I refered to. I mix up things sometimes. You will also when you are in my age. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Georg


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martindemon* 
_connecting the shield at only one end or at the two ends should not make any difference, well perhaps it could save money to the cable maker._

 

It is not an uncommon method at all. It is called "floating grounding" or "quasi-balanced" (both of these words being my own clumsy translations from German) and used, inter alia, by US-manufacturer audioquest. You may want to call them to tell them that the only reason they do this is to save money on manufacturing.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Headphone transducers make the largest difference in a playback system. The source is important. Different amplifiers may make a difference. Your stereo's enclosure and the headphone cables don't make a difference.

 JF_

 

 There are some you would argue that there is no difference between amps (at least solid state amps with certain THD levels), and that blind tests have proven this. Yet you acknowledge that they may make a difference. Maybe you should read up on the blind tests on amplifiers, convince yourself that they cannot possibly make a difference, and they try to persuade everybody on this forum that amps cannot possibly make a difference. Don't actually try any of the amps, however, as you would not want personal experience to interfere with supposition.


----------



## bangraman

I extended that test recently with the Siltech FTM-4 sg cables (I got two pairs for consistency checking). To all intents and purposes, running the tests tells me that with my ears as the guide, I've thrown a four-figure sum down the drain. Fortunately I haven't actually as I've got the option to return one, and I'll keep one just for the hell of it. In the future though I'll stick to the Nordost Red Dawn price-class at the most for a "main rig", and for everything else I'll use Profigold / Tech+Link (Meier-Audio budget cable).


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_There are some you would argue that there is no difference between amps (at least solid state amps with certain THD levels), and that blind tests have proven this. Yet you acknowledge that they may make a difference. Maybe you should read up on the blind tests on amplifiers, convince yourself that they cannot possibly make a difference, and they try to persuade everybody on this forum that amps cannot possibly make a difference. Don't actually try any of the amps, however, as you would not want personal experience to interfere with supposition. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 


 So, have we finished with cables?


 JF


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_You reject listening methods that do not rely on sighted listening conditions? You fail to remove critical variables if you hold this position. Too be fair, I did not notice where you claimed to be objective._

 

I didn't reject ABX testing outright, you conveniently left out the next part in which I stated. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_I believe it may allow for certain differences to show through but other differences are masked._

 

It's laughable to me to think someone would say I'm not objective just because I don't subscribe to the idea that ABX testing will tell the whole story. Isn't it far less objective to hold firmly to the belief that ABX and other such tests are an absolute answer?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_Isn't it far less objective to hold firmly to the belief that ABX and other such tests are an absolute answer?_

 

Well, the only reason we have to go there is because some people refuse to accept that there is zero technical reason that cables sound differently.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

"[Maybe] this is as good as it gets". Jack Nicholson

 If a person wants better, attend a live performance. (How many magic cables do you think they use?)


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_So, have we finished with cables?


 JF_

 

No, I'm just trying to understand your position. If you agree that sources and amps make a difference, do you believe that power cords might? For example, would you say there is no audible difference between a stock power cord and one that is shielded, for example? With respect to interconnects, would you say there is no audible difference between a shielded interconnect and a unshielded one? Would you say that nobody can really hear the difference between a silver interconnect and a copper interconnect? Or is your claim that cables cannot make an audible difference limited only to headpphone cables?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, I'm just trying to understand your position. If you agree that sources and amps make a difference, do you believe that power cords might? For example, would you say there is no audible difference between a stock power cord and one that is shielded, for example? With respect to interconnects, would you say there is no audible difference between a shielded interconnect and a unshielded one? Would you say that nobody can really hear the difference between a silver interconnect and a copper interconnect? Or is your claim that cables cannot make an audible difference limited only to headpphone cables?_

 

Copper is an excellent conductor of electricity. It takes very little to get the job done. More of it makes no difference.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Copper is an excellent conductor of electricity. It takes very little to get the job done. More of it makes no difference.


 JF_

 

 Are you going to answer my questions?


----------



## aeriyn

Everyone needs to remember that little rule about audio equipment... you usually pay 10 times the price for a 10% improvement, and this figure only increases in imbalance as you go up.

 Silver cables, special jacks and sheaths and insulation and such... I'm not too interested in paying several hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars, for a 0.1% increase in sound quality. I could spend the same money on a better source, better amp or better cans and increase my quality by a good deal more.

 Just my two cents. ^^

 Edit: Don't think I use the total cheapo ICs either. Decent ones that aren't red and white molded plastic are good enough for me. =P


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aeriyn* 
_Silver cables, special jacks and sheaths and insulation and such... I'm not too interested in paying several hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars, for a 0.1% increase in sound quality. I could spend the same money on a better source, better amp or better cans and increase my quality by a good deal more.
_

 

 Oddly enough, I found the difference between a stock power cord and an aftermarket power cord for my amp (at a cost of $190) to make more of a difference than the difference between my $900 CD player and a $4000 CD player that I auditioned. YMMV.


----------



## aeriyn

I have no practical experience with aftermarket power cords, so I had no authority to remark on them. While I have used very expensive ICs, and pronounced myself unimpressed for the price. ^^


----------



## martindemon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_It is not an uncommon method at all. It is called "floating grounding" or "quasi-balanced" (both of these words being my own clumsy translations from German) and used, inter alia, by US-manufacturer audioquest. You may want to call them to tell them that the only reason they do this is to save money on manufacturing._

 

I found an interresting link here:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...le-Vendor.html

 (martindemon puts on his anti-nuclear flame protection 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
 I don't say that unidirectional is a selling trick, I say that I personally don't believe in the principle for audio signals. But it could be useful for higher frequencies than 100kHz or longer cables. Well, I could say that I keep my mind open to a trial if I can borrow one from a believer or a store... But all I know about electrical engineering theory cry in my head "selling trick". I'll also say that I respect believers and don't think less of them because of that. I have not tried one so I cannot conclude and be 100% sure it does a difference. If it does make a difference, I would have be mean for nothing, and wrong with it. If it does not make a difference, I would have spoiled the fun of those who enjoy their fine expensive cables. I don't want to break the party, I just wanted to share my point of view on this inflammable subject.


----------



## martindemon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Oddly enough, I found the difference between a stock power cord and an aftermarket power cord for my amp (at a cost of $190) to make more of a difference than the difference between my $900 CD player and a $4000 CD player that I auditioned. YMMV._

 

What I would like is to compare a 190$ cable with a 40$ cable. My current opinion is that at a certain price, if the cable is well sized and constructed, paying for more could be only for features that have a negligeable effect on the sound. I could be mistaken but that's what I will think until I try one myself, which will happen when I get a real job... Until then, I'm spending money on good cables and excellent cans and amps and sources.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, the only reason we have to go there is because some people refuse to accept that there is zero technical reason that cables sound differently._

 

That's not true. So far nobody has claimed that there is a specific reason for cables to produce sonic differences. But there have to be some, otherwise they wouldn't show the clearly noticeable differences. And there are of course measuring differences. It's just that they can't be clearly attributed to the perceived sonic differences so far. Also due to lack of systematic research. But we don't know what all the cable-cooking manufacturers have gained their recipes from -- maybe it's more than just empiric proceeding. There are a lot of theories around. Well, after all a lot of people believe in cable sound.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martindemon* 
_My current opinion is that at a certain price, if the cable is well sized and constructed, paying for more could be only for features that have a negligeable effect on the sound._

 

 I think that's generally true, but I have also found that you have to consider other aspects of cable construction, and that different cables in the same price range may sound different due to different types of construction. For example, I have compared a $200 all-silver conductor interconnect to a $200 all-copper interconnect and found the former to be too harsh in my system. Also, a shielded interconnect seems to work better for me also, and I found a $200 shielded interconnect to be more suitable for me than a $200 unshielded interconnect.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Someone earlier talked about the difference being equal to a swift kick in the groin. I would actually describe the difference between being kicked in the groin and not being kicked in the groin as "earth-shattering". I would even go as far as to say that it wouldn't require special training to immediately know the difference.





_

 

Hehe! What I meant is that the difference between the sound produced on my system via a stock cable and the sound produced via a Zu cable is as clear as having been kicked in your equipment or not kicked in it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, if you asked me: "can you feel that you have been kicked in your groin?" seconds after you had just kicked me there, I would reply: "yes, indeed I can feel it!" and I would reply adamantly and with total conviction...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you asked me: "is there a big difference between the sound on your system when heard via a stock cable and a Zu cable?", I would reply: "Yes, a big difference indeed!" with the exact same conviction.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There, that should clear up the whole debate..


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elneroI* 
_t's laughable to me to think someone would say I'm not objective just because I don't subscribe to the idea that ABX testing will tell the whole story. Isn't it far less objective to hold firmly to the belief that ABX and other such tests are an absolute answer?_

 

If by "ABX and other such tests" you mean DBT tests in general; then I will ask you to provide another type of test that allows only the sound to be the factor. DBT testing is the current tenative standard. But have you strayed from the narrow topic of actual sonic difference? If you are concerned with more then just sound(perception of any sense is dependant on more then the raw direct stimulus) then of course more then just sound is relevant and the ABX testing does not address this issue. This requires another test design.

 -Chris


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Are you going to answer my questions?_

 

If the questions you refer to are your comparisons of the cable debate to amplifiers and other hardware, well, that has already been answered about a dozen times already in this thread. There are technical differences in amplifiers, portable players, compression schemes, etc. that could _possibly_ result in their sounding different, and no one here has denied that, and that is not the center of this debate. Unless you want to move on to other hardware, this debate concerns cables (otherwise known as 'wire'), not other apples/oranges comparisons. 

 Now watch, in about five posts someone will bring up the fact that amplifiers can sound different, so why not cables?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_There are some you would argue that there is no difference between amps (at least solid state amps with certain THD levels), and that blind tests have proven this. Yet you acknowledge that they may make a difference. Maybe you should read up on the blind tests on amplifiers, convince yourself that they cannot possibly make a difference, and they try to persuade everybody on this forum that amps cannot possibly make a difference. Don't actually try any of the amps, however, as you would not want personal experience to interfere with supposition. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 


 PhilS,

 I guess this is the post you ask me to respond.

 I think that amplifiers may make a difference because amplifiers are a lot more complex than headphone cables. If one looks at the different electrical components: resistors, capacitors, transistors, IC, inductors, etc., wire is at *the* bottom of the list of something that will change the sound. In fact, it's been said that "the ideal amplifier is wire with gain". Wire (cables) have a perfect frequency response and *no* distortion. Again, unless something is broken, it's impossible that headphone cables changes the sound. A connector perturbs a signal more than wire.

 Yet another way, any differences in cables resistance, capacitance, and inductance are *much* smaller than resistor, capacitors, and inductors inherent to the amplifier output or the transducer input.

 Can we all agree that the amplifier enclosure does not effect sound?


 JF


----------



## MuzlL0dr

Quote:


 Sorry if this seems to have an edge on it which is not my intention, just trying to get a message across. 
 

Edge or not is irrelevant. I don't think you are attacking me, and were you, I'd just shrug it off. But, as I made clear in my message, I did NOT know that there were specific differences in engineering why the cables. However, even a quick review of my message reveals that the tenor of the message was simply that a person shouldn't pass judgement on something without exploring it. And, I still stand by that.

  Quote:


 The problem is that no one is denying the sincerity and honesty of the perceptions about differences between cables. But that - perception per se - is only a starting point for this debate. 
 

Some people in this thread have said that it's impossible that a cable can make a difference in sound quality. Some of those same ones admit freely that they have never tried it. Others, say they never WILL try it. Much of the debate, as I understood it, had to do with there being no "scientific" data that something did or did not exist. And again, my whole point was that a person shouldn't announce that something is impossible without even TRYING it.

 markl - I couldn't decide which part of your message to quote. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, all I'll say is that I hope you read through enough of my (horribly lengthy) message to understand that I totally agree with what seemed to be a rebuttal to my remarks. As I said, I doubt that *I* could hear a difference at this time, but I'm not even close to ruling out the possibility. I'm amazed at what I can hear now that I couldn't hear when I first started getting into sound quality. So, again, my point to the thread was that someone shouldn't knock something before they try it. Including me. Which is why I would never say that it's impossible to hear a difference. So basically, I agree with everything you said, and I have no "but" statement to follow it up with.

 So, back to my regularly scheduled agenda. "Try it before you knock it!"


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_Now watch, in about five posts someone will bring up the fact that amplifiers can sound different, so why not cables? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not true -- it's just three posts later. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The argumentation with electronics is of value in the context of this discussion because one thing that's often mentioned to disqualify the possiblity of cable sound is the measurings: cables don't measure significantly different enough to have the right to sound different. But exactly the same applies to most amps. And they don't sound the same -- at least most of the cable skeptics agree upon this.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_That's not true. So far nobody has claimed that there is a specific reason for cables to produce sonic differences. But there have to be some, otherwise they wouldn't show the clearly noticeable differences. And there are of course measuring differences. It's just that they can't be clearly attributed to the perceived sonic differences so far. Also due to lack of systematic research. But we don't know what all the cable-cooking manufacturers have gained their recipes from -- maybe it's more than just empiric proceeding. There are a lot of theories around. Well, after all a lot of people believe in cable sound. 




_

 

JaZZ,

 I think this optical illusion show how easily the mind is tricked. I can imagine the blocks moving around being like music. I have done short listening tests. When I'm seperated from cues as to how things are connected I can't tell.






 Sorry to repeat.


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I think that amplifiers may make a difference because amplifiers are a lot more complex than headphone cables._

 

Actually, it's exactly the same issue as with cables. Let's look at it from your premise; if you believe their is a variable X that is not known or how to measure that really affects sound in amplifiers, how can you possibly determine that this varialbe does not also exist in wire? My point is that in one hand you want positive proof and on the other you want negative proof. Say what?!?!

 From what you have disclosed, your perspective of cables vs. amplifiers is contradictory. 

 Hopefully this is just a misinterpretation of your posts and you will clarify....





 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_Actually, it's exactly the same issue as with cables. Let's look at it from your premise; if you believe their is a variable X that is not known or how to measure that really affects sound in amplifiers, how can you possibly determine that this varialbe does not also exist in wire? My point is that in one hand you want positive proof and on the other you want negative proof. Say what?!?!

 From what you have disclosed, your perspective of cables vs. amplifiers is contradictory. 





 -Chris_

 

Amplifiers *do* effect things that make a difference to sound: THD and frequency response. Cables *do not* effect THD or frequency response.

 Does that help?


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Amplifiers *do* effect things that make a difference to sound: THD and frequency response. Cables *do not* effect THD or frequency response.

 Does that help?

 JF_

 

Yes. It seemed like you were implying something else...

 Thank you for the clarification.

 -Chris


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martindemon* 
_I found an interresting link here:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...le-Vendor.html_

 

I have been aware of this before you posted it here. None of the points included in the list deals with "floating grounding" / "quasi-balanced" technology (again, my own clumsy translations); hopefully you are willing and able to agree with me on that point.

 There is a short mention of "directional wire", but maybe you'll also agree that this is not what I am talking about. I am not at all talking about audio cabling that is "directional" with respect to the signal, but that's apparently what "directional wire" seems to imply.

 I am talking about audio cabling that is "directional" with respect to the central earthing point of the entire hifi system, regardless of the "direction" of the audio signal that it is supposed to transport. The purpose of the "floating grounding" / "quasi-balanced" technology is to provide a shielding that is not physically identical to the neutral wire.

 That means that there are one hot and one neutral wire inside the cable (both connected at both ends, obviously) covered by a shielding that is only connected at one end. It is perfectly plausible that this end must be connected to that part of the stereo system that serves as the central earthing point. I could very well imagine that such a shielding is a few dB more effective than the shielding of a cable where neutral wire and shielding are identical.

 In any event, I am confident you'll agree that your providing of a link entitled "Top Ten Signs an Audio Cable Vendor is Selling You Snake Oil" (which does not even mention the technology I am talking about) does not really represent a qualified response, substantive criticism or any other way of making a valid point in connection with what I wrote here and in some of my previous posts.

 Now if you would be able to find a link saying that "floating grounding" / "quasi-balanced" technology is a pile of shyte -- and why -- that would be a different story. I would consider reading the linked website.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Sorry to repeat._

 

Sorry too. I don't think this kind of optical illusion has an equivalent in audio. That's not to say illusion don't exist though.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Amplifiers *do* effect things that make a difference to sound: THD and frequency response. Cables *do not* effect THD or frequency response._

 

Sorry, as to frequency response: where do you measure any FR drop exceeding 0.25% at 20 Hz and 20 kHz with modern solid-state amps? And as to THD: do you think the typical <0.1% with normal listening levels make an audible difference? Compared to this cables don't look that much more neutral. Not in the frame of reference you cable skeptics have set yourself.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Sorry too. I don't think this kind of optical illusion has an equivalent in audio. That's not to say illusion don't exist though. 




_

 

The point is to keep in mind that your mind can be *easily* tricked.

 The best sounding cables are cheap. Copper is cheap. If people wish to pay for more than is necessary, that is perfectly fine. But if you wish to say that headphone cables makes a difference in the sound, you have *nothing* but an illusion to go on.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_PhilS,

 I guess this is the post you ask me to respond.

 I think that amplifiers may make a difference because amplifiers are a lot more complex than headphone cables. If one looks at the different electrical components: resistors, capacitors, transistors, IC, inductors, etc., wire is at *the* bottom of the list of something that will change the sound. In fact, it's been said that "the idea amplifier is wire with gain". Wire (cables) have a perfect frequency response and *no* distortion. Again, unless something is broken, it's impossible that headphone cables changes the sound. A connector perturbs a signal more than wire.

 Yet another way, any differences in cables resistance, capacitance, and inductance are *much* smaller than resistor, capacitors, and inductors inherent to the amplifier output or the transducer input.

 Can we all agree that the amplifier enclosure does not effect sound?


 JF_

 

 No, the questions I want you to answer are the ones I asked about whether you agree there can be differences in the sound of power cords (shielded vs. unshielded) and interconnects (shielded vs. unshielded and silver vs. copper).


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_The point is to keep in mind that your mind can be *easily* tricked.

 The best sounding cables are cheap. Copper is cheap. If people wish to pay for more than is necessary, that is perfectly fine. But if you wish to say that headphone cables makes a difference in the sound, you have *nothing* but an illusion to go on._

 

Are you sure about this? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 You can be sure that I'm old enough to be aware of the illusions the audio field provides. That's why I'm sure that what I hear is true. But in fact you don't know what you're talking about. Theory can't replace practice.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Amplifiers *do* effect things that make a difference to sound: THD and frequency response. Cables *do not* effect THD or frequency response.

 Does that help?


 JF_

 

 Yes, it would seem to establish your position is fundamentally flawed, as the THD and frequency responses are alleged, by the folks on your side of the fence so to speak, not to be significant enough to be audible. Thus, your position would appear to be internally contradictory, at least with respect to the amp vs. cables issue. But maybe I'm missing something or don't understand your position completely yet.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Sorry, as to frequency response: where do you measure any FR drop exceeding 0.25% at 20 Hz and 20 kHz with modern solid-state amps? And as to THD: do you think the typical <0.1% with normal listening levels make an audible difference? Compared to this cables don't look that much more neutral. Not in the frame of reference you cable skeptics have set yourself. 




_

 

I'm having difficultly understanding your first question.

 As to amplifier THD <0.1%, I think it's possible that people can't hear a difference. However, with an amplifier there may be high frequency harmonics that people notice that make a difference in sound. Cables do not have any of these problems. *These things are immeasureable with cables.*


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, the questions I want you to answer are the ones I asked about whether you agree there can be differences in the sound of power cords (shielded vs. unshielded) and interconnects (shielded vs. unshielded and silver vs. copper)._

 

Again copper/aluminum are cheap, so shielding doesn't hurt. Shielding helps block out RF signals (that are probably not always a problem because the frequencies are so high AM, FM, cell phones, etc.) Shield best helps block 60hz (50hz in Europe). This is for both power and interconnect. If they are not shielded, it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a problem.

 Silver v copper. Silver is a slightly better conductor of electricity. I used over 20 feet of silver wire in my headphone amplifier. It has absolutely no effect on sound. Copper wire would sound *exactly* the same. Silver makes me feel better, I like looking at it.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Again copper is cheap, so shielding doesn't hurt. For that matter, expensive cables don't hurt either (they just don't help). Shielding helps block out RF signal (that are probably not always a problem because the frequency is so high AM, FM, cell phones, etc.) Shield best helps block 60hz (50hz in Europe). This is for both power and interconnect. If they are not shielded, it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a problem.

 Silver v copper. Silver is a slightly better conductor of electricity. I used over 20 feet of silver wire in my headphone amplifier. It has absolutely no effect on sound. Copper wire would sound *exactly* the same. Silver makes me feel better, I like looking at it.


 JF_

 

 Well, you're dancing around the shielding question, saying it "doesn't hurt" and "it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a problem." Would you concede that a shielded cable might make a sound better than an unshielded cable in certain systems due to RFI or EMI? Yes or no?

 As to silver vs. copper, the differences in sound in a decent system are often readily apparent. Many can attest to this. Do you actually have experience comparing silver and copper interconnects, for example, are you just throwing out for our benefit more of your ipse dixits?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I'm having difficultly understanding your first question._

 

Typical solid-state amps measure ruler flat, with at best 0.25 dB drop off at the frequency extremes. Barely a difference which would count as audible among you cable skeptics. So in this regard amps are comparable to cables.

  Quote:


 _As to amplifier THD <0.1%, I think it's possible that people can't hear a difference. However, with an amplifier there may be high frequency harmonics that people notice that make a difference in sound. Cables do not have any of these problems. These things are immeasureable with cables._ 
 

Yes, I guess cables don't produce measurable harmonic distortion. Anyway, 0.1% is an extremely low value, and you're the first to claim that different harmonic-distortion patterns below such a low value are responsible for different sonic characteristics. BTW, I for one don't exclude it, but this is a quite daring standpoint for an objectivist.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Well, you're dancing around the shielding question, saying it "doesn't hurt" and "it doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a problem." Would you concede that a shielded cable might make a sound better than an unshielded cable in certain systems due to RFI or EMI? Yes or no?_

 

Blocking RFI and EMI helps. However, in a particular situation, the signals in the vicinity, may be so weak that it doesn't matter. Of course, this is all measureable.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_As to silver vs. copper, the differences in sound in a decent system are often readily apparent. Many can attest to this. Do you actually have experience comparing silver and copper interconnects, for example, are you just throwing out for our benefit more of your ipse dixits?_

 

And many will attest the opposite. It's inconclusive, because it doesn't make a difference.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

You didn't answer my question as to whether you actually have experience comparing silver and copper interconnects?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_And many will attest the opposite._

 

I guess you're wrong here. I haven't heard one person with corresponding listening experience say that copper and silver conductors generally sound the same. 

  Quote:


 _It's inconclusive, because it doesn't make a difference._ 
 

It's so nice to debate with people who know how things really are and how dumb other people really are...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Typical solid-state amps measure ruler flat, with at best 0.25 dB drop off at the frequency extremes. Barely a difference which would count as audible among you cable skeptics. So in this regard amps are comparable to cables.]_

 

I've measured my headphone amp it measures DC to 530khz (-3dB). People don't measure the frequency response of audio cables, because they know they are flat out to the Mhz...FM signal, etc.

 What limits my amp to 530khz? The input capacitance of the JFETs.
 What limit HD 650 tranducers to 30khz? The inductance of the tranducers. Wire is not a problem component in this picture.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Yes, I guess cables don't produce measurable harmonic distortion. Anyway, 0.1% is an extremely low value, and you're the first to claim that different harmonic-distortion patterns below such a low value are responsible for different sonic characteristics. BTW, I for one don't exclude it, but this is a quite daring standpoint for an objectivist. 




_

 

*The distortion of wire is < 0.0001% (DC to >500khz). That frequency response is well beyond any headphones.*


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I've measured my headphone amp it measures DC to 530khz (-3dB). People don't measure the frequency response of audio cables, because they know they are flat out to the Mhz...FM signal, etc.

 What limits my amp to 530khz? The input capacitance of the JFETs.
 What limit HD 650 tranducers to 30khz? The inductance of the tranducers. Wire is not a problem component in this picture.

 The distortion of wire is < 0.0001% (DC to >500khz). That frequency response is well beyond any headphones._

 

This post of yours is one single red herring. Can you hear a difference between amps with virtually identical frequency responses and THD of less than 0.1%?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You didn't answer my question as to whether you actually have experience comparing silver and copper interconnects?_

 

No. There a many things I have not tried. Electronic devices can perform better at lower temperatures (i.e. noise generally reduces). *Should I try putting my system in the refrigerator and run the wires out? Why not? It will make a larger difference than cables will.*


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_This post of yours is one single red herring. Can you hear a difference between amps with virtually identical frequency responses and THD of less than 0.1%? 




_

 

The model of an amplifier is much more complex. *Wire is THE SIMPLEST electrical device.* Every other single component of electronics is more complex.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_ Should I try putting my system in the refrigerator and run the wires out? Why not? It will make a bigger difference than cables will.


 JF_

 

 Well, I'm done with this as there is no point arguing with someone who has not tried any of the cables under discussion, but nevertheless asserts as a matter of absolute fact that there can be no audible differences between them. With all due respect, while you may have legitimate questions and doubts about whether cables can make an audible difference, to assert your position with such boldness, notwithstanding your lack of real-world experience is just foolish. And you're wasting my time. (But not anymore.)


----------



## JohnFerrier

I wish all well with their audio endeavors. I'm off to make a batch of...







 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_The model of an amplifier is much more complex. Wire is THE SIMPLEST electrical device. Every other single component of electronics is more complex._

 

Is this the answer to my question? Another red herring...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Well, I'm done with this as there is no point arguing with someone who has not tried any of the cables under discussion, but nevertheless asserts as a matter of absolute fact that there can be no audible differences between them. With all due respect, while you may have legitimate questions and doubts about whether cables can make an audible difference, to assert your position with such boldness, notwithstanding your lack of real-world experience is just foolish. And you're wasting my time. (But not anymore.)_

 

*Sorry if this method of reasoning doesn't work for you. I would have to resort to this same method in order to try to prove that leprechauns, unicorns, big foot and other paranormal phenomena do not exist.* I would have hoped that in this case, it would be more obvious.







 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Well, I'm done with this as there is no point arguing with someone who has not tried any of the cables under discussion, but nevertheless asserts as a matter of absolute fact that there can be no audible differences between them. With all due respect, while you may have legitimate questions and doubts about whether cables can make an audible difference, to assert your position with such boldness, notwithstanding your lack of real-world experience is just foolish. And you're wasting my time. (But not anymore.)_

 

How true! What am I doing here...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Sorry if this method of reasoning doesn't work for you. I would have to resort to this same method in order to try to prove that leprechauns, unicorns, big foot and other paranormal phenomena does not exist._


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Is this the answer to my question? Another red herring... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







_

 

Define red herring.

 Amplifiers and wires are two different things. *Amplifiers can effect sound quality. Wires do not.*


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

JaZZ,

 I think you have brie cheese stuck in your left shoe.


 JF


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Theory can't replace practice._

 

This may be a bit of a digression, but frequently theory can replace practice, and does. There is no need to practice or experimentally determine oribital mechanics... it you do the math right the spacecraft ends up right where you intended. Ever wonder why cars are so much more reliable these days? They are designed by computer simulations that replace years of physical testing. The very first flight of the space shuttle was manned. This can all be accomplished by a good understanding of, well, 'theory' as you put it. When there is a large base of scientific (meaning objective, not subjective) knowledge, sometimes 'practice' isn't necessary.

 When there is no scientific data to back you up (as in assertions that one type of wire has a better 'soundstage' than another, or whatever), _that's_ when you need a lot of practice.


----------



## JohnFerrier

For many other endeavors of society, such as drug testing, studies are conducted to learn the true value of an unknow. They uses statistics to determine if the data is valid. *Why can't you refer to a study that supports what you claim?* Why doesn't Zu? They have financial interest. 

 You guys claim something without validity. I don't have to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. Try to prove that expensive cables sound better than stock cables first, then we have something to discuss. 

 Asking me to try them means that you guys can't provide anything of substance.


 JF


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_You can be sure that I'm old enough to be aware of the illusions the audio field provides. That's why I'm sure that what I hear is true_

 

Are you a super-human? I ask because standard human sensory systems are interpreted by the brain, which subjects the raw information to perceptual processing. This processing includes factors not directly related to the raw sensory data. A standard human can not bypass the perceptual processing system at will.

 -Chris


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_For many other endeavors of society, such as drug testing, studies are conducted to learn the true value of an unknow. They uses statistics to determine if the data is valid. Why can't you refer to a study that supports what you claim?_

 

Remember, this words come from a man who believes there are audible differences with amps. Despite the fact that he never saw a study that would proof his believes.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kurt* 
_Remember, this words come from a man who believes there are audible differences with amps, despite the fact, that he never saw a study that would proof his believes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Are you able to quote me on this?


 JF


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Amplifiers and wires are two different things. Amplifiers can effect sound quality. Wires do not._

 

I'm curious, what aspects of a decent amplifier measuring 'ruler-flat' is above human threshold? Humans that can't even hear an obvious (measuarable) difference between headphone drivers?

 It is true that an amplifier is much more complex than a wire, but it doesn't really matter as long as they both measure below human hearing ability.

 If "wire distortion is below human hearing" => "wires make no differnce"

 then this must be equally true for amplifiers - you have to go all the way with this line of argumentation (and I'm not saying you're wrong). And yes, yes, I know amplifiers are much more complex - but they still have distortion way below human hearing... or?


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_then this must be equally true for amplifiers - you have to go all the way with this line of argumentation (and I'm not saying you're wrong). And yes, yes, I know amplifiers are much more complex - but they still have distortion way below human hearing... or?_

 

_If_ a particular amplifier behaved like a true 'straight wire with gain' and had no characteristics that human beings could audibly identify then any differences would indeed be undiscernible... but not all amplifiers have this capability, and no one is claiming that they do. Even if an amp had inaudibly low distorsion and flat frequency response it could still have differences in transient response or something that could possibly give some audio clues that might help one determine one from another. Not likely for a well-designed amp, but at least _theoretically possible_, and that's the big difference... and why discussions of amplifiers and other hardware do not belong in this particular debate. Wires _cannot_ create the differences that an amplifier can. Theoretically possible vs. theoretically impossible. Apples and oranges. Does that make the point clearer? I don't know what else to say...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_I'm curious, what aspects of a decent amplifier measuring 'ruler-flat' is above human threshold?_

 

The best answer I can provide is that amplifiers are very good today. Some differences may be audible. Amplifiers are much more complex than wires. I don't know enough about amplifiers to really say.

 With cables, however, it is clear. Differences in cables are well below the threshold of audibility. 


 JF


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_There is a short mention of "directional wire", but maybe you'll also agree that this is not what I am talking about. I am not at all talking about audio cabling that is "directional" with respect to the signal, but that's apparently what "directional wire" seems to imply.

 I am talking about audio cabling that is "directional" with respect to the central earthing point of the entire hifi system, regardless of the "direction" of the audio signal that it is supposed to transport. The purpose of the "floating grounding" / "quasi-balanced" technology is to provide a shielding that is not physically identical to the neutral wire.

 That means that there are one hot and one neutral wire inside the cable (both connected at both ends, obviously) covered by a shielding that is only connected at one end. It is perfectly plausible that this end must be connected to that part of the stereo system that serves as the central earthing point. I could very well imagine that such a shielding is a few dB more effective than the shielding of a cable where neutral wire and shielding are identical._

 

OK, if that's what this "directionality" is, rather than some marketing scheme, then why the following from Zu's website: 
 "After the [Oxyfuel] have ran in the system for a while they will become non permenently directionalized so if you have to unhook things you will be able to easily remember how they were hooked up before. If you did get them backwards after they were ran in all that would happen is that they would sound new again--a bit edgy and flat--for a few days until they became redirectionalized."
 and 
 "Direction indicator arrow points in the direction of signal propagation (transmitter > receiver)."?

 It seems that the company we are discussing is spewing marketing lies, from what everyone else has said about directional ICs. Nobody, not even the strong cable believers, have attempted to defend them (unless I missed sombody). Rather, it seems that these "direcitonal" cabling that you described may make some difference, as you have suggested, but that what Zu is saying is something entirely different, and false.

 So, having thus established that Zu is not exactly very credible as far as cabling goes, isn't that another reason to believe that cables don't make a difference? In other words, we've shown that a large part of their product is false, yet they say it makes a difference. Similarly, they say that cables in general make a difference. Maybe we all shouldn't be so trusting...

 And yes, I know that that is conclusion is not logically sound, so don't jump down my throat. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm just bringing up an interesting point to demonstrate that cables aren't all they're made out to be.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Differences in cables are well below the threshold of audibility. Any differences between stock and expensive headphone cables are an illusion. There is not valid data otherwise.
 JF_

 

There's just as little data supporting amps and sources are audibly different. I've actually never read data supporting people can hear speaker differences either.

 As Dane mentions, the complexity of the device is irrevelant.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_It seems that the company we are discussing is spewing marketing lies, from what everyone else has said about directional ICs. Nobody, not even the strong cable believers, have attempted to defend them (unless I missed sombody). Rather, it seems that these "direcitonal" cabling that you described may make some difference, as you have suggested, but that what Zu is saying is something entirely different, and false._

 

It says no such things. No offense intended, but as you admitted yourself, many of your conclusions are illogically derived. All we know is different manufacturers give different explanations for directionality. You can't conclude anything further from this.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_There's just as little data supporting amps and sources are audibly different. I've actually never read data supporting people can hear speaker differences either.

 As Dane mentions, the complexity of the device is irrevelant._

 

Len,

 Had I known earlier what I know now, I would *not* have gotten involved with this debate. However, I wanted to learn. And I did learn. Thanks for your efforts to explain the situation.


 JF


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_I'm just bringing up an interesting point to demonstrate that cables aren't all they're made out to be._

 

Your incoherent post failed to demonstrate anything. I am very fond of Zu's products, precisely because of their sound, and regardless of whether I understand completely why that sound is so good. I have been a Zu customer for quite some time, ever since I tried the Zu Mobius Sennheiser cable for the first time.


----------



## Sugano-san

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Differences in cables are well below the threshold of audibility._

 

Why do different cables sound so different, then? Perhaps you are simply unable to hear these differences.


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sugano-san* 
_Your incoherent post failed to demonstrate anything. I am very fond of Zu's products, precisely because of their sound, and regardless of whether I understand completely why that sound is so good. I have been a Zu customer for quite some time, ever since I tried the Zu Mobius Sennheiser cable for the first time._

 

Even if you deem my post incoherent, at least I was _attempting _to further an issue, rather than merely reiterating what everyone else has said ad naseum, which is "I don't care why, but it sounds good!" Furthermore, your double-post was rather needless, and also failed to demonstrate anything. So please, next time don't be so harsh?

 The idea I was attempting to convey is that the idea or directionality, as described by Zu, for their cables, seems bogus, and no one, not even cable supporters, have offered any resistance to this. Thus, since we obviously cannot take anything at face value from such a company, having been deceived already, there are legitimate reasons to question the product range as a whole. Therefore, the cable 'questioners' should not be dismissed due to lack of evidence, merely because they have not heard the cables, or have not performed DBTs themselves, as there ARE good reasons to question, stemming from physical, mental, and marketing issues.

 I hope this is somewhat more clear.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_
 So, having thus established that Zu is not exactly very credible as far as cabling goes, isn't that another reason to believe that cables don't make a difference? In other words, we've shown that a large part of their product is false, yet they say it makes a difference. Similarly, they say that cables in general make a difference. Maybe we all shouldn't be so trusting..._

 

Maybe you should just trust your own ears and go listen to them...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I do and it works great for me.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Maybe you should just trust your own ears and go listen to them...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I do and it works great for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The problem is that you can’t trust your ears. If you test a new medicine you test it with active pills and sugar pills and people that get no pills at all. It can be a pill against pain in joints.
 The result can be as follows. After 6 weeks.

 Those who got nothing 10 % free from ache
 Those who got sugar pills 50% free from ache.
 Those who got active pills 70% free from ache.

 The effect that you get from positive expectation is called placebo effect. As you see is the placebo effect often stronger than the actual effect from the active substance. A result like this is good enough to let the medicine come out to market.
 If it wasn’t unethical doctors could get very good results only with help of sugar pills.
 A doctor that seems trustful and seems convinced of his medicine get better results than a doctor that says: Come back if you are not getting better. An expensive cable gives stronger placebo effect than a cheap one.

 The placebo effect is enormous. And it is built in on all of us. They have tested doctors that are very educated about placebo, and even they are influenced very strong by placebo effects.
 The placebo effects are important for our survival. But it is difficult to get free from it when we shall judge our experience of cables.

 Georg


----------



## Nak Man

Georg, I think most of us know that there are measurable physical / electronics differences between cables. Now the $$$ question - do they make any audible differences ? With sensitive equipment some have even proven that those differences are beyond average hearing treshold. But that still left a small % chance of golden eared people.

 Myself can't hear any, no matter how hard I try. But can we prove that those who claims they heard differences are not for real ? Knowing you're very well informed about placebo effect, what do you think would be the best way to prove this ?

 'Tricking' people for placebo is easier via the sugar pill of audio: I read that Dunlavy showed high percentage of audiophile 'heard' differences when being told that exotic cables were used, when actually there was no cable change took place, i.e. same cable was used all the time ! But what if the cables were actually changed ? Maybe the sugar pill actually worked for them ...


----------



## tom hankins

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I believe precisely as you do, wmax. It's SO easy to get the frequency of signal we're talking about across the distances we're talking about that a cable would have to purposefully be designed to alter that signal for there to be any audible difference. I misspoke by declaring how that might be done as trivial- I just meant that I believed it could be done if they intended their cable to sound different.

 Again- getting these signals to a pair of headphones across a few feet of wire is PAINFULLY easy to do, which is why I'm giving Sennheiser engineers the benefit of the doubt on their cord doing the job- they'd have to be a bunch of boobs to fck that up.

 If I work under that assumption, then, and also under the assumption that people aren't lying to me when they say the Zu makes a difference, I can only assume one of two things:

 (1) The Zu was designed to fck with the signal.

 (2) Those who claim to hear a difference are merely reporting the phenomenon (placebo) we'd expect from someone who just dropped 2 bills (or more) on a cable for their headphones and was testing it themselves._

 

Due to the fact that Zu offers a money back exchange on there cables I doubt any one is using the placebo affect to cover there purchase.
 I got mine for free and still liked it so much a spent 250.00 to get a second cable.
 I find it funny that so many people who have NOT put down there hard earned cash to try different cables can tell those who have what they are or are not hearing. 
 I hear major differences in all the senn. cables I have owned as compared to the stock cables. I have had the chance to use the SD and Blue Dragon alot without having to by them. I prefer the sound of the aftermarket cables. (wether I have spent money on them or not). 
 They do sound different and to me they are an improvment. Anytime I can hear more of the recording I consider it an improvment. The better cables, on my system in general remove a layer of fog from the music. Allowing more detail and a faster presentation. 
 I think its really insulting to imply that we (the spenders) are so stupid that we will lie to ourselves about what we bought so we can justify our purchase. If anyone was so worried about there money, I would think just the opposite would be true. We would be more critical and less likely to keep and like the cables. 
 BTW, it seems that most who own the various cables (if they like them or not) find the same sonic signature with them no matter what the system they are using them in is.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_The problem is that you can’t trust your ears. If you test a new medicine you test it with active pills and sugar pills and people that get no pills at all. It can be a pill against pain in joints.
 The result can be as follows. After 6 weeks.

 Those who got nothing 10 % free from ache
 Those who got sugar pills 50% free from ache.
 Those who got active pills 70% free from ache.

 The effect that you get from positive expectation is called placebo effect. As you see is the placebo effect often stronger than the actual effect from the active substance. A result like this is good enough to let the medicine come out to market.
 If it wasn’t unethical doctors could get very good results only with help of sugar pills.
 A doctor that seems trustful and seems convinced of his medicine get better results than a doctor that says: Come back if you are not getting better. An expensive cable gives stronger placebo effect than a cheap one.

 The placebo effect is enormous. And it is built in on all of us. They have tested doctors that are very educated about placebo, end even they are influenced very strong by placebo effects.
 The placebo effects are important for our survival. But it is difficult to get free from it when we shall judge our experience of cables.

 Georg_

 


 Not to pick on you, Georg, but once again I see no substance in your argument.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 OK, I'll digress: a while back I leant a Zu cable from Boodi to try out. I kept it for almost a month. At first I loved it and enjoyed the new highs I was getting from it. Eventually, though, I gladly sent it back and did not purchase my own as I found it to be fatiguing and too detailed in my system. The music was no longer natural and I found myself listening too much to individual instruments and lost the music as a result.
 I have the Cardas cable and had kept it to compare directly to the Zu. When finished with the Zu I sent it and my Cardas cable to Boodi so he could also audition them side-by-side. (His results, BTW, were almost identical to mine, despite having very different systems).
 This left me with no cable apart from the stock cable, which I then mounted on my HD 650s and began to listen. I was horrified!! The bass was thin, the highs just weren't there at all and the soundstage was no-where near where I like it to be. The entire experience was awful and I had to put up with it for 5 weeks!! The result: I barely listened to my system after the first week with that stock cable! As soon as the Cardas cable arrived back I rushed in to change it and then sat back and listened. Aaaaahh!! There it was!! My music was back and a big smile spread across my face. Even my wife commented on my change of mood and how I'd suddenly started listening to my headphones again....

 What I'm saying is that if the positive difference a certain component gives your system is so small that you're not even completely sure it exists, one has to question it's value at all....That, however, is NOT the case with the headphone cables I have so far tested within my system. The Cardas make a HUGE positive difference within my system, a difference of such magnatude that I never once found myself wondering whether the difference was in fact there or not! Both the stock cable and the Zu cable made a big negative difference (to my ears and tastes) with the Cardas as the reference point; both did completely different things within my system, none of which were to my taste.

 None of the above info could have been attained via online debate. _The only way to obtain this info for yourself is to try the cables within your system, yourself._

 Conclusion: when referring to aftermarket headphone cables in a good system, placebo is not a consideration that needs to be taken into account. The differences are far more apparent than that.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_The placebo effect is enormous._

 

That depends on your expectations or hopes. If your wish to hear a better sound is bigger than to get laid, you might as well can hallucinate a big improvement. Add a placebo hypochondria and one can totally understand how this thread develops.

 But not every person has such strange priorities and/or is so psychologically active.

 Some are quite balanced. And for this people it is easy. If the noticed difference is subtle, it can be a placebo effect. If the difference is big, then there is a difference. If the difference does not justify the cost, the gear goes back/will get sold.

 So, it helps if you know yourself a little bit. 

*BTW a study would only guarantee that there would be a difference. There would be no guaranty that YOU could hear it. And if you could, part or 100%, the only person who could decide about justifying the cost, would be you. So testing for yourself is mandatory.*


----------



## JaZZ

I agree with _ipodstudio_. Such a placebo effect wouldn't be consistent and sustained in the case of cables -- the less so in view of audiophiles' notorious restlessness. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The cable effects are real. What I don't agree on is the Zu Mobius being overdetailed and fatiguing. Not in my system and to my ears. (Although it's certainly very detailed.) These attributes apply to the Silver Dragon.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I agree with ipodstudio. Such a placebo effect wouldn't be consistent and sustained in the case of cables -- the less so in vew of audiophiles' notorious restlessness. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The cable effects are real. What I don't agree is on the Zu Mobius being overdetailed and fatiguing. Not in my system and to my ears. These attributes apply to the Silver Dragon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







_

 

LOL! The Silver Dragon is next on my list to test... Guess it might be a short test...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What JaZZ wrote above is absolutely correct. The differences are huge and obvious if your system and ears are good enough. At the end of the day, and despite all the scientific babble within this thread, the question is only whether or not you like the differences....but listen yourself and you'll find out.


----------



## Leporello

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_ At the end of the day, and despite all the scientific babble within this thread, the question is only whether or not you like the differences....but listen yourself and you'll find out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I wish it was that easy. Of course, at the end of the day the question is only whether the perceived differences (my own perceptions or someone else's) are real or not. Only after that does it make sense to establish preferences. Wait, I think we are back where we started... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Regards,

 L.


----------



## tom hankins

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_LOL! The Silver Dragon is next on my list to test... Guess it might be a short test...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 What JaZZ wrote above is absolutely correct. The differences are huge and obvious if your system and ears are good enough. At the end of the day, and despite all the scientific babble within this thread, the question is only whether or not you like the differences....but listen yourself and you'll find out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I agree with jaZZ about the SD being more fatiguing than the Zu. Even the copper blue dragon cable is brighter sounding and more fatiguing than the Zu. To me the Zu has the best combo of detail and warmth together. Have you tried the equinox? Very good with either the 600 or the 650.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nak Man* 
_ Knowing you're very well informed about placebo effect, what do you think would be the best way to prove this ?_

 

As we all know the subject is not that important. I often read these messages to rest from important things. And I always suppose that people who love listening headphones that much that they discuss it in a forum like this must be spaced out enough to be nice people.
 If you really want to prove that people really hear the difference there must be assistance by any interested. Then the test person listen to same music and same equipment but cable is changed or not changed in the different tries. The test person shall of course not know which cable he listens to. Let us say that he listens one minute on each track or so. Then after each listening to a track he tells if it is standard cable or ”gold cable”. Afterwards you can see how many statements are right. If you do 100 tries and the statements are right above 85 % you have statistically proved that it is only for example 1 percents chance that it is right guessed only by chance. He can also has so many right answers that it is only 1 chance per thousand that it is by chance. I have not calculated anything here in real. It is only an example how it could be.
 If the guy is really sure about hearing difference he should get 100 % right answers of course. If the assistant don’t know which cable it is until afterwards then it is a double blind test. But that can not be so important here. A blind test is enough.
 It is not so important to me that I would have motivation to do the experiment My question in thread was only if anybody had done it. 
 But perhaps it would be a bad thing to make headphone listening to science.
 For example. Nowadays I only listen to my new headphone Sony MDR-V300. I prefer them before HD595 and all other headphones I have. I am aware that it colors the music huge. But I love the coloration. It gives me high feelings, and I think I am young again. I think that all pretty girls want to have me as their boyfriend. I think I am handsome, strong and intelligent. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Would you have the heart to destroy my feelings by measuring that my headphones make an awful coloration of the sound, and that I am unscientific? No. As I said. We must admit that headphone listening is 99 percent heart and 1 percent brain, so to say.

 Georg


----------



## Nak Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_It gives me high feelings, and I think I am young again. I think that all pretty girls want to have me as their boyfriend. I think I am handsome, strong and intelligent. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Now where can I get that phone ?? I think I need a pair as well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Would you have the heart to destroy my feelings by measuring that my headphones make an awful coloration of the sound, and that I am unscientific? No. As I said. We must admit that headphone listening is 99 percent heart and 1 percent brain, so to say.

 Georg_

 

Agreed. I love my 531 despite all the details and naturalness the 595 have to offer. Now I remember that them goldenears have to get it xxx% correct in order to proof the audibility. Thanks. In any case I feel very lucky not being able to hear those slight differences therefore can go on enjoy the music and save a bundle (to buy another phones =).


----------



## ILikeMusic

I wonder if any Zu owners out there have heard a meaningful difference after the 200-hour 'burn in' recommended by Zu for their headphone cable product?


----------



## JaZZ

Yes, I have. Initially it sounded a bit harsh. The harshness was completely gone after ~150 hours.


----------



## IstariAsuka

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Yes, I have. Initially it sounded a bit harsh. The harshness was completely gone after ~150 hours.




_

 

We are supposed to trust you that cables make a difference when you believe in cable burn in? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry, I couldn't resist...

 When I have the money, I will definately be trying one of the aftermarket cables, probably the Oehlbach first, cuz it's cheap, and I am poor... I'm not averse to trying them, I just don't see *how* it could make a difference.

 By then I should have my 1212m modded, and my amp completed, so hopefully that will constitute a good enough system to hear a difference.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *IstariAsuka* 
_We are supposed to trust you that cables make a difference when you believe in cable burn in? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sorry, I couldn't resist...

 When I have the money, I will definately be trying one of the aftermarket cables, probably the Oehlbach first, cuz it's cheap, and I am poor... I'm not averse to trying them, I just don't see *how* it could make a difference._

 

The Oehlbach is a good start and by far worth its price. BTW, I don't _believe_ in cable burn-in, I've just experienced it myself, and since I'm a convert also in this regard. Audio is't about believing and supposing, it's about hearing (if you dare...).


----------



## enemigo

I have actually read all 21 pages! And it has been interesting, parts of it anyway. 

 I've never tested various cables to see if I think there really is a difference. But I will give it a test as soon as the opportunity comes along since so many report differences, and even report the same differences. 

 Since this debate has gone from a HD580+Zu debate to "do you really hear differences in cable?", I think people who haven't experienced "good" cables also needs to be heard.

 A few posts here bring up the brain. I'd like to elaborate on this. The brain is mainly redundantly wired neurons containing perceptrons. The perceptron will close the "neuron-circuit" when exposed to a predecided ammount of information from the transmitting neuron(s). The ammount of info needed to trig the perceptron is defined in so-called weights. The brain constantly adjust the weights as it learns or experiences. So, when people claim they need to listen to a setup over an extent period of time before comming to like the sound, it could very well be explained by the brain "adjusting" it's wiring. Also this could explain the "cable burn-in" phenomenon.

 Questions like "even if one cannot measure any influence from the cable on the signal, why do so many people hear differences, and even hear the same differences?" are used to question if science can answer this question at all. I find my self in the "science camp", and I believe that if there really is audible differences, then they can ultimately be described scientifically. The problem in this debate is that we don't know all the factors, like this neuron issue. I find it very likely that to fully understand how human perceive sound, we need to understand the brain better. This may very well explain that the difference in perceived sound due to cable is mentally conditioned. I find this more likely than the other way around since todays scientists have a much better understanding of electronics than they do of the brain, and they seemingly have concluded that the cable does not affect the signal measurably, unless designed to have som equalizer effect.

 We probably will not come to a conclusion in this debate, as any other internet debate. This is mainly caused by bad "debate technique". Claiming that "everyone else says.." or "some authority on this allegedly said..." can not be accepted as evidence, nor can statements like "a friend of mine tried it, and he could tell..." or " I tested it under following conditions, and the result was...". The reason is that everyone can claim these things in this kind of debate. It may sound rigid to those who have performed tests, or have spoken to a person they have full faith in, but it can easily be abused in a debate.

 Knut


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_I find my self in the "science camp", and I believe that if there really is audible differences, then they can ultimately be described scientifically._

 

I think so too.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_I find it very likely that to fully understand how human perceive sound, we need to understand the brain better. This may very well explain that the difference in perceived sound due to cable is mentally conditioned. I find this more likely than the other way around since todays scientists have a much better understanding of electronics than they do of the brain_

 

Interesting. That would be a "trained ears" theory, right?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Here is another test for those people who can hear a difference. Do you hear noise in your system?* If you don't, and you shouldn't on a decent setup, then you will not hear the difference in cables. Differences in cables are noise level or less.

 * If you do, then the gain of your amplifier is too high. Gain, not volume setting.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Knut (enemigo): what you wrote is interesting. Can you recommend a book that goes into the idea of brain "weights" further?


 JF


----------



## IstariAsuka

Also, note that Zu's website says that the data is "forthcoming" for their cables, including the Mobius. This is despite that fact that the Mobius been out for over a year, and presumably the company itself has existed longer than that. They have data for all (that i checked) their other products, but for only one or two cables, and that only capacitance information. They note on their "directional" cables that there are significant differences in how they measure from one way vs the other, yet they provide no data.

 They do say that they will provide information upon request if you call, so has someone tried this? Maybe it will reveal something useful.


----------



## Langrath

> originally posted by Enemigo
> A few posts here bring up the brain. I'd like to elaborate on this. The brain is mainly redundantly wired neurons containing perceptrons. The perceptron will close the "neuron-circuit" when exposed to a predecided ammount of information from the transmitting neuron(s). The ammount of info needed to trig the perceptron is defined in so-called weights. The brain constantly adjust the weights as it learns or experiences. So, when people claim they need to listen to a setup over an extent period of time before comming to like the sound, it could very well be explained by the brain "adjusting" it's wiring. Also this could explain the "cable burn-in" phenomenon.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_
 We probably will not come to a conclusion in this debate, as any other internet debate. This is mainly caused by bad "debate technique". Claiming that "everyone else says.." or "some authority on this allegedly said..." can not be accepted as evidence, nor can statements like "a friend of mine tried it, and he could tell..." or " I tested it under following conditions, and the result was...". The reason is that everyone can claim these things in this kind of debate. It may sound rigid to those who have performed tests, or have spoken to a person they have full faith in, but it can easily be abused in a debate.

 Knut_

 

No, We never come to a conclusion. I regard the forum most for having a fun discussion.

 Georg


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_We probably will not come to a conclusion in this debate, as any other internet debate. This is mainly caused by bad "debate technique". Claiming that "everyone else says.." or "some authority on this allegedly said..." can not be accepted as evidence, nor can statements like "a friend of mine tried it, and he could tell..." or " I tested it under following conditions, and the result was...". The reason is that everyone can claim these things in this kind of debate. It may sound rigid to those who have performed tests, or have spoken to a person they have full faith in, but it can easily be abused in a debate.

 Knut_

 

Sorry. Double

 Georg


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Here is another test for those people who can hear a difference. Do you hear noise in your system?* If you don't, and you shouldn't on a decent setup, then you will not hear the difference in cables. Differences in cables are noise level or less.

 * If you do, then the gain of your amplifier is too high. Gain, not volume setting.
 JF_

 

I have heard some ampliers that were noisy (ie, not a dead quiet background). Is this what you're referring to?

 Differences in cables can result in frequency response IME, and that has nothing to do with noise levels.


----------



## enemigo

Hmm, seems I made a tiny mistake in my brain explaination last night. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *me* 
_The brain is mainly redundantly wired neurons containing perceptrons. The perceptron will close the "neuron-circuit" when exposed to a predecided ammount of information from the transmitting neuron(s). The ammount of info needed to trig the perceptron is defined in so-called weights._

 

The word "perceptron" was wrong, this is an "artificial neural network" programming technic. The part of a neuron that transmitts information when trigged is called a synapse. A good thing my exam still a month away 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 FR:
 Weights is the name used in "artificial neural networking", from a biological point of view they talk of e.g. synapse threshold. But I find the neural networking theory an easier way to get an understanding of the functions of the brain, like learning. I think I'll provide some links rather than reccomending books as the books I know of mostly deal with programming a neural network on a computer, also they are written by our lecturer, in Norwegian.

How the brain learns (Dealing mostly with neural networks, but understanding this will help understanding the brain as they attempt to copy brainfunctions.)
Computation in the brain.
A brief introduction to the brain.
 I have not read all that is written in these links, but they appear to be quite correct.

 Kurt: Not sure I followed you, how did the part you quoted relate to the "trained ears" theory? Also, I am not too familiar with that theory.

 Knut


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_...._

 

You may find this control study of direct sensory input vs. brain response interesting:

*Small modulation of ongoing cortical dynamics by sensory input during natural vision*
 Jozsef Fiser, Chiayu Chiu & Michael Weliky
 Nature, Vol. 431, September 30, 2004, Pages 573-578

 -Chris


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_I have heard some ampliers that were noisy (ie, not a dead quiet background). Is this what you're referring to?

 Differences in cables can result in frequency response IME, and that has nothing to do with noise levels._

 


 Well, the wire its self does not effect frequency response. The cable has a very small capacitance that effects freq. response in like the Mhz (but headphones roll off anything above 30khz anyway).

 The other thing cables really effect is noise. And cables are THE SMALLEST noise contributor in your system.

 Len, if you hear noise, the system is sub-par. (And noise is exactly what differences in cables would sound like, if the differences were audible.)


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_How the brain learns (Dealing mostly with neural networks, but understanding this will help understanding the brain as they attempt to copy brainfunctions.)
Computation in the brain.
A brief introduction to the brain.
 I have not read all that is written in these links, but they appear to be quite correct.

 Knut_

 

Thanks, I'll take a look at the links you furnished. In return, here is a link a bit related that has information on networks--studies find similarity between how the internet, society, and biological components are connected together. Instead of things being randomly connected, a power law distribution is followed...http://www.nd.edu/~networks/


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Here is another test for those people who can hear a difference. Do you hear noise in your system?* If you don't, and you shouldn't on a decent setup, then you will not hear the difference in cables. _

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_The other thing cables really effect is noise. _

 

 Wrong. 

 (I don't want to get involved this thread again, but just want to point out for the sake of any newbies reading this thread that certain aurthoritive-sounding statements being made by certain people are just flat wrong and based on a complete lack of experience with the products in question.)


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 (I don't want to get involved this thread again, but just want to point out for the sake of any newbies reading this thread that certain aurthoritive-sounding statements being made by certain people are just flat wrong and based on a complete lack of experience with the products in question.) 
 

The irony is positively overwhelming.

 We've had how many posts claiming the most assinine of things, and THIS is the post you decide to tell noobs to use a little common sense over? I have no idea about noise introduction, but if we have people claiming Litz braid is incapable of delivering a 20kHz signal 'unmucked', or other such nonsense like they have any idea what they're talking about, you better play fair and call them out, too, if you want to retain a shred of credibility with any but the most uninformed.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_The irony is positively overwhelming.

 We've had how many posts claiming the most assinine of things, and THIS is the post you decide to tell noobs to use a little common sense over? I have no idea about noise introduction, but if we have people claiming Litz braid is incapable of delivering a 20kHz signal 'unmucked', or other such nonsense like they have any idea what they're talking about, you better play fair and call them out, too, if you want to retain a shred of credibility with any but the most uninformed._

 

 I'm not sure I fully understand your post, but if you have "no idea about noise introduction," how can you claim my post is ironic. Also, don't tag me with every claim about cables (assuming that is your intention); I merely have stated that aftermarket cables, including headphone cables, do make an audible difference in sound, as many others have pointed out. My only point is that people who are in the market for such cables and have not tried them before should not be dissauded from doing so by dogmatic statements like "Cables have no effect on anything but the noise level in your system." That's just wrong, and many of us who have experience with these cables know it.

 P.S. And yes, I am asking cable newbies to use common sense. They have two choices. Buy an aftermarket cable on 30-day return, try them in their system, and make up their own mind. Return them if they make no difference. Or, in the alternative, listen to someone who has never tried them before and take that person's opinion as to whether they will make a difference in your system. Which do you think makes sense?


----------



## rodbac

Well, let's first be clear (at least from my reading) what JF was saying. He's saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong) that if a cable can do ANYTHING wrong with a signal, it may be noise- not that it's easy to do or common, only that allowing noise is one of the only things that a cable could theoretically do incorrectly with a 20kHz audio signal (laying on a transformer, ground loops, etc).

 Again, I'm not claiming expertise on this, but it's not needed for my claims in this thread.

 The irony in your post is that you're (presumably) using physics to discredit a cable critic, yet physics is the *absolute last thing in the world* you should bring up if you're going to attempt to claim two adequately designed cables* will sound different.

 In short, it seems you're trying to have it both ways with regard to science/physics. Either accept what physics offers or reject it, but don't do so based only on whether it supports your contentions.

 I'll also say that you seem to be taking a reasonable stance on the subject. However, what seems to be going unnoticed to this point is that *having tried the cable personally changes nothing whatsoever in this debate*. Let's say JF tries the Zu cable- he can claim two things: (1) "OMG I HEARD A DIFFERENCE", which, as he's already stated (and science agrees), should be dismissed as psychosomatic/placebo, or (2) "I heard no difference whatsoever", which those here will of course dismiss (his system isn't good enough to expose the difs, his ears aren't good enough to expose the difs, his 'experience' with the cable/music isn't lengthy enough, the cable wasn't "burned in" (LOL), etc).

 *Adequately designed means it meets the minimum requirements for getting the signal there (which, as I stated pages ago, is RIDICULOUSLY EASY) or isn't specifically designed to 'color' the signal.


----------



## JohnFerrier

To try to be perfectly clear, every single electrical component generates some noise. Most of the time this is inaudible. In general, devices that are purely resistive, like cables, noise is a function of the value of it's resistance. The higher the resistance, the higher the noise. A cable is *very* low resistance and therefore is *very* low in noise. A short circuit (0 ohms) is noiseless. Cables are almost a short circuit. Every other device in your audio setup generate more noise because it is generally significantly higher resistance. To be direct, you can not hear difference of cables (noise) through the total noise of the system.

 I happen to enjoy my system more not being anxious that that there is something wrong with the wiring. I'm sorry if this disturbs people. I didn't know this until thinking my way through this thread. (I had been anxious.)


 JF


----------



## greenhorn

This thread will die only if the only ones left to participate would be JohnFerrier and rodbac


----------



## JaZZ

Interesting in-depth info about cable physics! Had I known all this before, I could have saved all my money spent on expensive cables that do nothing... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 All the beautiful rendered instrument timbres, the high resolution, the accurate overtones to melt for... nothing but self-delusion! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So I'm going to sell my Zu Mobius and my precious interconnects to some dummies and enjoy the cheap wires I still have lying around, with their dull and smeared sound, but at least I can be sure that this is not illusion...


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Interesting in-depth info about cable physics! Had I known all this before, I could have saved all my money spent on expensive cables that do nothing... All the beautiful rendered instrument timbres, the high resolution, the accurate overtones to melt for... nothing but self-delusion! So I'm going to sell my Zu Mobius and my precious interconnects to some dummies and enjoy the cheap wires I still have lying around, with their dull and smeared sound, but at least I can be sure that this is not illusion... 
 

Quoted so that everyone reads it again.

 Oh, and there are a lot of reasons to keep your $200 cable- nice connectors, excellent construction, it looks great with a nice system... 

 (and I'd also like it noted that I took the better part of a week off from this thread and left everyone alone, and plan on doing so again after today when my free time disappears)


----------



## JohnFerrier

I purchased many feet of silver wire too, but I don't feel bad about it. I will also say that listening tests are stressful and very tricky. Music is very complex, that is part of the appeal.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_(and I'd also like it noted that I took the better part of a week off from this thread and left everyone alone, and plan on doing so again after today when my free time disappears)_

 

We're finished though, right?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I think I've said all I can say on this subject. It's up to everyone else to read, think, then go do some research and make up their own minds now.

 Is that what you mean, JF?_

 

Yes, basically, I'm tired of this.


 JF


----------



## rodbac

I think I've said all I can say on this subject. It's up to everyone else to read, think, then go do some research and make up their own minds now.

 Is that what you mean, JF?


----------



## MuzlL0dr

Hi all, I'm back for my 2 cents. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Is there still a reason the skeptics haven't actually tried to see if there's a difference? I'm only following the thread loosely, so I might have missed that. Also, wouldn't placebo be ruled out if you expected NOT to hear a difference and did? I was under the impression that the placebo effect happens BECAUSE you expect it to happen, not vice-versa. Just my thoughts!


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 muzloder said: Is there still a reason the skeptics haven't actually tried to see if there's a difference? 
 

 Quote:


 a few posts back, rodbac said: Let's say JF tries the Zu cable- he can claim two things: (1) "OMG I HEARD A DIFFERENCE", which, as he's already stated (and science agrees), should be dismissed as psychosomatic/placebo, or (2) "I heard no difference whatsoever", which those here will of course dismiss (his system isn't good enough to expose the difs, his ears aren't good enough to expose the difs, his 'experience' with the cable/music isn't lengthy enough, the cable wasn't "burned in" (LOL), etc). 
 

Again, it wouldn't change the argument.

  Quote:


 Also, wouldn't placebo be ruled out if you expected NOT to hear a difference and did? I was under the impression that the placebo effect happens BECAUSE you expect it to happen, not vice-versa. Just my thoughts! 
 

No. It's often stated that way, but the desire doesn't have to be there.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_The irony in your post is that you're (presumably) using physics to discredit a cable critic, yet physics is the *absolute last thing in the world* you should bring up if you're going to attempt to claim two adequately designed cables* will sound different.
_

 

 It appears that we have a misunderstanding. I'm not using physics at all. I understood John's point to be that there are no audible differences between cables, unless one cable introduces noise, or has less capacity to filter our "noise," than another. IMO, that is flat wrong, as I and many others have experienced audible differences in cables that are not merely attributable to differences in "noise."

 Also, as to the placebo effect, let's say someone tries a certain aftermarket cable that costs $250, replacing a $50 cable in their system. They don't like the aftermarket cable, finding that it sounds too bright in their system, and that they prefer the $50 cable. They return the more expensive cable because they don't like it in their system. How is that explained by the placebo effect? Were they expecting not to like it, and so duped themselves into believing it sounded worse, even though in fact it made no difference? Would the folks who say differences in cables are all attibutable to placebo effects say that sometimes people think that the cable is going to sound better because it costs more, and when they like it, it is just the placebo effect? And when they don't like it, is it because they subliminally are sorry they spent the money, and that's why they don't like it?

 I can understand if someone were to say that the placebo effect may be prominent when one buys an expensive cable they can't return, and in such instances that one is predestined to like it. It seems somewhat far fetched to say that every difference people claim to hear with cables, regardless of whether they like the difference or not, regardless of whether or not they are stuck with the cable or not, and regardless of whether the new cable costs more or less than the old, is placebo-related. Also, when someone has no cable in their system, and compares two cables costing the same amount, and they prefer one over the other, what is causing the placebo effect then? That they like the color of one cable better? They like the name of the company better?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 It appears that we have a misunderstanding. I'm not using physics at all. I understood John's point to be that there are no audible differences between cables, unless one cable introduces noise, or has less capacity to filter our "noise," than another. IMO, that is flat wrong, as I and many others have experienced audible differences in cables that are not merely attributable to differences in "noise." 
 

Ok, then.

  Quote:


 Also, as to the placebo effect, let's say someone tries a certain aftermarket cable that costs $250, replacing a $50 cable in their system. They don't like the aftermarket cable, finding that it sounds too bright in their system, and that they prefer the $50 cable. They return the more expensive cable because they don't like it in their system. How is that explained by the placebo effect? Were they expecting not to like it, and so duped themselves into believing it sounded worse, even though in fact it made no difference? 
 

YES!

  Quote:


 Would the folks who say differences in cables are all attibutable to placebo effects say that sometimes people think that the cable is going to sound better because it costs more, and when they like it, it is just the placebo effect? And when they don't like it, is it because they subliminally are sorry they spent the money, and that's why they don't like it? 
 

Could be both. If they report a difference, either for better or worse, between two adequately designed cables (I'm assuming, for the sake of arguing, that the aftermarket cable isn't intentionally mucking with the signal), they're reporting exactly what would be predicted by the placebo effect.

  Quote:


 Also, when someone has no cable in their system, and compares two cables costing the same amount, and they prefer one over the other, what is causing the placebo effect then? That they like the color of one cable better? They like the name of the company better? 
 

Could be any of the above. Further, listeners will report hearing differences just as often when listening to the same cable as they will when switching between different cables. It merely takes us thinking there might be a difference for us to hear one.

 And if all you want to claim, as many do, is that your liking the cable better for whatever reason makes it sound better to you and that justifies it, then so be it. But you also have to realize that you're putting your $200 cable in the same basket as rainbow socks and crystals in that case, and I don't think too many are comfortable with that.


----------



## JohnFerrier

What may throw people off is that the headphone cable is 6 feet (2 m) long. It would seem that something that significant would affect the sound. However, surprisingly, that is not the case (unless there is a defect). It really comes down to the fact that copper is an excellent conductor of electricity.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 Could be both. If they report a difference, either for better or worse, between two adequately designed cables (I'm assuming, for the sake of arguing, that the aftermarket cable isn't intentionally mucking with the signal), they're reporting exactly what would be predicted by the placebo effect.
_

 

 Ok , so I buy a $250 interconnect to replace a $50 interconnect. I buy the $250 cable because I read dozens of reviews from the cable nuts who say this cable is awesome, and sounds as good as any $1000 cable. It comes in a nice wood box. It is beautifully constructed. I show it to several friends to let them see how cool it looks. The connectors also appear to be beautifully made, increasing my perception of the quality of this cable. I try it out in my system. I am very impressed at first, feeling that it adds some detail at the higher end. (This is "predicted" by the placebo effect, right? I mean, I read all these good reviews, liked the construction, spent good money for it, etc., so I was "expecting" to like it, right?) After several days of listening to music I have listened to 100's of times, however, I find the new cable to be bright on many selections and to be fatiguing. (How is this consistent with what the placebo effect would "predict"?) I then switch back to my $50 cable. After listening to it for several days, I decide I prefer the sound of it to the other cable, as it is less harsh. (How is this consistent with what the placebo effect would "predict"?)

 P.S. If someone takes a sugar pill thinking it's going to cure them and it cures them this is placebo, right? If they take it thinking it's going to cure them and it throws them into a diabetic shock, then that's also placebo, right?


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_But you also have to realize that you're putting your $200 cable in the same basket as rainbow socks and crystals in that case, and I don't think too many are comfortable with that._

 

These are horribly unfair and polarizing analogies. Something more appropriate would be magnet theropy, acupuncture, and natural supplements.


----------



## rodbac

Len- 

 Magnet therapy? Absolutely- there is no effect, demonstrated or predicted, that isn't completely explained by psychosomatic effect.

 Acupuncture/natural supplements? No- these have demonstrable, if not completely understood, effects.

 Also, it's not unfair at all if you (well, not you specifically) are claiming nothing but psychosomatic effect to explain the improvements in what you're hearing.


 PhilS-

 I agree with you to a certain degree- the term placebo is so entrenched in my mind as being associated with improvement (and illness as well) that I've never liked it's use in this context.

 Would it be better if we use "psychosomatic effect" instead of "placebo"?


----------



## Len

rodbac, I wish I lived in a world as binary as yours .... and one where modern science can explain all.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 rodbac, I wish I lived in a world as binary as yours .... and one where modern science can explain all. 
 

And sometimes I truly wish I lived in a universe where I was magic- I could turn scrambled eggs into hundred dollar bills and my car could fly over traffic when needed.

 Why do we feel compelled to tell children, after a certain age, that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy? Because knowing how the world really works is much more comforting in the long run.

 However, you don't need to construct the strawman here- I've never claimed science can (or ever will) explain all. THIS SUBJECT, however, is one that it has explained completely (by any measurement we have to go on right now).


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Len- 
 Also, it's not unfair at all if you (well, not you specifically) are claiming nothing but psychosomatic effect to explain the improvements in what you're hearing._

 

I claim to hear audible frequency response differences in ICs, verified by my decibel meter. Soundstaging/spatial differences are also audible but I do not have gear advanced enough to support my conclusion. 

 I claim to hear what I hear. You may claim it's all in my head, but that's just as unsubstantiated (arguably more so) as me claiming I personally hear differences in some cables.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Would it be better if we use "psychosomatic effect" instead of "placebo"?_

 

I don't think changing the name helps the analysis. I stilll am curious how one explains the scenario I set forth above, where one "expects" a particular cable to sound better, and finds out that in fact it sounds worse.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_However, you don't need to construct the strawman here- I've never claimed science can (or ever will) explain all. THIS SUBJECT, however, is one that it has explained completely (by any measurement we have to go on right now)._

 

I supposed as much because the crux of the naysayer's arguments is current understanding/ data doesn't support cables making a difference, and thus no difference can exist. That's premised on the belief that our current understanding is complete and conclusive.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I don't think changing the name helps the analysis. I stilll am curious how one explains the scenario I set forth above, where one "expects" a particular cable to sound better, and finds out that in fact it sounds worse. 
 

I don't know how to say it any more clearly- it's not that you expect an _improvement_ that leads to the psychosomatic effect (although that can be a VERY powerful contributor)- it's that you expect a difference in any capacity. Just the fact that they're different cables (even if they look identical) can be enough, or a peculiar look or change in tone from the experimenter (which is why DBT is required).


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I supposed as much because the crux of the naysayer's arguments is current understanding/ data doesn't support cables making a difference, and thus no difference can exist. That's premised on the belief that our current understanding is complete and conclusive. 
 

This might be true if we had any reason whatsoever to believe that a difference existed.

 As it stands currently, everything reliably observed is explained completely by our current understanding of how it all works.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_*having tried the cable personally changes nothing whatsoever in this debate*_

 

Am I the only one that is reminded off Virgins “debating” about intercourse? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 What you say have you proven to be true. But this debate is not just for the debates sake. It could help a noob in his/her decision.

 What would one do, if there would be proof that cables makes a difference, the person would be interested and would have the money to spend? Right, testing. 

 So while “ having tried” might not be important in this debate, in the real world it makes all the difference.

 And no patronizing comment changes that. They are not helpful.


----------



## JohnFerrier

I'd be elated if someone could refer to a study that indicates that people do hear differences. No one here has done that.


 JF


----------



## Len

I believe the thousands of people (and high proportion of audiophiles) who claim to hear significant differences warrants a personal audition, especially when it can cost virtually nothing for this trial.

 John, please show me studies where people can accurately discern one SS amp from another. Or digital source. I assume if you can't find any supporting studies, these must all sound the same as well.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 And no patronizing comment changes that. They are not helpful. 
 

Kurt- I've remained glaringly NON-condescending through 99% of this.

 A virgin scientist would not have to have sex to debate whether the insertion of a guy's tool into her hooha could pop her cherry. She could tell you, based on scientific study of both gender's reproductive anatomy that yes, indeed, it COULD happen, despite her never actually having bothered to perform the act herself.

 Make sense if I say it like that?

  Quote:


 What would one do, if there would be proof that cables makes a difference, the person would be interested and would have the money to spend? Right, testing. 
 

You're 100% correct- except that "testing" has to be more than a few drinking buddies getting together and swapping cables back and forth.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I don't know how to say it any more clearly- it's not that you expect an improvement that leads to the psychosomatic effect (although that can be a VERY powerful contributor)- it's that you expect a difference in any capacity. Just the fact that they're different cables (even if they look identical) can be enough, or a peculiar look or change in tone from the experimenter (which is why DBT is required)._

 

But my point is that the difference I expected is the OPPOSITE of what I heard ultimately. What caused that? A "peculiar look" from my wife? A bad burrito for dinner? A change in tone when my dog barked? Sounds pretty farfetched to say that every difference anybody has ever heard must be some type of psychosomatic effect, regardless of whether the purported difference is consistent with expectations. It's true what they say, I guess, denial is not just a river in Egypt. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And you want to talk about irony. The folks who say cables make a difference say they don't care what science says, they hear a difference. The folks who say all cables sound the same say they don't care what we hear, as anything we hear must be the result of some unidentifiable external stimulus that causes a psychosomatic effect. (In other words, now YOUR argument is incapable of scientific proof, since you can basically say the psychosomatic effect comes from anything.) And what's even better is, suppose you and John Ferrier each buy an aftermarket headphone cable tomorrow, love it, and each of you post on this board that you hear significant differences from the stock cable. Presumably, both of you will also add that while you hear differences, they are solely due to a psychosomatic effects, and therefore neither of you should be taken seriously.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_I believe the thousands of people (and high proportion of audiophiles) who claim to hear significant differences warrants a personal audition, especially when it can cost virtually nothing for this trial._

 

Sorry, not valid. You will find just as many or more opinions to the contrary.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_John, please show me studies where people can accurately discern one SS amp from another. Or digital source. I assume if you can't find any supporting studies, these must all sound the same as well._

 

What have I wrote about amplifiers? Today's amplifier circuits are very good. Wire affects the sound the least.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_And what's even better is, suppose you and John Ferrier each buy an aftermarket headphone cable tomorrow, love it, and each of you post on this board that you hear significant differences from the stock cable._

 

I would absolutely purchase expensive cables, *if* it made a difference. It *does not*. My RCA cables were free and the headphone cables are stock. There are no better sounding cables.

 My recommendation to everyone regarding cables: try free, try stock.


 JF


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 John, please show me studies where people can accurately discern one SS amp from another. Or digital source. I assume if you can't find any supporting studies, these must all sound the same as well. 
 

I don't think I've ever read that any amp (or DAC) manufacturer has claimed to deliver more of the signal, or a cleaner signal, or anything like that that is demonstrably impossible (once a rudimentary minimum level of quality is achieved).


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I don't think I've ever read that any amp (or DAC) manufacturer has claimed to deliver more of the signal, or a cleaner signal, or anything like that that is demonstrably impossible (once a rudimentary minimum level of quality is achieved)._

 

John doesn't seem to understand my point, but I'm glad somebody does.

 There are many advertising claims from every equipment type stating their gear is closer to the "truth," is more "musical," etc. As with any advertising pitch, take it with a heavy grain of salt. 

 Perhaps it's just me, but I'm more inclined to try something (especially when it costs me nothing) and decide with my tangible senses versus performing endless mental excercise with fuzzy abstracts. If I hear a difference, then I hear a difference. If you don't, you don't. It's that simple.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_John doesn't seem to understand my point, but I'm glad somebody does.

 There are many advertising claims from every equipment type stating their gear is closer to the "truth," is more "musical," etc. As with any advertising pitch, take it with a heavy grain of salt. 

 Perhaps it's just me, but I'm more inclined to try something (especially when it costs me nothing) and decide with my tangible senses versus performing endless mental excercise with fuzzy abstracts. If I hear a difference, then I hear a difference. If you don't, you don't. It's that simple._

 

But it's possible to do what amp (and DAC) manufacturers claim to do, which is purely to spit out a more pleasing sound, using whatever 'tricks' they have designed into the unit.

 Cable manufacturers* who claim, as most (all?) do, that they're delivering more of the signal than the stock cable is, and who will admit no such 'tricks', are not in the same boat, claim-wise.

 *Actually, I think this should be put on the supporter's shoulders, as the aftermarket cable sites I've sifted through are tellingly mum on the subject.

 [EDIT] I sent out an email to Zu, btw, asking for all data they had on their cables (measurements, specs, etc). I'll be sure to post their reply when I get it.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I would absolutely purchase expensive cables, *if* it made a difference. It *does not*. My RCA cables were free and the headphone cables are stock. There are no better sounding cables.
_

 

 Yeah, we get it. Just keep saying it over and over. It's very persuasive.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I would absolutely purchase expensive cables, *if* it made a difference. It *does not*. My RCA cables were free and the headphone cables are stock. There are no better sounding cables.

 My recommendation to everyone regarding cables: try free, try stock.


 JF_

 

Oh, right! I bet the FS forum will light up with cables for sale now, John....


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Yeah, we get it. Just keep saying it over and over. It's very persuasive._

 

Well, I'm running out of ways to explain reality, while waiting for you guys to provide one shred of valid data.

 How is the whole rest of your audio system follows the laws of physics, but the cables have some unexplained quality that makes them sound better? They do not.

 Len, indicates that I'm avoiding his question about other audio components. I say, that if anything sounds different, it will measure different. THD isn't the only measure of an amplifier. Noise is another measure. There is also frequency response, IMD, etc.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, I'm running out of ways to explain reality, while waiting for you guys to provide one shred of valid data.
_

 

 We have provided valid data. It is not conclusive, but it is nevertheless probative of the issue. You just choose to ignore it, on the ground that you will only accept certain types of data. That's ok. It's a free country. But it doesn't mean you haven't been given an "data," or that your position is reasonable or objective.


----------



## Len

John, it is getting pretty tiresome that you insist on referring to your perspective as "fact" and "reality" when it's been equally unsubstantiated.

 I wish you'd be so kind as to provide a shred of data that people can hear the difference between digital sources. If you can't provide any supporting data, the difference must not be audible according to your line of thinking. Thus, even if a lot of people say they can hear the difference between an Accuphase and a Sony discman, they all must be delusional.

 I can appreciate the viewpoint that the burden of the proof rests with the positive claimant since negative assertions are generally much more difficult to argue convincingly. But in this situation, all the proof that is needed is for the naysayers to give it a shot for themselves. It's their perogative not to want to. But it's also pretentious for these same people to lay claim of authority on the subject and quite condescending to suggest the people who hear differences are all merely victims of delusion.

 edit: John, you're erroneously assuming all pertinent perimeters are presently quantifiable.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_We have provided valid data._

 

Fine, if that is what you wish to believe. Do you believe people that say UFOs exist?


 JF


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_rodbac, I wish I lived in a world as binary as yours .... and one where modern science can explain all._

 

Eventually science will be able to explain it all. Perhaps not just yet though. I just saw an interesting paper in Science, published in 2002, that compared sensation perceived via vision, touch, and a combination. The conclusion was rather interesting. The senses examined did not appear to act independently, but seemed to function as a multimodal system. Perception was maximal when both systems were in use. So, we now are faced with a model of the perceptual process where we cannot isolate vision from touch in examining perceptual thresholds. Where does hearing fit in? I don't know yet. However, if indeed perception is in fact a multimodal system, rather than independent systems, blind testing is done. There may be no perceived differences in a blind test simply because visual input is a critical part of the perceptual process, including audition. There is a real possibility that removing visual cues can alter thresholds for other senses (we're not talking "placebo effect" here, but actual sensory thresholds). This is an interesting model, as it also explains why people who can clearly describe differences in an unblinded setting may have trouble in a blind test. The normal cues governing auditory perceptual thresholds may be altered by the test itself. By removing visual cues, you're not just eliminating a possible "placebo effect" but may be actually altering the auditory perceptual threshold (if the model holds up for senses beyond touch and vision).


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Fine, if that is what you wish to believe. Do you believe people that say UFOs exist?
_

 

 As of the present time, I don't believe in UFO's. But if 25 people in my neighborhood tell me tomorrow that one is hovering 10 feet off the ground in back of my next door neighbor's house, I wouldn't be a mule and say: "They don't exist and I don't need to go next door and see if what you say is true. All of you must be wrong. And you have provided no evidence they exist." I mean, seriously, your analogies are really quite flawed.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Fine, if that is what you wish to believe. Do you believe people that say UFOs exist?_

 

I certainly believe in the possibility. To rule it out would assume you intimately comprehend the universe.


----------



## rodbac

Hirsch-

 It would be very cool if that study turns out to be on to something- what an interesting breakthrough that would be. I'll be the first one to accept it and apologize if it's ever corroborated.

 It's useful to note, though, that there have been huge numbers of "interesting studies" done over the years that initially showed something that would cause a complete paradigm shift... so please don't blame me if I wait before throwing everything out the window just yet...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_I certainly believe in the possibility. To rule it out would assume you intimately comprehend the universe._

 

Okay, if someone proved that UFOs don't exist, would you continue to "believe in the possibility"?

 BTW: Thanks Hirsch for providing something interesting to read.


 JF


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_As of the present time, I don't believe in UFO's. But if 25 people in my neighborhood tell me tomorrow that one is hovering 10 feet off the ground in back of my next door neighbor's house, I wouldn't be a mule and say: "They don't exist and I don't need to go next door and see if what you say is true. All of you must be wrong. And you have provided no evidence they exist." I mean, seriously, your analogies are really quite flawed._

 

How about if 25 people in your neighborhood claim to have seen God's curtains waving about in the sky last night, but you know very well how the aurora borealis works and that the conditions were right for it at that time?

 Would you say "Hmm... well, I guess we DO have proof for God after all", or would you tell them that God may indeed exist, but that you have a very, VERY good explanation for what they saw?


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Okay, if someone proved that UFOs don't exist, would you continue to "believe in the possibility"?_

 

Sure, if you can provide irrefutable proof UFOs do not exist, I'd concede they don't exist. Such proof is a pratical impossibility, much like proving God doesn't exist.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_How about if 25 people in your neighborhood claim to have seen God's curtains waving about in the sky last night, but you know very well how the aurora borealis works and that the conditions were right for it at that time?_

 

More irrelevant analogies (no offense intended). The analogy suggests that we're attritubing a known phenomenon to something other then what it is. So are you saying that cable are audibly different, but we're simply explaining the difference inaccurately?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 The analogy suggests that we're attritubing a known phenomenon to something other then what it is. 
 

That's exactly what you're doing! We know very well about the susceptibility of our hearing to psychosomatic effects, you're reporting something that agrees very, very well with it, yet you're claiming not only that it's not that, but even that it's something that goes against the laws of physics.

  Quote:


 More irrelevant analogies (no offense intended). 
 

Yeah, it wasn't perfect, but if you don't try to take it too far, it actually illustrates the situation pretty well... (and no offense taken 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)


----------



## JohnFerrier

Let's examine a couple of things "believers" say...

 Burn-in: after X hours the cable sounds better. Well, fine since there is *absolutely* no explaination for why it sounds better, how do you know that next week it's not going to sound bad again. Maybe every other month it alternates between bad sounding and good sounding.

 Expensive cable sounds good. Does 12 feet (4 m) sound twice as good as 6 feet (2 m)? How does this work? Is more better, or is less better?

 Is this the type of valid data you refer to Phil?


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_How about if 25 people in your neighborhood claim to have seen God's curtains waving about in the sky last night, but you know very well how the aurora borealis works and that the conditions were right for it at that time?_

 

Not to get off topic, but who do you think created the aurora borealis in the first place and provides the right conditions?


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_That's exactly what you're doing! We know very well about the susceptibility of our hearing to psychosomatic effects, you're reporting something that agrees very, very well with it, yet you're claiming not only that it's not that, but even that it's something that goes against the laws of physics_

 

The problem is you haven't proven the perceived differences is psychosomatic.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Not to get off topic, but who do you think created the aurora borealis in the first place and provides the right conditions? 
 

You just blew my mind...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Let's examine a couple of things "believers" say...

 Burn-in: after X hours the cable sounds better. Well, fine since there is *absolutely* no explaination for why it sound better, how do you know that next week it's not going to sound bad again. Maybe every other month it alternates between bad sounding and good sounding.

 Expensive cable sounds good. Does 12 feet (4 m) sound twice as good as 6 feet (2 m)? How does this work? Is more better, or is less better?

 Is this the type of valid data you refer to Phil?


 JF_

 

 No, the "data" I refer to is hundreds, or thousands of people(depending on the type of cable under consideration) stating that different cables sound different. That is real world data. You make think that other data is more persuasive, but the "testimony" of others who have actual experience with the products at issue is probative evidence. And I haven't claimed anything about burn-in or cable length. Attempting to set up straw men (in addition to the questionable analogies) indicates weakness in your argument.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Len* 
_The problem is you haven't proven the perceived differences is psychosomatic._

 

You mean the differences you've experienced specifically, or ever?

 If the latter, it most certainly has. Go read any study ever properly done on the subject, and you'll find that if their experiment and, just as importantly, statistical analysis were done properly, listeners correctly report differences no more often than chance would predict, and even report differences just as often when listening to the same cable.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You make think that other data is more persuasive, but the "testimony" of others who have actual experience with the products at issue is probative evidence. 
 

But Phil, first, "testimony" means nothing- we know very well why those people would report hearing a difference.

 Second, what about all the people who hear no difference?


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Not to get off topic, but who do you think created the aurora borealis in the first place and provides the right conditions? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Not to remain off topic, but why are you assuming that any entity 'created' the aurora borealis or 'provides' the right conditions?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, the "data" I refer to is hundreds, or thousands of people(depending on the type of cable under consideration) stating that different cables sound different. That is real world data. You make think that other data is more persuasive, but the "testimony" of others who have actual experience with the products at issue is probative evidence. And I haven't claimed anything about burn-in or cable length. Attempting to set up straw men (in addition to the questionable analogies) indicates weakness in your argument._

 

It seems to me that I could draw the world's best analogy and you'd still write that it "indicates weakness in your argument."

 If you still wish to believe, as many other people claim, that cables sound differently that is fine. Ignore what I write.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 Second, what about all the people who hear no difference?_

 

 Where are they? Let's go with the initial topic. Everyone on this thread who has compared aftermarket headphone cables with the stock cable on a halfway decent system and has heard no difference, speak up now.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Where are they? Let's go with the initial topic. Everyone on this thread who has compared aftermarket headphone cables with the stock cable on a halfway decent system and has heard no difference, speak up now._

 

Phil,

 I'd really like to read what you have to say about the difference in sound in cables. Please be very descriptive.


 JF


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_You mean the differences you've experienced specifically, or ever?

 If the latter, it most certainly has. Go read any study ever properly done on the subject, and you'll find that if their experiment and, just as importantly, statistical analysis were done properly, listeners correctly report differences no more often than chance would predict, and even report differences just as often when listening to the same cable._

 

I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me a heads up where to find these experiments. Try as I may have in the past, there isn't much data out there.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Where are they? Let's go with the initial topic. Everyone on this thread who has compared aftermarket headphone cables with the stock cable on a halfway decent system and has heard no difference, speak up now. 
 

Phil, do you know believe that Head-Fi is a good place to look for such people? I'll bet there are quite a few here, but I'll bet the vast majority of them have never heard of "Head-Fi"... We like to think of ourselves as "typical", but one forum on the internet hardly qualifies as giving a good cross-section.

  Quote:


 I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me a heads up where to find these experiments. Try as I may have in the past, there isn't much data out there. 
 

Audioholics is a pretty good resource. They have a number of discussions on the subject, and their analysis is solid and they back everything up with references.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Can Phil describe differences, or not?


 JF


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Where are they? Let's go with the initial topic. Everyone on this thread who has compared aftermarket headphone cables with the stock cable on a halfway decent system and has heard no difference, speak up now._

 

I'm not sure why you keep focusing on this. If one, or ten, or ten thousand individuals could hear no difference, would that convince you that there is no difference and what you heard is an illusion?

 On the other hand, if you or anyone could produce evidence indicating that cable differences can be audibly resolved in a _properly conducted_ blind test then I would be happy to give this credence. However, no such evidence exists (even though it should be easy to generate if the effects are real... why do you think it has not?).

 Who is the one who can't be convinced?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Looks like we're going to have to wait for Phil to compose his thoughts on the difference that cables make to sound.


 JF


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Audioholics is a pretty good resource. They have a number of discussions on the subject, and their analysis is solid and they back everything up with references._

 

I've read audioholics on numerous occasions and agree there is some very good empirical postulation (like this thread, usually from those who haven't auditioned cables firsthand). There is nothing, however, that supports that people can't hear differences. There is a lot written on why people aren't suppose to, just as there is a lot written in AA on why people are.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I actually thought that by know someone would produce a study (even if it was fake...). 
 

I think, IIRC, that Audioholics had a link to one or two- of course, they were used as examples of what NOT to do (and how NOT to analyze your results, and why you need to know what you're doing when doing so)....

 I'll try to find links- my free time is running out fast...


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I actually thought that by know someone would produce a study (even if it was fake...)._

 

I'm not aware of any such conclusive studies for any piece of audio equipment. There have been several less-then-scientific studies published.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Can Phil describe differences, or not?


 JF_

 

 Sorry, it's still early here in California and I was trying to get something out the door before the end of the day. I will try to describe the differences when I get a moment, but I have to leave shortly to pick up pizza for MNF. Also, I will try to describe the differences because you asked. But let's not divert the discusssion. I am asking for those who have actually heard aftermarket headphone cables and have heard no difference to speak up. And rodbac, I understand Head-Fi is not a cross-section, but hundreds of Head-Fi'ers have probably tried aftermarket cables. If they don't make a difference, surely there woud be quite a few folks who are as intelligent and perceptive as you and JF and who would not be duped by the psycosomatic influences like the rest of schmucks. Let's have those folks speak up. I know it's not completely scientific, but surely it would be probative. (Unless you're going to continue to accept only the evidence that supports your position.)


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 There is nothing, however, that supports that people can't hear differences. 
 

Len, as I'm sure you know, that's because the burden of proof doesn't lay with those saying there's no difference. You can't prove a negative.

 As well (and maybe more importantly), physics says there will be no difference- so if you want to prove there IS one, the ball's in your court.

 Know, though, that it's been tried- and in every instance where someone thinks they have shown a difference, you watch- there are always either errors in their testing, or errors in their analysis (usually glaring), or both.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_I'm not sure why you keep focusing on this. If one, or ten, or ten thousand individuals could hear no difference, would that convince you that there is no difference and what you heard is an illusion?
_

 

 I would consider it highly relevant evidence, and would seriously evaluate it, as I am willing to consider evidence on both sides, including my own experience, the experience of others, and the science. I'm not the one who will only consider evidence that agrees with my position and stubbornly refuses to obtain any real world practical experience with the matter under discussion.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 ...and who would not be duped by the psycosomatic influences like the rest of schmucks. 
 

It's not being "duped" and you're not a schmuck for experiencing it- it's a genuine human experience. Derogatory names only begin being assigned when someone rejects all explanation, no matter how well-rooted in science it is.

  Quote:


 I'm not the one who will only consider evidence that agrees with my position and stubbornly refuses to obtain any real world practical experience with the matter under discussion. 
 

"I heard a difference" is not evidence, it's anecdote.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Sorry, it's still early here in California and I was trying to get something out the door before the end of the day. I will try to describe the differences when I get a moment, but I have to leave shortly to pick up pizza for MNF. Also, I will try to describe the differences because you asked. But let's not divert the discusssion. I am asking for those who have actually heard aftermarket headphone cables and have heard no difference to speak up. And rodbac, I understand Head-Fi is not a cross-section, but hundreds of Head-Fi'ers have probably tried aftermarket cables. If they don't make a difference, surely there woud be quite a few folks who are as intelligent and perceptive as you and JF and who would not be duped by the psycosomatic influences like the rest of schmucks. Let's have those folks speak up. I know it's not completely scientific, but surely it would be probative. (Unless you're going to continue to accept only the evidence that supports your position.)_

 

You couldn't write two words to describe what you hear? This illustrates part of the problem, you are relying on other people to reinforce this illusion.

 ---

 Phil,

 Sometime after Monday night football has finished and all the pizza boxes are picked up, please describe the differences *you* hear in different cables (headphone cables would be most appropiate for this specific thread, however, all *your* thoughts on this will be interesting, especially in light of the fact that there really are no differences).


 JF


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I would consider it highly relevant evidence, and would seriously evaluate it, as I am willing to consider evidence on both sides, including my own experience, the experience of others, and the science._

 

But, you haven't answered the question. Are there any circumstances under which you would believe that your experiences hearing cable differences are an illusion?

  Quote:


 I'm not the one who will only consider evidence that agrees with my position and stubbornly refuses to obtain any real world practical experience with the matter under discussion. 
 

On the contrary, I clearly stated that I would consider any real evidence, and subjective comments are not evidence. And until you answer the first question I don't know how my experience (or that of any number of others) could possibly matter to you anyway.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 "I heard a difference" is not evidence, it's anecdote._

 

 No, a person stating what they heard is evidence, in a court of law, in a layman's sense, and in the scientific realm. It may not be the best evidence, it may not be completely persuasive, it may be refuted by other evidence, etc., but it is still evidence. Also, see the definition of "anecdote" in the dictionary.

 P.S. I have been a trial lawyer for almost 25 years, so have some experience in determining what evidence is.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_But, you haven't answered the question. Are there any circumstances under which you would believe that your experiences hearing cable differences are an illusion?

 On the contrary, I clearly stated that I would consider any real evidence, and subjective comments are not evidence. And until you answer the first question I don't know how my experience (or that of any number of others) could possibly matter to you anyway._

 

 It is hard for me to delineate all of the circumstances under which I would believe what I am hearing is an illusion, but if lots of other people reported that they also tried the cables I have listened to and could find no differences between such cables and the stock cable, I would wonder whether I was just hearing things. Would it take a majority? Perhaps. Or at least a substantial minority. Alternatively, if scientific evidence was produced that was irrefutable and proved that no one could hear a difference, I suppose that would cause me to believe that I was perhaps hearing an illusion also. At a minimum, it might cause me to go back and perform my own DBT to the extent I could do so without much hassle. But again, I feel I am not operating under an illusion. I understand when someone says "I got a new cable and dynamics are way better" or spout other audiophile cliches that people might think this is baloney. But the cable changes I made in my system have allowed me to listen to some CD's I simply could not listen to when I had the stock cables in my system. They were painful to listen to. So what happened? Was I duped before into not being able to listen to them by thinking I might get a new cable and then would pretend they sound fine? Or were they unlistenable before and they are still now, and I've duped myself into not hearing the hash that I heard before? Give me a break. I understand placebo, etc., but I have ears. If the CD made me vomit before and now it doesn't, I submit even that would not be enough for some.

 In any event, I promise I'll keep an open mind notwithstanding my experiences, so feel free now to bring forth all those folks who have compared the stock and aftermarket headphone cables on a decent system and heard no difference.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_You couldn't write two words to describe what you hear? This illustrates part of the problem, you are relying on other people to reinforce this illusion._

 

 Oh give me break. There's no reason to act like that. I do have a life you know (even though I feel compelled for some sick reason to spend too much of it arguing with you guys in this ridiculous debate.)

 As to the differences I have experienced with aftermarket headphone cables, first some background. I ordered on return both the Cardas cable and the Silver Dragon cable that are made for the Sennheiser HD-600's and 650's. I tried them with both phones and switched the cables back and forth with the stock cable over approximately a 45-day period, with a few different CD players and two different headphone amps. I found it difficult to determine much of a difference between the Cardas and Silver Dragon, although I believe the Cardas had a little stronger bass, while the Silver Dragon was a little more revealing at the top end. I ended up returning the Cardas and keeping the Silver Dragon.

 I found the differences between both aftermarket cables and the stock cable, however, to be noticeable. First, I found both to be more revealing than the stock cable. On most of the music I have listened to for 100's of times, I found myself hearing things I had not heard before. Frequently, these were instruments that had been previously recessed into the background. Second, the soundstage was a bit wider, if I am using that term accurately. For example, I found that the music seem to be less centered in front of me and more spread out across the "stage." It was also easier to place instruments or voices at a certain location. In addition, I found that I heard harmonies much more distinctly, being able to pick out two or three separate voices. Third, I found that the bass on the aftermarket cables was more "musical," meaning that I could hear better than before the differences in individual bass notes on the scale, whereas before they were harder to distinguish. Finally, I found that the music sounded a little less veiled than before, which is I think a characterstic these cans can suffer from with certain music.

 P.S. I have focused here only on the aftermarket headphone cables, since that was the initial topic under discussion. Frankly, I found the differences with interconnects and power cords in my system (replacing the stock cords) to be more significant than the difference between the stock and aftermarket headphone cable.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, a person stating what they heard is evidence, in a court of law, in a layman's sense, and in the scientific realm. It may not be the best evidence, it may not be completely persuasive, it may be refuted by other evidence, etc., but it is still evidence. Also, see the definition of "anecdote" in the dictionary.

 P.S. I have been a trial lawyer for almost 25 years, so have some experience in determining what evidence is. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, Phil, it's NOT scientific evidence. It may persuade a jury, but it's not even approaching scientific evidence for anything except "Did PhilS think he heard a difference".

 Anecdote- a short account of an amusing or interesting incident. In common usage, it's relaying a personal account of an occurrence.

 You telling me "I HEARD A DIFFERENCE" is an anecdote, may be evidence for you in court but wouldnt' be very good (as it's refuted by any and all scientific data available), and is not even approaching the realm of scientific "evidence" for the presence of differences between adequately designed cables.

 Cmon.

  Quote:


 Frankly, I found the differences with interconnects and power cords in my system (replacing the stock cords) to be more significant than the difference between the stock and aftermarket headphone cable. 
 

So your headphone cable took a CD from "vomit" to listenable, and you're now letting us know that you found the difference between a stock power cord and an aftermarket power cord to be MORE significant than that???

 No offense, Phil, but this debate is over between you and me. I'll leave you and JF (et al) to battle this out if you care to continue...


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_No, Phil, it's NOT scientific evidence. It may persuade a jury, but it's not even approaching scientific evidence for anything except "Did PhilS think he heard a difference".

 Anecdote- a short account of an amusing or interesting incident. In common usage, it's relaying a personal account of an occurence.

 You telling me "I HEARD A DIFFERENCE" is an anecdote, may be evidence for you in court but wouldnt' be very good (as it's refuted by any and all scientific data available), and is not even approaching the realm of scientific "evidence" for the presence of differences between adequately designed cables.

 Cmon._

 

 I didn't say it was "scientific evidence." I said it is evidence in the scientific realm. There is a difference. As to the rest of your assumptions about what is evidence and how persuasive certain evidence might be in a court, I defer to you as you obviously know much more than I do about that.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I said it is evidence in the scientific realm. There is a difference. 
 

Yes- the difference is that "evidence in the scientific realm" means nothing, but uses a word with "science" as its root so morons on a jury will give it credence when it actually deserves none.

 It's not evidence, Phil, and our debate is over.

 [edit]

 And I don't mean to imply that I know more about trying to sway uninformed juries than you do- I won't insult your craft. I do, however, know very well the difference between scientific evidence and material that might persuade someone who doesn't know better.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_
 So your headphone cable took a CD from "vomit" to listenable, and you're now letting us know that you found the difference between a stock power cord and an aftermarket power cord to be MORE significant than that???
_

 

 You need to read my posts more carefully. That's not what I said.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You need to read my posts more carefully. That's not what I said. 
 

My mistake- would "unlistenable" to "listenable" be fair?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_My mistake- would "unlistenable" to "listenable" be fair?_

 

Yes, and I was referring to the change made by all cables being changed to aftermarket from stock, not just the headphone cable. In any event, I agree with you the debate should be over. We just have to agree to disagree. Plus, I saw that you are a golfer, and I can't attack a brother of the links anymore.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Oh give me break. There's no reason to act like that. I do have a life you know (even though I feel compelled for some sick reason to spend too much of it arguing with you guys in this ridiculous debate.)

 As to the differences I have experienced with aftermarket headphone cables, first some background. I ordered on return both the Cardas cable and the Silver Dragon cable that are made for the Sennheiser HD-600's and 650's. I tried them with both phones and switched the cables back and forth with the stock cable over approximately a 45-day period, with a few different CD players and two different headphone amps. I found it difficult to determine much of a difference between the Cardas and Silver Dragon, although I believe the Cardas had a little stronger bass, while the Silver Dragon was a little more revealing at the top end. I ended up returning the Cardas and keeping the Silver Dragon.

 I found the differences between both aftermarket cables and the stock cable, however, to be noticeable. First, I found both to be more revealing than the stock cable. On most of the music I have listened to for 100's of times, I found myself hearing things I had not heard before. Frequently, these were instruments that had been previously recessed into the background. Second, the soundstage was a bit wider, if I am using that term accurately. For example, I found that the music seem to be less centered in front of me and more spread out across the "stage." It was also easier to place instruments or voices at a certain location. In addition, I found that I heard harmonies much more distinctly, being able to pick out two or three separate voices. Third, I found that the bass on the aftermarket cables was more "musical," meaning that I could hear better than before the differences in individual bass notes on the scale, whereas before they were harder to distinguish. Finally, I found that the music sounded a little less veiled than before, which is I think a characterstic these cans can suffer from with certain music.

 P.S. I have focused here only on the aftermarket headphone cables, since that was the initial topic under discussion. Frankly, I found the differences with interconnects and power cords in my system (replacing the stock cords) to be more significant than the difference between the stock and aftermarket headphone cable._

 

Well, thanks for taking the time to describe this. I thought you might just drop this. It's good to read that I'm unlikely to harm the cable industry. (I also notice that, despite what I wrote earlier, a cable company appears to hold a patent...don't know if it's related...)

 Okay, what you really say is that the aftermarket cables are more revealing.

 Well, I certainly can't reconcile what you hear and my understanding of electronics. I maintain the differences between Zu, Silver Dragon, Cardas, and stock cables are noise (inaudible).

 (I finished at post #520 BTW.)


 JF


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Plus, I saw that you are a golfer, and I can't attack a brother of the links anymore. 
 







 You probably have nicer courses...

 I can't decide if it's teh intarweb's blessing or curse that it's so easy to argue with people who you'd probably get along great with in person.

 Either way- I should be in Palm Springs and SoCal sometime in February golfing, so keep an eye out for a guy with a slightly jumpy swing and a draw that decides it's a hook waaay too often...


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I don't think changing the name helps the analysis. I stilll am curious how one explains the scenario I set forth above, where one "expects" a particular cable to sound better, and finds out that in fact it sounds worse._

 

I think it nearly never want happen under some circumstances.

 1. The new cable is more expensive and looks better than standard.

 2. You shall expect that any differences between cables are possible.

 Then all of us should choose the new more expensive, nicer looking cable as the cable that sounds best.

 Those people that expect no difference will often hear no difference.

 But that anybody that believes in audible differences between cables should choose the standard cable as the best before the expensive, good looking "gold cable" isn't possible, I think. That is against the nature of us. I am absolutely sure that I should choose the expensive one myself, alternatively decide that there are no differences between them.

 Georg


----------



## ILikeMusic

Well I guess everyone's just plum wore out here.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Was a fun discussion and everybody kept their heads and remained civil... good group of folks on this forum.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Headphone Cable Listening Test (take one)

 In order to hear differences between headphone cables, it is best to isolate the headphones and cable from other components of the system. Fortunately, this is easy. Disconnect your headphones from the amplifier (of course, the cable should remain connected to the headphones). With your headphones in place, listen very carefully…this is the sound of the cable. Take time to really listen.... Now, try an expensive cable. Connect an expensive cable to your headphones. Again, take some time to listen very carefully. Notice how revealing it is, the wider sound stage? Hear deeper bass, an extended high? Notice how things that were recessed come forward (everything is less veiled)? Swap the cables back and forth until the differences are clear in your mind.

 Now, you can do this same test with your headphones connected to your system (and listen to music). However, the only audible difference between cables will be what you hear above. This is how it works. If wire (cables) made more of a difference to an audio signal, it would be called an amplifier. Wires don't amplify signals, they don't make an audible difference to sound. Cables do make a very tiny difference. This difference is called noise. And as you probably figured out, you can't hear cable noise. It is not even measurable. (If it's not measurable, it won't move the transducers in your headphones.)

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1075626


 JF


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_"OMG I HEARD A DIFFERENCE", which, as he's already stated (and science agrees), should be dismissed as psychosomatic/placebo_

 

To me this suggests that any time we hear a difference in any audio component it should be dismissed as psychosomatic/placebo unless it is proven through a DBT test.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_But that anybody that believes in audible differences between cables should choose the standard cable as the best before the expensive, good looking "gold cable" isn't possible, I think. That is against the nature of us. I am absolutely sure that I should choose the expensive one myself, alternatively decide that there are no differences between them._

 

Well I'll blow your theory out of the water. I tried the Moon Audio Silver Dragon replacement cable with Senn HD600's and I'll be damned but it was waaay to bright for me. The stock cable wasn't as transparent and bumped up the midbass more but overall was more pleasing to me in my system.


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_Well I'll blow your theory out of the water. I tried the Moon Audio Silver Dragon replacement cable with Senn HD600's and I'll be damned but it was waaay to bright for me. The stock cable wasn't as transparent and bumped up the midbass more but overall was more pleasing to me in my system._

 

Prove it with an ABX


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 To me this suggests that any time we hear a difference in any audio component it should be dismissed as psychosomatic/placebo unless it is proven through a DBT test. 
 

Then you're clinically insane, as what you quoted (in its original context) suggested no such thing.

 Are you just giving me grief or do you honestly, after it's been spelled out to everyone I don't know how many different ways, STILL not see how JF's (or anyone's) personal experience is completely irrelevant to this debate?

 I can't figure out why this is such a tough thing to accept. It doesn't undermine your argument to admit that he doesn't have to hear the cable (of course, you can't use it to support your argument, either (by attempting to discount what he's telling you), but it's not doing you any good anyway).


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Then you're clinically insane, as what you quoted suggests no such thing._

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but in your statement you imply that "OMG I heard a difference" simply gets wrote as placebo because visual stimuli was the culprit. This to me implies that any sighted listening test regardless of equipment should be wrote off as placebo/psychosomatic. If this isn't the case then explain to me how what you stated is any different if instead of it being cables that were being tested it was amplifiers?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 If this isn't the case then explain to me how what you stated is any different if instead of it being cables that were being tested it was amplifiers? 
 

JF (and science- I'm only using JF because he was the person we were talking about) claims that any differences noted between two cables that meet a rudimentary level of adequacy (that aren't intentionally altering the signal) will be due purely to the psychosomatic effect.

 Therefore, it's pointless to require a person claiming such to listen to the cable in question. Nothing will be gained, and it doesn't undermine, or support, either of your arguments.

 Not to be crass, but I think the 'virgin scientist' analogy was a decent one- the fact that she's never had sex doesn't mean she isn't perfectly capable of arguing about scientific certainties associated with intercourse.

  Quote:


 Maybe I'm reading it wrong but in your statement you imply that "OMG I heard a difference" simply gets wrote as placebo because visual stimuli was the culprit. 
 

Another thing to note: it doesn't require visual stimulus (ie. you don't have to see the cables)- that just makes it more powerful.

 One last thing: I didn't mean the "insane" crack as mean-spirited as it sounded- it was meant to be light...


----------



## JohnFerrier

As I've wrote, I find my system (even speakers and the car stereo) more enjoyable now that I've ruled out that possibility that the wiring is somehow sub-par.

 Zu, Silver Dragon, Cardas, etc. are all good cables. It's just that the way it works, they sound no different than stock cables. It takes very little copper to get the job done.

 I'm aware of the idea of crystal structure in copper, etc. However, that still only affects the noise of the cable, but that again is not something you can hear...


 JF


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_JF (and science- I'm only using JF because he was the person we were talking about) claims that any differences noted between two cables that meet a rudimentary level of adequacy (that aren't intentionally altering the signal) will be due purely to the psychosomatic effect._

 

That's classic!!! 
 Talk about sticking your head in the sand. Easily the majority of audiophiles hear differences in cables yet you dismiss them out of hand because it doesn't fit into your science. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's the science not the majority of listeners that's not getting it right?

 This is just about the most pointless "debate" I've seen on Head-Fi, in fact I don't see much of a debate going on here at all, it's just a couple of people who think they know better than everybody else on a soapbox trying to convert the masses and as such I'm outta here.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_That's classic!!! 
 Talk about sticking your head in the sand. Easily the majority of audiophiles hear differences in cables yet you dismiss them out of hand because it doesn't fit into your science. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's the science not the majority of listeners that's not getting it right?

 This is just about the most pointless "debate" I've seen on Head-Fi, in fact I don't see much of a debate going on here at all, it's just a couple of people who think they know better than everybody else on a soapbox trying to convert the masses and as such I'm outta here._

 

Physics is not ruled by democracy, it strictly follows laws of nature. It's just the way it works.


 JF


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Physics is not ruled by democracy, it strictly follows laws of nature. It's just the way it works.


 JF_

 

Science is not stagnant, it's a learning process that is ever changing and evolving. 

 Remember it was once accepted that the world was flat. If someone had said it was round they would have been ridiculed because at that time there was no scientific way to even explain the idea of it being round.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_Science is not stagnant, it's a learning process that is ever changing and evolving. 

 Remember it was once accepted that the world was flat. If someone had said it was round they would have been ridiculed because at that time there was no scientific way to even explain the idea of it being round._

 

Okay, can we rule out that people will ever again think the world is flat?


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Headphone Cable Listening Test

 In order to hear differences between headphone cables, it is best to isolate the headphones and cable from other components of the system. Fortunately, this is easy. Disconnect your headphones from the amplifier (of course, the cable should remain connected to the headphones). With your headphones in place, listen very carefully…this is the sound of the cable. Take time to really listen.... Now, try an expensive cable. Connect an expensive cable to your headphones. Again, take some time to listen very carefully. Notice how revealing it is, the wider sound stage? Hear deeper bass, an extended high? Notice how things that were recessed come forward (everything is less veiled)? Swap the cables back and forth until the differences are clear in your mind.
_

 

 If you really had no doubts about your position, I don't think you'd be so arrogant and condescending. ("Me thinks he doth protest too much.") Regardless, there are others on your side of the fence who don't have to resort to this childish sarcasm. I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with what they say, but they still have my respect.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_If you really had no doubts about your position, I don't think you'd be so arrogant and condescending. ("Me thinks he doth protest too much.") Regardless, there are others on your side of the fence who don't have to resort to this childish sarcasm. I disagree (sometimes vehemently) with what they say, but they still have my respect._

 

Phil,

 I've gotten over the fact that you will never be happy with how I present my thoughts.

 I will also admit that I've purposely not shown doubt so that we (all of us) can get to the bottom of this. Listening is obviously a complex process. That's why I thought the optical illusion that I posted helped suggest why people might get tricked with this process.


 JF


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_To me this suggests that any time we hear a difference in any audio component it should be dismissed as psychosomatic/placebo unless it is proven through a DBT test.

 Well I'll blow your theory out of the water. I tried the Moon Audio Silver Dragon replacement cable with Senn HD600's and I'll be damned but it was waaay to bright for me. The stock cable wasn't as transparent and bumped up the midbass more but overall was more pleasing to me in my system._

 

Ok. I believe you of course. But I persist in thinking that it is very unusual.

 Georg


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Ok. I believe you of course. But I persist in thinking that it is very unusual.

 Georg_

 

What's unusual? That he hears a difference?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_What's unusual? That he hears a difference?_

 

hehehe... ipodstudio kinda seems like you're trolling there... (Thought you were the one afraid of trolls...)


 JF


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 That's classic!!!
 Talk about sticking your head in the sand. Easily the majority of audiophiles hear differences in cables yet you dismiss them out of hand because it doesn't fit into your science. Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's the science not the majority of listeners that's not getting it right?

 This is just about the most pointless "debate" I've seen on Head-Fi, in fact I don't see much of a debate going on here at all, it's just a couple of people who think they know better than everybody else on a soapbox trying to convert the masses and as such I'm outta here. 
 

Great post, elnero.

  Quote:


 Okay, can we rule out that people will ever again think the world is flat? 
 

NO! DON'T YOU KNOW SCIENCE IS EVAR CHANGING?!?!!!!11 THE WURLD LOOKS FLAT TO ME SO WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME IT'S ROUND!!!

 (No offense, elnero)

  Quote:


 What's unusual? That he hears a difference? 
 

It's not unusual at all (which I think you and the person you quoted both know, but I thought it was worth repeating (again)).


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_Science is not stagnant, it's a learning process that is ever changing and evolving. 

 Remember it was once accepted that the world was flat. If someone had said it was round they would have been ridiculed because at that time there was no scientific way to even explain the idea of it being round._

 

That anecdote, incidentally, is dead wrong. No learned individual has _ever_ claimed the earth was flat for well over two millenia, quack 5-10th century Christian priests notwithstanding.

 It's funny you bring up science as a learning process, because it doesn't help your side (that cables matter) out at all. Here are two more useful anecdotes:

The phlogiston theory of combustion. If you want to give an example of how science progresses, this would be it. *Everybody* believed that flammable materials contained phlogiston, except there was the little problem of the mass of phlogiston being completely contradictory with a couple different materials. It took a completely different mindset, and lots of objective measurements, to start thinking in terms of oxygen. And even then, many people doggedly held to the old theory. It explains all the facts very well, and those that it didn't, well, that is due to some nonlinearity in the process, or some subtle behavior that isn't caught by the measuring devices. The theory itself is sound.
The theory of N-rays I bet your science books didn't tell you that at the turn of the century there was a completely new form of radiation, one that you've never heard of before, studied by the brightest minds in physics? I can't even begin to give a synopis of this story, you really need to read the link. Hell, read the entire speech, it's very good reading.

 I can however give a conclusion that can be drawn by these two anecdotes, and this is just a subset of what I think is relevant to the discussion.

Bad theories last a long, long, _long_ time. Even if new ones are around for decades that fit the data much better. You can even have large numbers of people on both sides of the argument for quite a while. Usually though once a profession has reached a consensus after a challenged theory it finds the right answer - that's what a paradigm shift is all about.
Subjective data at the threshold of detection is wrong, wrong, WRONG. Scientists aren't dogmatically against subjective measurements just because they like to be hardasses. It's because the entire _field_ of science used to be dominated by subjective reasoning and subjective measurements - observations made by very intelligent men, who claimed very great accuracy and very obvious and detectable results - and all that work got swept up into the great dustbin of history once more advanced and objective measurements were performed, and alternative theories accepted.
You can make subjective observations, and believe you are very accurate in them, and see obvious and repeatable results, even get published in papers, and still be _dead wrong_. This has happened many, many times in this century alone, as Langmuir's speech well documents.
Just because a theory is new, and a lot of intelligent people believe in it, doesn't mean that it's true.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_hehehe... ipodstudio kinda seems like you're trolling there... (Thought you were the one afraid of trolls...)




 JF_

 

John, grow up. I'm simply asking Georg what he meant before answering his post.


----------



## Spankypoo

On a (different) related note, I recently heard of an LA recording engineer who said the brand of hard drive on his ProTools system changed the sound quality (according to him).

 99% of me thinks he's a nut. 1% thinks the power consumption characteristics of the drive may be different than another, and somehow change the performance of the power supply, etc. Out on a limb, yeah, but there may be a factor of which I'm unaware.

 He also thinks recording onto digital tape sounds poorer than recording to a hard drive. Ehh...thinks the tape still plays a big role, even if it is digital data.

 The problem with arguing against the physics position is that it can tell us a ton more than our ears and opinions can in many ways.

 The problem with using physics in favor of your argument is that there will always be physical factors which we're not aware of.

 At some point it becomes quite nearly religious in nature.

 [And before somebody discounts my post by saing 'he said nothing' (as was quite arrogantly remarked earlier in this thread), get over yourself.]

 ABX testing is probably the only way to get to the bottom of the argument, and only for a given listener (as capabilities vary), and this gets very difficult.

 Blind testing headphone cables? Zu cables probably feel quite different from stock cables - the listener will still know, and will always have a psychological affectation of his or her perception. (Not to say there aren't also aural differences - but the psych factor is tough to remove.)

 This thread'll be going until somebody gets severely miffed, or a cable which can be ABX'd is tested (interconnects) by the believers.


----------



## JohnFerrier

JF


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_What's unusual? That he hears a difference?_

 

No please read again. 

 I said: But that anybody that believes in audible differences between cables should choose the standard cable as the best before the expensive, good looking "gold cable" isn't possible, I think.

 Then Elnero answered:
 Well I'll blow your theory out of the water. I tried the Moon Audio Silver Dragon replacement cable with Senn HD600's and I'll be damned but it was waaay to bright for me. The stock cable wasn't as transparent and bumped up the midbass more but overall was more pleasing to me in my system.

 I said:
 I believe you of course. But I think it is unusual.
 The unusual thing is consequently that somebody prefer standard cable as the most good sounding before expensive good looking upgrade cable.

 Georg


----------



## JohnFerrier

Spankypoo,

 Certainly ABX testing has been done many times. Guess what? Do you see any of the cable companies publishing these? No (at least no "believer" can refer to one--this thread alone has gone on 9 days...certainly, that is enough time to find one...). I actually think cable companies purposely refrain from making claims and rely on "believers" to spread the sales pitch..."oh, how can you criticize unless you try?..."

 (Nice post Publius.)


 JF


----------



## Spankypoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Certainly ABX testing has been done many times. Guess what? Do you see any of the cable companies publishing these? No (at least no "believer" can refer to one--this thread alone has gone on 9 days...certainly, that is enough time to find one...). I actually think cable companies purposely refrain from making claims and rely on "believers" to spread the sales pitch..."oh, how can you criticize unless you try?..."_

 

Every time I reload the page the shape of your paragraph changes as you work on it. Then I try to figure out what you've changed/added. I feel like I'm looking at the back of a cereal box or something.

 If it's as clear cut as you've stated (I'm in the agnostic group on this topic, BTW - my wallet really wants cables to be a complete waste of money, but I know I've heard significant differences in opamps and sources and such, I don't want to dismiss something which could be worth considering), then why are you still discussing it? At this point you've been listening to people tell you the sun's shining at midnight, and you're wasting your breath. What's your motivation? To help the uninformed save some cash? To be right? I just don't really get your angle.

 And as an aside, what happens to your hearing at your age? Do shrill headphones sound just right? How's it going to play out for the rest of us?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spankypoo* 
_Every time I reload the page the shape of your paragraph changes as you work on it. Then I try to figure out what you've changed/added. I feel like I'm looking at the back of a cereal box or something.

 If it's as clear cut as you've stated (I'm in the agnostic group on this topic, BTW - my wallet really wants cables to be a complete waste of money, but I know I've heard significant differences in opamps and sources and such, I don't want to dismiss something which could be worth considering), then why are you still discussing it? At this point you've been listening to people tell you the sun's shining at midnight, and you're wasting your breath. What's your motivation? To help the uninformed save some cash? To be right? I just don't really get your angle.

 And as an aside, what happens to your hearing at your age? Do shrill headphones sound just right? How's it going to play out for the rest of us? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I edit *extensively*. 

 Why continue? Well, I realize it's a bold assertion. I'm interested in people's real response. Along the lines of what Publius posted, sales BS like "bad theories last a long, long, _long_ time." People complain that this is just an on going debate. I say, the definitive answer is that cables are inaudible. I'd like people to sense the reality here. If I wasn't confident, wouldn't I just split and run?

 More practically, I think all my components are very good. And had been worried that I needed better cables. My concern had been low, based on other things I've read. Regarding this thread, I honestly thought that someone here could furnish something to support what they say. Absolutely, nothing has turned up.

 (As far as hearing, just be careful about the volume and you'll be fine.)


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_I said: But that anybody that believes in audible differences between cables should choose the standard cable as the best before the expensive, good looking "gold cable" isn't possible, I think.

 Then Elnero answered:
 Well I'll blow your theory out of the water. I tried the Moon Audio Silver Dragon replacement cable with Senn HD600's and I'll be damned but it was waaay to bright for me. The stock cable wasn't as transparent and bumped up the midbass more but overall was more pleasing to me in my system.

 I said:
 I believe you of course. But I think it is unusual.
 The unusual thing is consequently that somebody prefer standard cable as the most good sounding before expensive good looking upgrade cable._

 

This sounds right in theory. But I'm one of those who don't like the Silver Dragon (with my HD 650) because of its brightness and hyperdetail. I'm not saying the stock cable is better though, but e.g. I prefer the relatively cheap and smooth sounding Oehlbach to it.

 On a side note: The terms «believer» is often used for people who have heard sonic differences in cables, whereas it actually should apply for people who never have audtitioned cables and just _believe_ that there can be no audible differences for ideologic bias (their understanding of physics from a traditionalist perspective).

 The objectivist camp completely disregards that there are many fields in human culture that depend on trusting the own senses, particularly with music. I'm thinking of instrument builders, musicians (while evaluating an instrument and while playing and catching notes), developers of speakers (while measurings are absolutely necessary, the fine tuning happens by hearing), amps, turntables... even adjusting the turntable requires trusting your own ears. Performing ABX tests for all those processes is simply impractical -- and unnecessary BTW.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_On a side note: The terms «believer» is often used for people who have heard sonic differences in cables, whereas it actually should apply for people who never have audtitioned cables and just believe that there can be no audible differences for ideologic bias (their understanding of physics from a traditionalist perspective).

 The objectivist camp completely disregards that there are many fields in human culture that depend on trusting the own senses, particularly with music. I'm thinking of instrument builders, musicians (while evaluating an instrument and while playing and catching notes), developers of speakers (while measurings are absolutely necessary, the fine tuning happens by hearing), amps, turntables... even adjusting the turntable requires trusting your own ears. Performing ABX tests for all those processes is simply impractical -- and unnecessary BTW. 




_

 

hehehe... well, if you want to also call "objectivists" "believers", what term do we use for "people who have heard sonic differences in cables"? Does "subjectivists" work? Oh, how about "non-believers"....in reality? Okay, good point JaZZ.


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_hehehe... well, if you want to also call "objectivists" "believers", what term do we use for "people who have heard sonic differences in cables"? Does "subjectivists" work? How about "non-believers"....in reality?_

 

I think «subjectivists» is a common term, and although it may not express the whole bandwidth of the subject, it's certainly not insulting, as little as «objectivists» (with the same reservation) is for the other camp. 

 Non-believers in reality? What's reality? All that can be measured and exclusively that? This thread is about the audibility of cable effects. So hearing experience is in the center of interest, not theory, and not measurements -- which haven't been offered yet anyway. Instead there has been a blind test with positive result presented which is now completely ignored by the objectivists -- to preserve their image of «reality»?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 The problem with using physics in favor of your argument is that there will always be physical factors which we're not aware of. 
 

This is fine- but you have to show something, ANYTHING, that doesn't fit the current 'model' we're working under (that would lead anyone to think there are factors we're unaware of).

 A valid DBT/ABX where the most golden eared person on the planet using the most expensive sytem known to man can tell a difference between two adequately constructed cables would do the trick- the problem, if you're wanting to defend aftermarket cables, is that this has never been done, and the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

  Quote:


 On a side note: The terms «believer» is often used for people who have heard sonic differences in cables, whereas it actually should apply for people who never have audtitioned cables and just believe that there can be no audible differences for ideologic bias (their understanding of physics from a traditionalist perspective). 
 

Nice try, but no. You are the one insisting that something exists that has no explanation (or proof) based in reality (on anything at all except "CAUSE I SAY IT'S THERE").

  Quote:


 The objectivist camp completely disregards that there are many fields in human culture that depend on trusting the own senses, particularly with music. I'm thinking of instrument builders, musicians (while evaluating an instrument and while playing and catching notes), developers of speakers (while measurings are absolutely necessary, the fine tuning happens by hearing), amps, turntables... even adjusting the turntable requires trusting your own ears. Performing ABX tests for all those processes is simply impractical -- and unnecessary BTW. 
 

And once again the "believers" (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) fall back to trying to compare things that _can_ make a difference to try to support their argument for something that *cannot*.

 I think most of this is an almost verbatim repeat from earlier, but:

 (1) We're not talking about "music", we're talking about a 20kHz electrical signal crossing 10 odd feet of wire.

 (2) "Music" is up to your headphones/speakers to generate.

 Ah, the h*ll with it- you know what the points are and I think you're just purposefully ignoring them.

  Quote:


 Instead there has been a blind test with positive result presented which is now completely ignored by the objectivists -- to preserve their image of «reality»? 
 

Ouch, Jazz- you got us on that one! DANG, if we only had a valid explanation (or six) for that...


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_ Instead there has been a blind test with positive result presented which is now completely ignored by the objectivists -- to preserve their image of «reality»?_

 

A test that can not withstand _any_ scrutiny(refer to the replies to that test)---that's they key qualifier that has to be considered. 

 -Chris


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_That anecdote, incidentally, is dead wrong. No learned individual has ever claimed the earth was flat for well over two millenia, quack 5-10th century Christian priests notwithstanding._

 

Regardless, my point was that as science progresses old schools of thought change there are any number of anecdotes that could be used to illustrate this. Why then is it so hard to accept that the science at this point in time may not be able to explain why there are differences but it's not to say that science won't find one in the future? I would think with all the user experiences whose results are contrary to the science, science itself would be better served to actually look for a legitimate reason instead of simply trying to debunk it as placebo/psychosomatic, there is just far too many people with far too wide varying experiences for that to wash with me.

 And if you want to nitpick like that, essentially what you just said is my statement is dead wrong but then you turn around and say "no learned individual has ever claimed the Earth was flat for well over two millenia" which means that my statement was in fact true because whether or not it was over two millenia ago or not didn't enter into my statement.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Why then is it so hard to accept that the science at this point in time may not be able to explain why there are differences but it's not to say that science won't find one in the future? 
 

 Quote:


 This is fine- but you have to show something, ANYTHING, that doesn't fit the current 'model' we're working under (that would lead anyone to think there are factors we're unaware of). 
 

__________________________________________________ ______________
  Quote:


 I would think with all the user experiences whose results are contrary to the science, science itself would be better served to actually look for a legitimate reason instead of simply trying to debunk it as placebo/psychosomatic, there is just far too many people with far too wide varying experiences for that to wash with me. 
 

Again, I'm pretty sure this has been said sixteen different ways, in 5 different languages, in this thread alone, but:

 "User experiences" mean NOTHING when we're discussing whether one adequately designed cable will deliver a different electrical signal than another.

 If you want to use "user experiences" as proof for something, you'd better go argue about the components that either actually produce the sound (based on the electricity that reaches them) or alter it in some way in an attempt to improve it.


----------



## aphex944

Have you guys done double-blind testing to see if you can tell the difference between your own headphones?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Have you guys done double-blind testing to see if you can tell the difference between your own headphones? 
 

 Quote:


 If you want to use "user experiences" as proof for something, you'd better go argue about the components that either actually produce the sound (based on the electricity that reaches them) or... 
 

I'm trying to save myself some typing...


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_If you want to use "user experiences" as proof for something, you'd better go argue about the components that either actually produce the sound (based on the electricity that reaches them) or alter it in some way in an attempt to improve it._

 

I didn't use "user experiences" as hard and fast proof, I used it as a reason for science to delve further into the subject. If there is an overwhelming amount of "user experiences" that is contrary to what the science says then in my view it should be grounds for the science to delve further into it or at least be open to the idea that there is something else going that it can't explain at this point in time.


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_A test that can not withstand any scrutiny(refer to the replies to that test)---that's they key qualifier that has to be considered. 

 -Chris_

 

To me the real problem is it seems no test can withstand any real scrutiny, there are just too many variables. There is no perfect audio system so the results of any such test even under the most rigorous controls could really only be applied to the equipment used and the subjects tested. The results could easily vary widely using different equipment and test subjects.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Ah, the h*ll with it- you know what the points are and I think you're just purposefully ignoring them._

 

Yes, he should really trust you more than his own ears. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Especially after all the character you showed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_A test that can not withstand any scrutiny_

 

And you know as good as we do the reason for that. 

 1. The test was not for the public (hence no records).

 2. The assayers were there at that time.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_A test that can not withstand any scrutiny(refer to the replies to that test)---that's they key qualifier that has to be considered._

 

There are very few such tests in any scientific endeavor. They tend to be expensive to run when they happen. Let me know if you want to drop a minimum of $500K on testing cable differences, for a program that is likely to run several years and could cost significantly more, and I'll see what I can work up.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_This is fine - but you have to show something, ANYTHING, that doesn't fit the current 'model' we're working under (that would lead anyone to think there are factors we're unaware of)_

 

Oh yeah, there's something: The overwhelming majority of critical and experienced listeners (Head-Fi members) who have tried the cables hear the differences Sennheiser replacement cables make and characterize them almost equally, despite different preferences. That calls for a serious reconsideration of traditional physical models of cable behavior. This is the normal scientific approach. 

  Quote:


 _Nice try, but no. You are the one insisting that something exists that has no explanation (or proof) based in reality (on anything at all except "CAUSE I SAY IT'S THERE")._ 
 

Not quite. You've left out the main part. I and many others have experienced the phenomenon we're discussing about -- audible differences with different cables --, and we're drawn our logical conclusion that there are differences. It's not about believing. 

  Quote:


 _And once again the "believers" (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) fall back to trying to compare things that can make a difference to try to support their argument for something that *cannot*._ 
 

It's obvious that it's you who _believes_. Physics don't dictate that cables cannot cause sonic differences. There's no such physical law formulated. It's all in your mind. It's a bias, a belief. Although there's no valid or reproduceable physical explanations for cable sound so far, it's not adequate to exclude the possibility, the less so in view of the widespread conviction that cables make a difference and even a common pattern in the described differences. Whereas there's not much support for audible rainbow-foil effects, if any. 

  Quote:


 _(1) We're not talking about "music", we're talking about a 20kHz electrical signal crossing 10 odd feet of wire.

 (2) "Music" is up to your headphones/speakers to generate.

 Ah, the h*ll with it- you know what the points are and I think you're just purposefully ignoring them._ 
 

Electrical signal or music -- I don't know what exactly you're addressing. It doesn't matter to me how you call it. Of course within the cable it's still an electrical signal. And BTW it's only 3 feet in my case -- to minimize the losses. Yes, I think I know what you mean and I guess I know as much about cable physics as you; obviously not enough. I can't reproduce your obsession with cables as absolutely neutral medium. Whatever measuring values you consider unchanged and identical between different cables, the same could apply to other, active electronics components showing sonic differences anyway. We (I) just don't know how the (hard to measure) differences are produced and even how they _look._ So be careful with your absolutistic belief. In any case I don't believe it's something supernatural so far.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_A test that can not withstand any scrutiny (refer to the replies to that test)---that's they key qualifier that has to be considered._

 

Yes, I know you claim _Hydrogenaudio_ standards. From this perspective headphone-cable tests will never be considered foolproof. The cables have sensible differences with their physical properties.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 I didn't use "user experiences" as hard and fast proof, I used it as a reason for science to delve further into the subject. 
 

It HAS!! Do you think the psychosomatic effect is something new to science?

  Quote:


 If there is an overwhelming amount of "user experiences" that is contrary to what the science says then in my view it should be grounds for the science to delve further into it or at least be open to the idea that there is something else going that it can't explain at this point in time. 
 

Again, there is _nothing_ reported that isn't explained with a high degree of accuracy.

  Quote:


 Yes, he should really trust you more then his own ears. 
 

Good comeback.

  Quote:


 And you know as good as we do the reason for that.

 1. The test was not for the public (hence no records).

 2. The assayers were there at that time. 
 

Kurt, the "test" (term used loosely), as wmax stated, doesn't stand up to the FIRST level of scrutiny. It does no more for the argument for aftermarket cables than any user's opinion.

  Quote:


 They tend to be expensive to run when they happen. Let me know if you want to drop a minimum of $500K on testing cable differences, for a program that is likely to run several years and could cost significantly more, and I'll see what I can work up. 
 

Hirsch brings up a valid point- it's not easy to do properly (although, it could be done passably well for significantly less than half a million*).

 *That is, unless you're going to humor the listeners who claim they need longer and longer to listen to the material after each failure to distinguish, and the test has to run over the course of years.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_There are very few such tests in any scientific endeavor. They tend to be expensive to run when they happen. Let me know if you want to drop a minimum of $500K on testing cable differences, for a program that is likely to run several years and could cost significantly more, and I'll see what I can work up._

 

And how this has a bearing on the price of Chinese tea???

 The test at subject took no precautions, nor did it attempt to verify. It is not expensive to the point you indicate to design a valid test to show a positive difference. Remember, this is not pharmaceutical research that must demonstrate a statistically large effect(or lack of in case of sideeffects) on control groups. To prove cables of equivalent LCR parameters sound different, one only needs to demonstrate a single subject can achieve _consistant_ positive results. If one wishes to prove that other people(and an accurate percentage value of the population) can also identify the differences, then yes, it would be a costly project. If the bold claims of drastic sound difference are true -- I can not imagine why it would be difficult to find a SINGLE subject that can discern under controlled conditions.

 -Chris


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Oh yeah, there's something: The overwhelming majority of critical and experienced listeners (Head-Fi members) who have tried the cables hear the differences Sennheiser replacement cables make and characterize them almost equally, despite different preferences. That calls for a serious reconsideration of traditional physical models of cable behavior. This is the normal scientific approach. 
_

 

I can't wait to hear the punchline...

 -Chris


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_It HAS!! Do you think the psychosomatic effect is something new to science?_

 

Now it's my turn to save myself typing again.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_I would think with all the user experiences whose results are contrary to the science, science itself would be better served to actually look for a legitimate reason instead of simply trying to debunk it as placebo/psychosomatic, there is just far too many people with far too wide varying experiences for that to wash with me._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_ If there is an overwhelming amount of "user experiences" that is contrary to what the science says then in my view it should be grounds for the science to delve further into it or at least be open to the idea that there is something else going that it can't explain at this point in time._


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_No please read again. 

 I said: But that anybody that believes in audible differences between cables should choose the standard cable as the best before the expensive, good looking "gold cable" isn't possible, I think.

 Then Elnero answered:
 Well I'll blow your theory out of the water. I tried the Moon Audio Silver Dragon replacement cable with Senn HD600's and I'll be damned but it was waaay to bright for me. The stock cable wasn't as transparent and bumped up the midbass more but overall was more pleasing to me in my system.

 I said:
 I believe you of course. But I think it is unusual.
 The unusual thing is consequently that somebody prefer standard cable as the most good sounding before expensive good looking upgrade cable.

 Georg_

 


 Ahhh! I thought you might have meant that and that's why I asked you to clarify before I responded incorrectly. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm not sure whether it's unusual or not. I don't think it's unusual for someone to prefer the stock cable over any other _individual_ aftermarket cable, since it's really a matter of synergy and taste, right? Sometimes the stock cable simply works best with the system you have. If you have a sub-par system you may not even hear a difference at all.....
 Now, that someone prefers the stock cable over ALL the other cables is probably more unusual but then then they are offered a much wider choice and the chances of the stock cable coming out on top will obviously be reduced. See where I'm coming from?


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_And how this has a bearing on the price of Chinese tea???

 I can not imagine why it would be difficult to find a SINGLE subject that can discern under controlled conditions.

 -Chris_

 

You are so right. And everybody who has a Sennheiser with two cables and an assistant for example wife or husband can do it. You only have to bind something for your eyes. The assistant changes cable or do not for each track. Your equipment and music is the same for both cables. You tell what cable it is after listening on each track, then you see how many rights you have.
 You must not have right on every guess. If you have 28 rights on 30 tries, then it is proved with good significance.
 I know that I have described this method in earlier message, but I repeat it. I think it deserves to be repeated when people say that such a scientific proof would cost a fortune. Then I have the feeling that they don't want to understand.
 To publish the proof in for example a magazine, then you have to get witnesses of course. But I would believe a member of this group if he did such a test. Can’t be of that importance that anybody should lie about the result.

 Georg


----------



## Steve999

As I see it, cable believers get the tea, objectivists get the angel...

 You can take all the tea in china
 Put it in a big brown bag for me
 Sail right around the seven oceans
 Drop it straight into the deep blue sea
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 She’s an angel of the first degree
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 Just like honey from the bee

 You can’t stop us on the road to freedom
 You can’t keep us ’cause our eyes can see
 Men with insight, men in granite
 Knights in armor bent on chivalry
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 She’s an angel of the first degree
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 Just like honey from the bee

 You can’t stop us on the road to freedom
 You can’t stop us ’cause our eyes can see
 Men with insight, men in granite
 Knights in armor intent on chivalry
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 She’s an angel of the first degree
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 Just like honey from the bee

 You know she’s alright
 You know she’s alright with me
 She’s alright, she’s alright (she’s an angel)

 You can take all the tea in china
 Put it in a big brown bag for me
 Sail it right around the seven oceans
 Drop it smack dab in the middle of the deep blue sea
 Because she’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 She’s an angel of the first degree
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 Just like honey from the bee

 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 She’s an angel of the first degree
 She’s as sweet as tupelo honey
 Just like the honey, baby, from the bee
 She’s my baby, you know she’s alright.....


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_And how this has a bearing on the price of Chinese tea???

 -Chris_


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_Now it's my turn to save myself typing again._

 

elnero, nothing you wrote is any kind of response to what I said.

 What you're reporting (that a lot of people report hearing differences in their high-end cables) is NOT something "unexplained by science".

 Did you mean to quote something else that actually rebutted what I wrote?


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_You are so right. And everybody who has a Sennheiser with two cables and an assistant for example wife or husband can do it. You only have to bind something for your eyes._

 

This is not adequate. If the test is to have any sort of credibility, the factor of cable weight/feel needs to be removed and you need a DBT system, as well as measurments of the equipment and cables to insure no errors were introduced by a fault cable or non-comparable cable(LCR parameters that can change the tone within known human thresholds for example). To effect DBT and to maximize senstivity to difference(if any), instant switching of the cables needs to be facilatated. I would recommend using two of the 'premium' cables. For example, the first would be attached to headphone and then to a switching system. The second cable would be used as the actual test variable. It would be connected to a circuit on the switch and you could alternate between this 2nd premium cable and the OEM cable. From here one could implement the DBT testing methodology.

 -Chris


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 To effect DBT and to maximize senstivity to difference(if any), instant switching of the cables needs to be facilatated. I would recommend using two of the 'premium' cables. For example, the first would be attached to headphone and then to a switching system. The second cable would be used as the actual test variable. It would be connected to a circuit on the switch and you could alternate between this 2nd premium cable and the OEM cable. From here one could implement the DBT testing methodology. 
 

I can already hear it... Let's see: "NO! The presence of the switch makes it so I can't hear the difference!!!"


----------



## Jahn

Actually I don't think it's unusual to prefer stock to aftermarket in some cases. There is a reason why I haven't been getting Silver wire for my rig - it's because I know I prefer the warmer sound of copper. If someone recabled my Grado with silver wire, the resulting sound could indeed improve in detail, etc - but it might be too bright to what I'm used to, so instead I would rather stay with the stock cable that didn't introduce too much highs.

 On the other hand, if someone made an aftermarket cable that increased the detail, tightened everything up, but didn't lose that warmth and creamy mids and strong bass, i wouldn't care if it was silver, copper or string cheese - i'd buy it and love it over my stock cable.

 but just because an aftermarket cable is "better" doesn't necessarily mean it's a better fit than the stock, depending on your sonic preference.

 (of course this is all with the caveat that you believe that there are differences in cabling sounds in the first place - which i do.)


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jahn* 
_
 On the other hand, if someone made an aftermarket cable that increased the detail, tightened everything up, but didn't lose that warmth and creamy mids and strong bass, i wouldn't care if it was silver, copper or string cheese - i'd buy it and love it over my stock cable.
_

 

That's pretty much what I get from my Cardas in my system. I would just prefer the soundstage to be a little closer than it is.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* 
_Regardless, my point was that as science progresses old schools of thought change there are any number of anecdotes that could be used to illustrate this. Why then is it so hard to accept that the science at this point in time may not be able to explain why there are differences but it's not to say that science won't find one in the future? I would think with all the user experiences whose results are contrary to the science, science itself would be better served to actually look for a legitimate reason instead of simply trying to debunk it as placebo/psychosomatic, there is just far too many people with far too wide varying experiences for that to wash with me.

 And if you want to nitpick like that, essentially what you just said is my statement is dead wrong but then you turn around and say "no learned individual has ever claimed the Earth was flat for well over two millenia" which means that my statement was in fact true because whether or not it was over two millenia ago or not didn't enter into my statement._

 

When people usually bring up arguments about flat earth theories, they invariably are thinking along the lines of "people thought the earth was flat until Christopher Columbus sailed to America", which is definitely wrong. And I could definitely be wrong on this, but the spherical earth theory might actually be the earliest of such theories. It's definitely going back to the 300BC area which is pretty close the beginning of any sort of science.

 My point was a little more subtle than that, and it didn't really argue specifically for one side or another. Science doesn't always follow the theory which fits the facts the best - it follows what makes the most sense, and which fits with the other theories of the time. Copernican astronomy was mostly accepted IIRC even though it was numerically inferior to Ptolemaic (sp) astronomy for several decades. Special relativity was universally accepted, even though there was next to no specific proof for it for a decade or two - it just made so much more _sense_ than anything else.

 You can just as easily argue that mainstream audiophiledom has a consistent and easily observable theory which is going to win over mainstream science just as easily as you could argue that the theory is a pseudoscientific theory which is only maintained to fuel people's insecure egos. Which is why I didn't push that particular argument any further.


----------



## WmAx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_When people usually bring up arguments about flat earth theories, they invariably are thinking along the lines of "people thought the earth was flat until Christopher Columbus sailed to America", which is definitely wrong. And I could definitely be wrong on this, but the spherical earth theory might actually be the earliest of such theories. It's definitely going back to the 300BC area which is pretty close the beginning of any sort of science._

 

When 'I' refer to the flat-earth concept, I give no specific date or timeline. The only point is that at one time(before scientific observation was used to analyse the situation), the earth was believed by the overwhelming majority to be 'flat'. I believe the 1st occurance of the round-Earth theory actually popped up about 400-300 B.C.(Pythagoras).


  Quote:


 You can just as easily argue that mainstream audiophiledom has a consistent and easily observable theory which is going to win over mainstream science just as easily as you could argue that the theory is a pseudoscientific theory which is only maintained to fuel people's insecure egos. Which is why I didn't push that particular argument any further. 
 

One can argue the existance of the Lochness Monster. But if this is to move beyond something more useful than a philisophical debate, you can't assume existance of these things with no substantiation. It should be a lot easier(as compared to proving Nessy is real) to prove existance of 'real' audible difference of comparable cables, for example, since all that is required is a SINGLE human subject that can repeat the feat of discerning these object under well-controlled conditions. So far I've not seen any evidence of repeatable observations of audibility, since these 'observations' include alot more then the sound. Perhaps audiophile claims should be classified into the same section as N-rays. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Chris


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You can just as easily argue that mainstream audiophiledom has a consistent and easily observable theory which is going to win over mainstream science... 
 

Except that there is no theory- there is only rejection of established science:

 Believer: "I hear a difference."

 Scientist: "That's the psychosomatic effect that is expected."

 Believer: "NO- I hear a difference and so do a lot of other people. There's GOT to be something to it."

 Scientist: "There IS something to it- it's the psychosomatic effect. Nobody has ever been able to tell the difference more often than chance predicts, and, further, physics will tell you there cannot be an audible difference between two adequately constructed cables (in the situations we're dealing with)."


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Except that there is no theory- there is only rejection of established science:

 Believer: "I hear a difference."

 Scientist: "That's the psychosomatic effect that is expected."

 Believer: "NO- I hear a difference and so do a lot of other people. There's GOT to be something to it."

 Scientist: "There IS something to it- it's the psychosomatic effect. Nobody has ever been able to tell the difference more often than chance predicts, and, further, physics will tell you there cannot be an audible difference between two adequately constructed cables (in the situations we're dealing with)."_

 

OK, let me put this one to bed: I do not currently work as a pilot but I am qualified to do so and hold several current aviation licenses with several different ratings. Placebo, optical and audiological illusions, perception etc, etc...are all studied in depth during a commercial pilot's theory, including their causes and possible conseqences. I have gone through all the medical tests on a regular basis and know the response of my own ears very well. I have gone through incredibly in depth psychological tests in order to confirm my ability to operate as a bush pilot, alone in the cockpit under stressed conditions. The latter was not a 2 hour test but 2 days and had to be made at one particular aviation psychological test centre in Oslo, Norway. 

 Now let me make this crystal clear for those who might otherwise misunderstand me: *when I change the cables on my HD 650s I hear a clear and audible difference in the signal being fed to my ears.*


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_...physics will tell you there cannot be an audible difference between two adequately constructed cables."_

 

No, physics are not gonna tell you this -- that's a psychosomatic expectation.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_Now let me make this crystal clear for those who might otherwise misunderstand me: *when I change the cables on my HD 650s I hear a clear and audible difference in the signal being fed to my ears.*_

 

Now let me make this crystal clear for those who might otherwise misunderstand it: just because an individual believes that they hear a difference doesn't mean it is actually there.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Now let me make this crystal clear for those who might otherwise misunderstand me: when I change the cables on my HD 650s I hear a clear and audible difference in the signal being fed to my ears. 
 

Well, I guess this debate is over then. There's no explanation for it. QED.

 Thanks, ipodstudio!


----------



## dknightd

I wasn't going to get into this discussion since I haven't compared headphone cables, so I can't answer the original posters question. But it seems that issue was dropped many pages ago, so, what the heck I'll play for a little while. I have tried different interconnects, and speaker cables, and heard a difference between them (I did not measure the LCR values to determin if I should have heard a difference, niether did I do double blind tests). In case it matters, the most expensive did not always sound the best to me. There is no doubt in my mind that media, media reader, and sound reproducer are the most important things, but amplification and wire also make a difference to what we hear.

 It must be nice to believe entirely in objective measurements. After all, then you would never have to audition audio equipment. Just buy the stuff that measures the "best". Look at a few numbers, pay for it, and be done. 
 Unfortunately it seems to me that some subjectivity is still required. Either we don't know what to measure, or, we don't know how to interpret the measurements because some things that measure very similarly sound obviously different.

 Maybe LRC measurements are all you need to determin how a cable will sound. Most good cables measure very closely (all values small), but perhaps the small differences are enough to explain the difference even though current theory cannot explain why they sound different. There must be alot of things about human hearing that cannot yet be explained. Or maybe something else needs to be measured (for example on interconnects, and likely headphone cables, shielding might be very important).

 Just because something is not explained by science doesn't mean that it's not true. For example, things had been falling to the Earth for a long time before man had an adequate theory to "explain" it. Also science is not a static field - many scientific theories have been shown to be incorrect, some are discarded, some are kept around as a useful approximation.

 Just because something cannot be explained doesn't make it not happen.
 When it comes to what I hear, I'll trust my ears as a measuring device more than I would trust any other measuring instrument. Maybe some of it is psychosomatic, but I don't care - if it sounds better to me that is good enough. Likewise if a sugar pill can cure cancer that would be fine with me.


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_elnero, nothing you wrote is any kind of response to what I said.

 What you're reporting (that a lot of people report hearing differences in their high-end cables) is NOT something "unexplained by science".

 Did you mean to quote something else that actually rebutted what I wrote?_

 

You know exactly the point I was making in my post, if you refuse to acknowledge it that's your perogative but there is no need to be a**hole about it.

 Even attempting a reasonable "debate" with someone like you is like talking to a door. 99.9% of the people in the world could agree that they hear a difference in cables but you would just write them off as quacks and still refuse to accept even the possibility that there might be more to it than what fits into the mold of your scientific beliefs. With that in mind I'm going to go back to my original stance that this "debate" is beyond pointless.


----------



## dknightd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Well, I guess this debate is over then. There's no explanation for it. QED.

 Thanks, ipodstudio!_

 

I think that pretty well sums it up as well. Maybe, there is no explanation for it yet, would be more appropriate.


----------



## saint.panda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WmAx* 
_This is not adequate. If the test is to have any sort of credibility, the factor of cable weight/feel needs to be removed and you need a DBT system, as well as measurments of the equipment and cables to insure no errors were introduced by a fault cable or non-comparable cable(LCR parameters that can change the tone within known human thresholds for example). To effect DBT and to maximize senstivity to difference(if any), instant switching of the cables needs to be facilatated. I would recommend using two of the 'premium' cables. For example, the first would be attached to headphone and then to a switching system. The second cable would be used as the actual test variable. It would be connected to a circuit on the switch and you could alternate between this 2nd premium cable and the OEM cable. From here one could implement the DBT testing methodology.

 -Chris_

 

Chris, valid points but I think a switch for a headphone cable needs to be custom-built and thus rather difficult to implement. All I can offer you is a simple blind test with the test subject being blind-folded. The tester can lift up the headphones by a bit to eliminate the weight-variable, i.e. the physical aspect of the cable.
 Another point is that many differences from a cable can be better perceived from long-term listening as rapid AB switching might not always yield the best result. One can try both longterm and shortterm AB though. In any case, I'll be meeting two headfier this weekend and we can try something like this although I'm sure that it has been done many times before. If you have (realistic) comments on how to vary this procedure for achieving the most neutral result, please let me know.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dknightd* 
_I think that pretty well sums it up as well. Maybe, there is no explanation for it yet, would be more appropriate._

 

No, as has been stated countless times in this thread... there is a very good explanation for why people hear audible differences in cables... it just isn't what many of them think.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_No, as has been stated countless times in this thread... there is a very good explanation for why people hear audible differences in cables... it just isn't what many of them think._

 

...and how exactly do you KNOW that _*it just isn't what many of them think*_?


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dknightd* 
_I think that pretty well sums it up as well. Maybe, there is no explanation for it yet, would be more appropriate._

 

Exactly, and there doesn't need to be as far as I'm concerned. As long as I can hear the difference and I like that difference, I'm really not too bothered as to whether I can physically prove what causes the difference or even that it exists. Personally, I don't feel I have the necessary scientific competence to even begin to try. BUT, I do have the necessary competence to tell when two entirely different signals are being fed to my ears....


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 You know exactly the point I was making in my post, if you refuse to acknowledge it that's your perogative but there is no need to be a**hole about it. 
 

elnero, I'm sorry, but if you don't make a fcking point, what else would you like me to say??? Your post did NOT address the contention, even remotely, and I realize you don't like being told so, but if you'd read more carefully what you wrote and exactly what you were responding to, you'll see what I'm telling you (unless English isn't your native tongue, in which case I'll leave you alone about it).

 Don't start the namecalling unless you can be more careful that you're actually debating, and not ignoring the entire point made by the other side.

  Quote:


 Even attempting a reasonable "debate" with someone like you is like talking to a door. 99.9% of the people in the world could agree that they hear a difference in cables but you would just write them off as quacks and still refuse to accept even the possibility that there might be more to it than what fits into the mold of your scientific beliefs. With that in mind I'm going to go back to my original stance that this "debate" is beyond pointless. 
 

The problem, elnero, is that you have nothing to debate, and I know how frustrating that is. I've already explained everything you bring up multiple ways, multiple times.

 If you still think I characterize people who report differences as "quacks", or ANYTHING derogatory, please continue, but I have told you it's a normal occurrence.

 If you can name ONE THING I've said that's unreasonable in this entire thread, starting at page one, please do so. Otherwise, stop calling the kettle black.

  Quote:


 Maybe LRC measurements are all you need to determin how a cable will sound. 
 

Cables don't "sound" like anything- they ONLY transfer a signal. You can discuss how a lot of things "sound", but cables are NOT one of them.

  Quote:


 Just because something is not explained by science doesn't mean that it's not true. For example, things had been falling to the Earth for a long time before man had an adequate theory to "explain" it. 
 

So why don't you tell the class exactly what we're seeing here that science doesn't have a theory to explain. Also, make sure it's not something we've heard in this thread to this point, because everything people continue to bring up as "unexplained" is nothing of the sort.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipodstudio* 
_...and how exactly do you KNOW that *it just isn't what many of them think*?_

 

By my statement I was implying that many who believe that they hear a clearly audible difference in different wires believe that the explanation for this is related to there really being some actual, real difference in the audio, as opposed to a purely psychosomatic effect. But yes, that was an assumption on my part... maybe deep down inside they really do suspect the truth and can't admit it, I suppose that's possible as well.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Exactly, and there doesn't need to be as far as I'm concerned. As long as I can hear the difference and I like that difference, I'm really not too bothered as to whether I can physically prove what causes the difference or even that it exists. 
 

Which is of course fine, and if this is all anyone wants to post, you'll get no grief from me.

 However, if you're going to start telling people those cables get a 'cleaner signal' to the phones, or some other such nonsense, it gets under the skin of those who know better.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ILikeMusic* 
_By my statement I was implying that many who believe that they hear a clearly audible difference in different wires believe that the explanation for this is related to there really being some actual, real difference in the audio, as opposed to a purely psychosomatic effect. But yes, that was an assumption on my part... maybe deep down inside they really do suspect the truth and can't admit it, I suppose that's possible as well._

 

That is correct. There IS indeed a real difference in the audio signal.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 That is correct. There IS indeed a real difference in the audio signal. 
 

Ouch- another coup de grâce from ipodstudio...


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Ouch- another coup de grâce from ipodstudio..._

 

You'd be amazed how simple some things in life can be. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But allow me to be more graceful:
 If I'm sitting listening to my cans and when I swap out a given component the sound changes....and it does the exact same thing every time I change it...then guess what? There's a change.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You see, this isn't one of those components that you sit there murmuring to yourself: "is that really an audible difference or could it be me? Did I hear that? Darling, come here a sec, please. Try these....does that sound different to you....I'm..."

 Nope, not like that at all. It's very noticable, just like that knee in the groin we talked about earlier in the thread.


----------



## Genetic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Ouch- another coup de grâce..._

 

Hi rodbac,

 You have now more than 10% (76) of the total posting in this thread... would you care to write an executive summary of your position.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Amicalement


----------



## Jahn

"Cables don't "sound" like anything- they ONLY transfer a signal. You can discuss how a lot of things "sound", but cables are NOT one of them."

 to be literal about it, you are right. headphones transform an electronic signal into a physical pushing and pulling of a diaphram, which move air in a way that produces sound to our ears. they produce sound, so they "sound" like something.

 but a cable doesn't really create any "sound" per se. unless it is humming like a mother due to some nasty nasty EM interference or something and the whole cable sleeve is vibrating its irritation.

 that being said, i'm sure he meant that the cable INFLUENCES the ultimate sound that comes out of the diaphram, by altering the electronic signal while it is transferring it to the can, before the headphone transforms it into physical sound.

 now this, i believe. heck, EM interference into my interconnects created a nasty buzz reaching my ears. shielding the cable helps reduce the kinds of stuff that messes up the signal the cable is transferring - as does the quality of the cable transferring the signal (copper, silver, etc) and the best probably being optical.

 so when someone says "my cable sounds warm" don't take it literally - of course they probably meant the signal, while being transferred via cable, picked up some interesting mojo (due to copper? better shielding? hamsters on wheels?) resulting in the signal sent to the headphone being a "warm" signal, evidenced by how it sounded to my ear when the can's diaphrams moved back and forth to create a physical sound."


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Kurt, the "test" (term used loosely), as wmax stated, doesn't stand up to the FIRST level of scrutiny. It does no more for the argument for aftermarket cables than any user's opinion._

 

Yes it was just a blind test with people never heard or seen one or the other cable before and could not verify which was which by eye or weight. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 The biggest weakness is, that it is not documented.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Do you think the psychosomatic effect is something new to science?_

 

On the other side there are the people who are too afraid to test for themselves because they would be wackos in their own eyes should they hear a difference. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_.. it gets under the skin of those who know better._

 

I know. "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 -Anon


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 that being said, i'm sure he meant that the cable INFLUENCES the ultimate sound that comes out of the diaphram, by altering the electronic signal while it is transferring it to the can, before the headphone transforms it into physical sound. 
 

I know what he was meaning, but it's the real hangup here- many here are assuming the cable can impart something to the end-product, and it can't (not without it being intentional or being badly misdesigned, anyway). They can only deliver an electrical impulse, and the most basic of cables is WAAAY more than adequate to do this for the frequencies and runs we're talking about. So if you hear any difference between your cable and the stock, it's your cable that's attenuating the signal in some way (read: it's not adequate, which is what I mean when I say "adequately designed" (so you don't think, when I say the cable is inadequate, that I'm thinking it's made of caramel or something)).

  Quote:


 On the other side there are the people who are too afraid to test for themselves because they would be wackos in their own eyes should they hear a difference. 
 






 First, I've said umpteen times (that's a lot) that you're not 'wacko' for experiencing this.

 Second, if they (or I) did try the cable, and thought we heard a difference, we'd know what to attribute it to (and it wouldn't involve throwing physics out the window). Nobody's "afraid" of anything.

  Quote:


 I know. "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." 
 

I realize it sounds arrogant and condescending, and that's not my intent- the things we're talking about, though, "are not rocket science", to use a tired phrase.


----------



## JohnFerrier

I happen to think it condescending to be made to feel that stock headphone cables are not as good sounding as expensive cables, especially since this absolutely is not the case.

 If you don't pay $200 for aftermarket cables, the sound is inferior? That is pure B$.

 (That's all for now.)


 JF


----------



## Len

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I happen to think it condescending to be made to feel that stock headphone cables are not as good sounding as expensive cables, especially since this absolutely not the case.
 JF_

 

You've got a real knack to voice conjecture as absolute fact, John. It's a nasty habit.

 I see no condescension.


----------



## Jahn

adequate versus attenuation. that's actually a good question.

 i think most folk would assume that the cable with the least amount of attenuation is what you want. "adequate" should mean the cable just gets out of the way and transfers the signal as it should be.

 the question is - which cable is doing the attenuating - the stock, or the aftermarket?

 we can't assume that the stock is the default for adequate transfer of the signal. in fact, the stock cable might be doing the most amount of attenuation, in a nasty way.

 the aftermarket, also, we can't assume, is "getting out of the way." in fact, it very well might be intentionally attenuating the signal to sound more "pleasing" in certain frequencies. that's not "adequate" in the sense that it's just serving the supposed intended purpose of the cable - which is, transfer the darn signal lol.

 therefore, probably the most accurate response should be this - 

 "i like how it sounds."

 even if its attenuated, and you might be experiencing some signal loss due to the attenuation?

 "yep."

 even if it's "colored" compared to a cable that just does the job = "adequate" in delivering the signal to the cans?

 "yep. because what you call colored, i call a purer sound, and more pleasurable too."

 but it's not more "pure" because it's attenuated.

 "semantics."

 not really...ah forget it.

 ---

 as you see, i think folks are talking past each other, and not communicating what their proper stance is. notice i didn't say what cable was involved in the above conversation - it could have been the stock, it could have been the aftermarket. but regardless, we are going to go in circles if we don't understand each other, eh?


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jahn* 
_adequate versus attenuation. that's actually a good question.

 i think most folk would assume that the cable with the least amount of attenuation is what you want. "adequate" should mean the cable just gets out of the way and transfers the signal as it should be.

 the question is - which cable is doing the attenuating - the stock, or the aftermarket?

 we can't assume that the stock is the default for adequate transfer of the signal. in fact, the stock cable might be doing the most amount of attenuation, in a nasty way.

 the aftermarket, also, we can't assume, is "getting out of the way." in fact, it very well might be intentionally attenuating the signal to sound more "pleasing" in certain frequencies. that's not "adequate" in the sense that it's just serving the supposed intended purpose of the cable - which is, transfer the darn signal lol.

 therefore, probably the most accurate response should be this - 

 "i like how it sounds."

 even if its attenuated, and you might be experiencing some signal loss due to the attenuation?

 "yep."

 even if it's "colored" compared to a cable that just does the job = "adequate" in delivering the signal to the cans?

 "yep. because what you call colored, i call a purer sound, and more pleasurable too."

 but it's not more "pure" because it's attenuated.

 "semantics."

 not really...ah forget it.

 ---

 as you see, i think folks are talking past each other, and not communicating what their proper stance is. notice i didn't say what cable was involved in the above conversation - it could have been the stock, it could have been the aftermarket. but regardless, we are going to go in circles if we don't understand each other, eh?_

 

And if you look back to the beginning of this thread, you'll find that I've stated precisely this (well, almost, because of the asterisked paragraph below). If you will admit that it's likely* the aftermarket cable that's just 'mucking' with the sound intentionally (adding capacitance/impedance, et al) in a way that you feel helps the sound your phones put out, so be it. End of argument.

 It's ONLY when the claims start morphing into things like Sennheiser doesn't know how or care to get the signal to the phones properly, or that 14gauge copper sounds 'bassier' than 18gauge, that's when the argument starts.

 *You could assume that the stock cable is the problem child, except for the fact that it's stupid easy to get the signal there completely unaltered. In fact, for the situation at hand, a cable like that is virtually a short circuit to the phones. It can't help but deliver the signal properly and in full.

 In short, Sennheiser would have to be a bunch of boobs to screw up the easiest part (by far) of headphone design, and to contend as much is ludicrous. They have no financial incentive to misdesign their cable (it would cost them more to alter the signal) and it doesn't take a genius to make the cable "adequate" for this appallingly simple application.

 [edit]

 I'd also like to add that the semantic argument you allude to above will never involve me- you can call the sound anything you want (pure, euphoric, orgasmic, I don't care). It's only when you call the signal "purer" that you're being misleading.


----------



## dknightd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_So why don't you tell the class exactly what we're seeing here that science doesn't have a theory to explain._

 

All I'm "seeing" here is words on a computer display. Science can explain that pretty easily. I thought this thread was about things you could hear, or couldn't hear. Now I'm really confused...


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dknightd* 
_All I'm "seeing" here is words on a computer display. Science can explain that pretty easily. I thought this thread was about things you could hear, or couldn't hear. Now I'm really confused..._

 

Another zinger!


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_I realize it sounds arrogant and condescending, and that's not my intent._

 

Your self control is at a very, very small place then. You acted incredible arrogant and condescending, especially to people who did not deserve such a treatment. But you are not alone.

 And where is your reaction to the blind test? At least you could say: It was just a blind test and no double blind test or ABX. So this proves nothing!!!!!
 What’s wrong? Are you tired?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I happen to think it condescending to be made to feel that stock headphone cables are not as good sounding as expensive cables,_

 

Interesting. Inferiority complexes. Well that explains some.


----------



## dknightd

Maybe this
http://www.wireworldaudio.com/compare.htm
 could be adapted for headphone cable comparisons.
 It would be nice to determin if the perceived differences in cables are really Placebo-effects or something else.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Your self control is at a very, very small place then. You acted incredible arrogant and condescending, especially to people who did not deserve such a treatment. 
 

Kurt, if you think my language in this admittedly lively debate has been "incredible arrogant and condescending", you haven't had much experience in debate.

 This isn't talking down to you and this isn't an attempt to prop myself up on a pedestal- I'm perfectly willing (as I've shown, I think) to listen to, and objectively analyze, criticism. I have a moderate grasp of the language and am well-versed for the most part, and only once in this thread do I think I was being rude, and I already apologized for it.

  Quote:


 And where is your reaction to the blind test? At least you could say: It was just a blind test and no double blind test or ABX. So this proves nothing!!!!!... Are you tired? 
 

Well, yes, I am tired (and fast running out of time again), but I have no idea what you're talking about. On what blind test were you looking for a comment from me?

 dkknightd- good link.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Can any of you guys that hear a difference project when Sennheiser, AKG, Sony, Acoustic Research, Grado etc. are going to wise up to this? Next year? Ten years from now? Twenty? 

 Why do headphone companies not have their act together on this? They don't even offer them as an accessory... Geez, I think most of the designs don't even lend themselves to replacement.


 JF


----------



## Len

Wise up to what? Cable differences?

 Let's see: Senneheiser, Grado Audio Technica, et al. use better quality cables in their higher models. A few headphone manufacturers design their headphones so the cables are interchangable. 

 I think they're fairly well clued in.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Can any of you guys that hear a difference project when Sennheiser, AKG, Sony, Acoustic Research, Grado etc. are going to wise up to this? Next year? Ten years from now? Twenty? 

 Why do headphone companies not have their act together on this? They don't even offer them as an accessory..._

 

Actually you could answer your question yourself. Sennheiser sells headphones, not high-quality cables. Not everyone is willing to pay an extra charge of $200 for a better cable. And even cable-sound advocates will admit that $200 spent for improved driver technology would have (even) greater effect than the better cable. That's not to say it does nothing though. I wouldn't want to renounce the Zu Mobius. 

 You haven't accidentally missed the Sennheiser responsible's comment about upgrade cables making a difference?


----------



## Canman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Cables don't "sound" like anything- they ONLY transfer a signal. You can discuss how a lot of things "sound", but cables are NOT one of them._

 

Arguing with person who makes blanket statements like this is like talking to a wall. As you might imagine, it gets old quick. 

 If you want to have intelligent discussion go ahead but otherwise stop wasting bandwidth.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Canman* 
_Arguing with person who makes blanket statements like this is like talking to a wall. As you might imagine, it gets old quick. 

 If you want to have intelligent discussion go ahead but otherwise stop wasting bandwidth._

 

You couldn't set an example?


 JF


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 Arguing with person who makes blanket statements like this is like talking to a wall. As you might imagine, it gets old quick.

 If you want to have intelligent discussion go ahead but otherwise stop wasting bandwidth. 
 

Oh, brother...

 First, it's not a "blanket statement", Canman- it was 'to the point' and didn't imply encompassing anything that wasn't expressly stated.

 Second, it has nothing to do with whether I'm listening and responding to the subjects brought up (which I've done with extreme care, you'll note), which would lead you to classify me as being "like a brick wall".

 Note: This is to say nothing of the fact that I already explained the reason it was brought up- call it "picky" if you want, but at least be accurate.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_... but I have no idea what you're talking about. On what blind test were you looking for a comment from me?_

 

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showp...&postcount=246

 And we already know it's just a blind test and not documented.


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 And we already know it's just a blind test and not documented. 
 

Kurt, did you miss all the comments on that "experiment"? It's been discussed. No further comment is warranted.


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Kurt, did you miss all the comments on that "experiment"? It's been discussed. No further comment is warranted._

 

LOL, the comments were just about the abx claim and the non-existent documentation, ie verifiable data. Hence my comment “And we already know it's just a blind test and not documented.”
 Lame attempt, btw.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NeilPeart* 
_First of all our ABX testing was just for fun and not for the posterity of Lockheed Martin or any other group/persons/etc.

 1.All the cables (stock, Cardas v2 and Zu Mobius) were 10’ in length.
 2.All interfaces were cleaned with alcohol prior to testing.
 3.No measurements of any kind were taken – we were strictly using our inherently flawed ears.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 4.The DAC1’s HPA-2 headphone amp features 2 0ohm outputs identical in every regard to each other. We connected 2 HD650s to the DAC1 and we used a glass TOSLINK to connect to the Meridian 588 (no interconnects of any kind were used; we were simply using the 588 as a transport for the DAC1). Power regeneration was provided by my PS Audio P300 with Multiwave II, setting 3 enabled. The 588 and DAC1 were plugged into separate outlets on the P300 (kitty corner to one another). The P300 hovered at ~ 25 Watts and it was connected to a Power Port outlet using a PS Audio Prelude power cord.
 5.One man functioned as the proctor while the other two listened (and the roles rotated). The proctor held the cable at its junction to reduce the psychological effect of cord mass/dimension. We used the following media: “Kind of Blue” by Miles Davis, “Bach: Solo Suites for Solo Cello” by Janos Starker, “Wish You Were Here” by Pink Floyd and “Post” by Bjork.

 Remember this test was very informal and more musical variety would have yielded more tangible results. It was unanimously agreed that Janos Starker’s use of chords and Bjork’s “Hyperballad” bass intro were the easiest way to identify the differences between cabling. I must admit that the difference between the Cardas and stock was not always apparent and did require more time to identify (though it was identified after more extensive listening, especially when highlighting the pieces mentioned above) than the Zu Mobius, which was almost always identifiable (this could be due to the use of a silver/copper hybrid approach). I’m certain this amateurish testing will not satiate the die-hard engineers among you but it was a fun weekend and damnit I just don’t care – I really enjoy and appreciate my HD650/Zu Mobius and it enables me to enjoy my music more than ever. If you skeptics want to reproduce this test go ahead – but please at least listen to the different cables before dismissing their legitimacy._

 

This could have been a test. But why no results? How many times did you get right or wrong results? For example, we did 50 tries and guessed right 30 times. That is different against: We did 50 tries and guessed right 48. The first can be by chancing the second probably not.

 This quotation worries me: "I must admit that the difference between the Cardas and stock was not always apparent and did require more time to identify (though it was identified after more extensive listening)

 That is the tester couldn't identify the difference. And was requested to try once again. Then he heard the improvement. Of course he did. That is was a blind test shall avoid. "Listen once again and try to hear that this is the better cable"

 Georg


----------



## rodbac

Quote:


 LOL, the comments were just about the abx claim and the non-existent documentation, ie verifiable data. Hence my comment “And we already know it's just a blind test and not documented.”
 Lame attempt, btw. 
 

"LOL"? Are you under the impression there's some kind of "gotcha" here? Lame attempt at what? [edited] Seriously- I'm getting the impression your first language isn't English- is that the problem here?

 That "experiment", while probably fun, doesn't even approach the requirements for being considered valid, and I'm sure NeilPeart would be the first to say he didn't intend it to be published in a scientific journal. I'm not sure what else you're looking for from me or anyone about it. If I'm missing what you're after (beyond that), let me know.

 Langrath- how many times the listener got it right, wrong, or otherwise is irrelevant because there were too many factors that could have (and probably did) influenced the listener that weren't accounted for and eliminated. Don't waste too much time concentrating on the analysis.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Thanks rodbac, Len, JaZZ, Phil, *everyone*. I did learn a few things (and will keep it to myself). I also think I doubled my post count in one thread. I didn’t answer a few questions at the end, but I not really sure anyone (especially Phil : ) expects my answer—it’s a bit late anyway.

 I don’t know if this has ended, but enjoy the music.


 JF


----------



## Kurt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_And was requested to try once again. _

 

That is not what is written in that post. *Sometimes* they were not sure until the aforementioned pieces were played. Interesting what ones bias can make out of that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rodbac* 
_Lame attempt at what?_

 

To discredit a Blind Test.
 It’s understandable. Such test’s are more dangerous for your position than hearing it with your own ears.
 But it is easy, just repeat: The test is not documented and therefore proof only for the people that were there and not for us!


----------



## enemigo

You thought this tread was finally dead, didn't you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I found this article from audioholics during my search on this subject. I guess it's of some interest to the involved here.

 Knut


----------



## enemigo

And the 2nd part of the face off (speakercable reviews)

 A quote from the review to turn you on...
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *...not exactly posted by him, nevertheless: Axiom Audio President and Founder Ian Colquhoun* 
_We know that normal lengths of cable of a reasonable gauge (certainly up to 25 ft. of 14 gauge) are not going to have any effect on the speaker's performance_


----------



## JohnFerrier

Thanks. That's a lot of reading material.

 FWIW: I had did some similar measurements here...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...ht=#post275886

 (Another long debate...)


 JF


----------



## Feanor

Hey, now that the thread is decomposing, could somebody move it into the cable forum? People searching there can read all the pro/contra arguments in this thread monstrosity, but I doubt people are searching for something like this in the headphones forum.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Feanor* 
_Hey, now that the thread is decomposing, could somebody move it into the cable forum? People searching there can read all the pro/contra arguments in this thread monstrosity, but I doubt people are searching for something like this in the headphones forum._

 

Do you think that anybody in cable forum is doubting that you hear differences in cables? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Georg


----------



## Feanor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Do you think that anybody in cable forum is doubting that you hear differences in cables? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Georg_

 

Quite honestly, that is not an issue. The cable forum is about cables. The headphone forum is about headphones. People might do searches on the specific forums and thus miss this thread. That was my only point. 
 If the cable forum [in your view] has too many people biased towards cables making a difference, then this thread would show newbies browsing there that there is a group of people who think otherwise.

 EDIT: Seems like the high powers have acted


----------



## Nak Man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_I found this article from audioholics during my search on this subject. I guess it's of some interest to the involved here.

 Knut_

 

Some differences vs speaker cable that popped up in mind: a. we're driving miliwatts against various large impedance here - they could be more sensitive to cable properties than 'properly designed' speaker cable driving tens of watts into standard 4/8 ohms load (similarly (?) amp differences are also more noticable on phones) and b. many stock phones cables look suspiciously thin. 

 I did try regular 12/14 awg speaker cable vs one of the cheaper kimber vs very thick cardas. Can't hear any difference no matter how hard I focused - and that was non-blind. I'm no EE expert myself but those audioholics arguments made more sense (i.e. small change on cable properties play little role within audio / audible frequencies). Imho speaker cable discussions are almost closed. 

 Anyway I can understand if people want to spend 5-10% of their speaker budget for exotic cables to squeeze the last drop of performance. Phones cables' price to performance is a different story.


----------



## enemigo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nak Man* 
_Some differences vs speaker cable that popped up in mind: a. we're driving miliwatts against various large impedance here - they could be more sensitive to cable properties than 'properly designed' speaker cable driving tens of watts into standard 4/8 ohms load (similarly (?) amp differences are also more noticable on phones) and b. many stock phones cables look suspiciously thin._

 

I know, the links dealt with hifi. I really am not sure what less power, higher impedance in drivers and thinner wires will result in. But if one reduce power and cable size equally, it shouldn't automatically mean there will be any theoretic differences at all.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nak Man* 
_Anyway I can understand if people want to spend 5-10% of their speaker budget for exotic cables to squeeze the last drop of performance. Phones cables' price to performance is a different story._

 

Is it still understandable to spend such sums if the changes it ammounts to is measured to be far below audible thresholds?

 Knut


----------



## Nak Man

Well, one sample review's average is $200 per cable pair vs $50 of Belden 14 awg + locking plug ... but then the speakers most likely cost > $2-3k. So call it jewelry or anything that can add sparkle to the eyes (and for electrostatics probably real benefit) I'd still say reasonable, regardless of sonic benefit. I'm not talking about $3k cables for $3k speakers.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Feanor* 
_Quite honestly, that is not an issue. The cable forum is about cables. The headphone forum is about headphones. People might do searches on the specific forums and thus miss this thread. That was my only point. 
 If the cable forum [in your view] has too many people biased towards cables making a difference, then this thread would show newbies browsing there that there is a group of people who think otherwise._

 

Yes, you are right of course. Logic is a horrible thing. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Georg


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *enemigo* 
_And the 2nd part of the face off (speakercable reviews)_

 

Excellent links, *enemigo*. Thanks!

 I think the fact that Zu Cables didn't send a review sample for measurement would be indicative of what *rodbac* has been saying, that the Zu Mobius most likely _does_ color the sound, because it is constructed with either high L or C values, which we would not expect a cable to be created with (and certainly which would not be used during any part of the recording process.)


----------



## mikeg

I found comprehensive comparisons of cables described in a detailed review of cables that is published on Page 19 of Issue 34 of a periodical called "Hi-Fi+". This appears to be the latest issue of this British magazine, and the title of the article is "Blind Listening to Cables --- Can We Hear Differences, and If So, Does It Tell Us Anything?" The author is Roy Gregory.


----------



## Asterix

<deleteme>


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_Excellent links, *enemigo*. Thanks!

 I think the fact that Zu Cables didn't send a review sample for measurement would be indicative of what *rodbac* has been saying, that the Zu Mobius most likely does color the sound, because it is constructed with either high L or C values, which we would not expect a cable to be created with (and certainly which would not be used during any part of the recording process.)_

 

I have measured L and C with stock and Zu Mobius cable. The values are quite close, the Mobius has even lower capacitance.


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_Excellent links, *enemigo*. Thanks!

 I think the fact that Zu Cables didn't send a review sample for measurement would be indicative of what *rodbac* has been saying, that the Zu Mobius most likely does color the sound, because it is constructed with either high L or C values, which we would not expect a cable to be created with (and certainly which would not be used during any part of the recording process.)_

 

Wow, you're drawing the conclusion that the Zu likely colors the sound based wholly on the premise that Zu didn't submit a sample for review? That's not very scientific and kind of a stretch, isn't it?


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KZEE* 
_Wow, you're drawing the conclusion that the Zu likely colors the sound based wholly on the premise that Zu didn't submit a sample for review? That's not very scientific and kind of a stretch, isn't it?_

 

How can one possibly "draw the conclusion" that something "likely occurs"? Saying "I have concluded that it is a possibility" hardly concludes anything at all.

 Ignoring this, I said that it's "indicative", not anything so strong as a conclusion. I merely find it slightly suspicious. You may think what you will of this.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I have measured L and C with stock and Zu Mobius cable. The values are quite close, the Mobius has even lower capacitance._

 

Well, let's see what you said:
  Quote:


 Normally capacitance isn't responsible for a rolled-off treble, rather inductance. I couldn't measure the latter with my crappy multimeter because it's very low, between 40 and 55 microHenry, the Zu Mobius seems to have a slightly higher inductance. 

 As to capacitance, here are the measured values:

 Stock (1.15 meter) ~290 pF
 Zu Mobius (1.0 meter) ~175 pF

 According to my experience you can't reduce the sonic differences with cables to brighter or darker; there are multifaceted shades of colorations, like with amps and source devices, which can't be measured with today's state of knowledge as to the cause for them. 
 

OK, so you have noted that
 (1) you used a "crappy multimeter"
 (2) you couldn't get accurate values for inductance
 (3) even if the values were identical, you wouldn't believe the cables sounded the same, because of some unexplainable factor

 So, given (1) and (2), your measurements establish nothing; given (3), even if (1) and (2) weren't false it wouldn't matter to you since you wouldn't chalk it up to psychoacoustic effect even if someone produced identical frequency response graphs for the two cables. I don't think there is much to discuss, because you don't believe in empirical measurement anyway.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mikeg* 
_--- Can We Hear Differences, and If So, Does It Tell Us Anything?" The author is Roy Gregory._

 

Do you know the summary with conclusions of article?

 Georg


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_Well, let's see what you said:
 OK, so you have noted that
 (1) you used a "crappy multimeter"
 (2) you couldn't get accurate values for inductance
 (3) even if the values were identical, you wouldn't believe the cables sounded the same, because of some unexplainable factor

 So, given (1) and (2), your measurements establish nothing;_

 

Establish? What's your point? I've just measured inductance and capacitance, and the latter measuring values prove the assumption about the Zu Mobius having a particularly high capacitance wrong. The multimeter's «crappiness» only applies to the resolution with low inductance values, after all the closeness of both cables is recognizable, as well as the slightly higher inductance with the Zu Mobius. But you're free to prefer the unproven assumption of the Mobius' high capacitance if it fits your idea better. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _given (3), even if (1) and (2) weren't false it wouldn't matter to you since you wouldn't chalk it up to psychoacoustic effect even if someone produced identical frequency response graphs for the two cables._ 
 

True! I've never thought the perceived differences had to do with measurable frequency-response deviations. But of course it has to do with psychoacoustic effects, as all audio phenomena. I'm just convinced that it's not a placebo effect. The effect is absolutely consistent; no cable I own has ever changed its sonic characteristic, except for decent burn-in effects.

  Quote:


 _I don't think there is much to discuss, because you don't believe in empirical measurement anyway._ 
 

Yes, I do believe in measurements if they correspond to the listening impression. Otherwise they just show that the fundamental criteria such as frequency response and electrical values are within acceptable tolerances for the intended purpose, nothing more -- just as with active electronic devices, where they don't reflect sonic differences either.


----------



## JohnFerrier

The following is the 1khz square wave response of HD600 (HD650s are probably similiar). A cable on a $30 pair of headphones will respond with a perfect square wave 20-20khz.






 Do you really think you can hear minuscule cable differences with transducers distorting like this?


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Do you really think you can hear minuscule cable differences with transducers distorting like this?_

 

Yes! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Think of amps (or source devices, if you will)! How much do you think would _they_ contribute to further signal distortion? Almost unmeasurably -- but audibly nonetheless. You can't pretend that once the signal had to go through a sound transducer it's so crippled that source, amp or recording doesn't matter anymore...


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Yes! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Think of amps (or source devices, if you will)! How much do you think would they contribute to further signal distortion? Almost unmeasurably -- but audibly nonetheless. You can't pretend that once the signal had to go through a sound transducer it's so crippled that source, amp or recording doesn't matter anymore...




_

 

Actually, I wonder if the bar to a stereo setup with inaudible differences isn't lower than people expect.


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Actually, I wonder if the bar to a stereo setup with inaudible differences isn't lower than people expect._

 

It's very individual.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_It's very individual.




_

 


 "I can only imagine"

 different cables, 
 hear the noise, 
 like shells on a beach; 

 put them to ears, 
 "if you dare", 
 and hear in each 

 a different ocean.


 JF


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Establish? What's your point? I've just measured inductance and capacitance, and the latter measuring values prove the assumption about the Zu Mobius having a particularly high capacitance wrong. The multimeter's «crappiness» only applies to the resolution with low inductance values, after all the closeness of both cables is recognizable, as well as the slightly higher inductance with the Zu Mobius. But you're free to prefer the unproven assumption of the Mobius' high capacitance if it fits your idea better._

 

"Establish" and "prove" are synonyms. A single (i.e. unreproduced), inaccurate, and/or imprecise measurement can prove nothing. 
  Quote:


 True! I've never thought the perceived differences had to do with measurable frequency-response deviations. But of course it has to do with psychoacoustic effects, as all audio phenomena. I'm just convinced that it's not a placebo effect. The effect is absolutely consistent; no cable I own has ever changed its sonic characteristic, except for decent burn-in effects. 
 

Since you believe that there are immeasurable but yet audible differences, how do you propose it is possible to prove or disprove your belief? Are skeptics wasting our breath because you could simply never be convinced, regardless of whatever evidence contrary to your opinion is produced? (I will refrain from rolling my eyes at the notion of cable burn-in.)
  Quote:


 Yes, I do believe in measurements if they correspond to the listening impression. Otherwise they just show that the fundamental criteria such as frequency response and electrical values are within acceptable tolerances for the intended purpose, nothing more -- just as with active electronic devices, where they don't reflect sonic differences either. 
 

In other words, you don't believe in the scientific method. Which leads me to believe nothing would ever convince you that the "improvement" in sound is a figment of your imagination. Which in turn leads me to believe that there is no point in trying to hold a debate.

 You will note that skeptics *are* willing to believe that cables cause differences in the way things sound! All we would require as proof would be a reproducible DBT. Some of us (myself included) would even accept a reproducible frequency-response graph that shows audible differences in the signal reproduction of two cables at certain frequencies. Psychologists and audiologists have produced a concept of a "JND", a "just noticeable difference", which for different frequencies ranges from 0.2 - 1.0 dB. This is the minimum difference in SPL which is detectable by human ears in 50% of trials. (At non-audible frequencies the JND would be infinite since we can't hear them.)


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_How can one possibly "draw the conclusion" that something "likely occurs"? Saying "I have concluded that it is a possibility" hardly concludes anything at all.

 Ignoring this, I said that it's "indicative", not anything so strong as a conclusion. I merely find it slightly suspicious. You may think what you will of this._

 

Well, after going back and rereading your post, I again believe that what you're plainly stating is that you agree with rodbac that the Zu most likely colors the sound - I don't understand why you feel as if I mischaracterized what you've said. But in order to save time, why don't we agree that the conclusion you've drawn in that post is that you _might_ agree rodbac that the Zu _possibly_ colors the sound. (Talk about your firm commitments!) OK then? The problem I see with your stance is the fact that Zu not submitting a sample for review is given as the basis for your maybe agreeing with rodbac that the Zu might be coloring the sound. And my point is that it would seem to me that actually measuring and listening to the Zu would be a more concrete basis on which to comment on any influences the Zu may or may not have on the sound.
 You seem to be sceptical - and please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your beliefs - but you seem to be sceptical of those that believe cabling influences the sound that comes out of the speakers or headphones of our stereo systems - I'd be curious as to what wires, cables, amps, sources, etc., you have personally had experience with that leads you to be so sceptical. For example, which brands of speaker wires have you had experience with in what system (type/brand of speakers, type/brand of amp, type/brand of source, etc.) that has led you to conclude that you don't hear audible differences between speaker wires? Or you could share your experiences with headphone cables making no difference in your system if you so desired. Because I mean you must have had _some_ type of personal experience with these items that would lead you to be so suspicious of the audible differences in cabling that some claim to hear. (And I would welcome any other members of the DBT/measurement crowd to share their own personal experiences with cabling that have led them to also be so sceptical of the differences some claim to hear in cabling.)


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_"Establish" and "prove" are synonyms. A single (i.e. unreproduced), inaccurate, and/or imprecise measurement can prove nothing._

 

Now that's new to me: Even measurements have to be double(blind) to be credible in the eyes of the skeptics! After all the resulting data don't even hurt your world view in terms of cables, but rather support the no-difference scenario... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, be assured that I _have_ measured more than once, I just can't remember how many times. Again, what's your point? Does the fact that Zu Cable has refused to send a Mobius sample still prove that it has high capacitance, but my measuring proves nothing? So that's how the world of a typical cable skeptic looks like... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 _Since you believe that there are immeasurable but yet audible differences, how do you propose it is possible to prove or disprove your belief?_ 
 

First: it's not my _belief_ that cables make a difference, but my experience that they do so -- and trusting my ears is a normal thing for me regardless of the equipment category. Like with other, less disputed hi-fi components I think it's important to have experience with the subject, and it's downright arrogant to talk of «belief» in the context of perceived cable sound when the own standpoint is in fact exclusively based on ideology and belief.

  Quote:


 _Are skeptics wasting our breath because you could simply never be convinced, regardless of whatever evidence contrary to your opinion is produced? (I will refrain from rolling my eyes at the notion of cable burn-in.)
 In other words, you don't believe in the scientific method. Which leads me to believe nothing would ever convince you that the "improvement" in sound is a figment of your imagination. Which in turn leads me to believe that there is no point in trying to hold a debate._ 
 

You notice that your world is full of «beliefs»? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But this time you're right: I will never be convinced that cables make no difference, just as little as I could be convinced that the differences I hear with headphones and electronics are pure placebo effect. In this sense: no, I don't believe in the «scientific method» you have in mind. 

  Quote:


 _You will note that skeptics *are* willing to believe that cables cause differences in the way things sound! All we would require as proof would be a reproducible DBT. Some of us (myself included) would even accept a reproducible frequency-response graph that shows audible differences in the signal reproduction of two cables at certain frequencies._ 
 

I don't believe in DBT. You said you're willing to believe that cables cause differences -- well, that's not a common attitude with skeptics. But have you actually tried some of them yourself with really open ears instead of claiming for proofs before accepting what you might possibly hear? I don't think you'll find significant measuring differences with cables corresponding to the perceived characteristics -- at least not with conventional measuring signals. Do we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps? 

 Of course there will never be a consensus between subjectivists and objectivists. There will always be people who just refuse to try cables themselves, and even if they consider that they could hear a difference while doing so, it would be a placebo effect in their view. Because of their inner conviction that there can be none.


----------



## breez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I don't believe in DBT._

 

Please elaborate why.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_First: it's not my belief that cables make a difference, but my experience that they do so -- and trusting my ears is a normal thing for me regardless of the equipment category. Like with other, less disputed hi-fi components I think it's important to have experience with the subject, and it's downright arrogant to talk of «belief» in the context of perceived cable sound when the own standpoint is in fact exclusively based on ideology and belief._

 

Bull. You also claim that objectivists are operating under an ideology, while simultaneously stating that you operate under no such ideology. In fact, you are just operating under a different paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the term). You perceive the same phenomenon in a different way, because you have an entirely different theory for how that phenomenon exists. Just because you trust your senses more doesn't mean you're more open in your beliefs.
  Quote:


 I don't believe in DBT. You said you're willing to believe that cables cause differences -- well, that's not a common attitude with skeptics. But have you actually tried some of them yourself with really open ears instead of claiming for proofs before accepting what you might possibly hear? I don't think you'll find significant measuring differences with cables corresponding to the perceived characteristics -- at least not with conventional measuring signals. Do we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps? 

 Of course there will never be a consensus between subjectivists and objectivists. There will always be people who just refuse to try cables themselves, and even if they consider that they could hear a difference while doing so, it would be a placebo effect in their view. Because of their inner conviction that there can be none. 
 

I'm firmly in the objective camp you describe. I have listened to headphone amps, and several different sound cards, and at least one power cable, and even though I have experienced differences in sound I could probably describe, that still doesn't mean that I actually believe those differences actually exist. There is such a thing as knowing one's limitations and not trusting your senses, according to the well-known laws of psychology, which one side of this argument is using as a key point, and the other side is ignoring. 

 But there is _also_ such a thing as changing your beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I will certainly believe that cables cause a difference for the better if somebody gives good objective reasons for it being the case. I already believe that solid state amps can differ considerably, based on my own blind tests, although there were issues in the way I conducted them so I can't really toot my own horn just yet on that.

 I agree that it takes a significant paradigm shift for objectivists to be able to explain audible cable differences beyond glaring LC differences, of which your Zu comparison did NOT identify. Expectation bias and placebo are theories that explain so many things that other theories cannot explain. But every listener has some notion of "reasonably" high end equipment, objectivist or not, and that can be influenced considerably whether or not DBTs exist for that equipment. So I don't think skeptic's mindsets are quite as rigid as you think.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_Bull. You also claim that objectivists are operating under an ideology, while simultaneously stating that you operate under no such ideology. In fact, you are just operating under a different paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the term). You perceive the same phenomenon in a different way, because you have an entirely different theory for how that phenomenon exists. Just because you trust your senses more doesn't mean you're more open in your beliefs.
_

 

 I think I'm more open in my beliefs than those who I have debated in this thread. On the one hand, while I have experienced audible differences between cables and do not believe it is all psychosomatic, I acknowledge what the science says, I find it interesting, relevant, and worthy of consideration, and I don't claim that the science itself is flawed. It's just that, based on my own experience, I have found that cables make an audbile difference, notwithstanding what the current state of the science would lead you to believe. (And I before I tried them, I did not believe that they could make a difference.) On the other hand, there are several people in this thread arguing that the science is absolutely right and will not evolve such that audible differences will ever be scientifically explained, that there cannot possible be any audible differences in cables, that the people who hear the differences are being deluded by psycosomatic effects, and that they themselves don't need to even try any such cables to factor in their own experience because it cannot possibly make a difference. Let's see, who's more open minded? Hmmm.


----------



## JohnFerrier

I don't like listening tests (JaZZ seems to indicate this too). I think that they are very tricky. Our ears work over a wide dynamic range, but are not sensitive to small changes. This is why a log scale (dB) is used to correlate signal levels to what is audible.

 Looking carefully at the numbers, one better sees the magnitude of the problem. Differences in capacitance and inductance affect frequencies beyond the range of hearing >20khz. Noise is the only audible quality left in cables. My amplifiers is a very low noise design. I calculate it to be <37dB *below* audiblility. This is over the audible range 20hz to 20khz. *Cable noise is immeasureable: <40db below audibility.* Now, translating this out of a log scale that is 100 times *below* audiblity. Yes, physics does not explain everything. However, there are still boundaries. Small immeasureable things don't somehow make a large effect (which is the only way we could hear a difference).

 If someone could present information regarding a formal study that supports that people hear differences in cables, I'm interested (this thread alone has gone on for about two weeks now, I'm still waiting...). Cable companys don't seem to provide this (kind of odd). *Certainly, people from cable companies follow this website, can they provide info?* I'll admit that I haven't looked too carefully, but I don't even see that cable companies actually claim that they do make an audible difference (lots of info about build quality and "burn-in"; no claim about audibility...hmmm).

 I don't know anything about psychosomatic and placebo effect, so don't try to explain things this way. Further, I'm rarely self-assured, but have taken on such tone for arguments sake (not simply to argue, but to get to the bottom of this...).

 Headphone transducers are the least transparent component of the playback system, wire is the most transparent component. I like to read what people think about headphones, differences in headphones certainly are audible.


 JF


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I think I'm more open in my beliefs than those who I have debated in this thread. On the one hand, while I have experienced audible differences between cables and do not believe it is all psychosomatic, I acknowledge what the science says, I find it interesting, relevant, and worthy of consideration, and I don't claim that the science itself is flawed. It's just that, based on my own experience, I have found that cables make an audbile difference, notwithstanding what the current state of the science would lead you to believe. (And I before I tried them, I did not believe that they could make a difference.) On the other hand, there are several people in this thread arguing that the science is absolutely right and will not evolve such that audible differences will ever be scientifically explained, that there cannot possible be any audible differences in cables, that the people who hear the differences are being deluded by psycosomatic effects, and that they themselves don't need to even try any such cables to factor in their own experience because it cannot possibly make a difference. Let's see, who's more open minded? Hmmm._

 

Yeah, I guess you have me there. If one can document a difference in a well conducted double blind test, and explain it though a physical phenomenon, then you have a good and reasonable objective explanation for the audibility. Even just the DBT is enough to convince people, but until a physical explanation is made, it's still unclear if/why some cables are better than others. If people start throwing out ad hominem attacks in that case, or even attacking the hypothetical argument, it's clear who's the loser.

 I haven't really seen any believable physical explanation yet, though. Including capacitance or inductance.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Looking carefully at the numbers, one better sees the magnitude of the problem. Differences in capacitance and inductance affect frequencies beyond the range of hearing >20khz. Noise is the only audible quality left in cables. My amplifiers is a very low noise design. I calculate it to be <37dB *below* audiblility. This is over the audible range 20hz to 20khz. *Cable noise is immeasureable: <40db below audibility.* Now, translating this out of a log scale that is 100 times *below* audiblity. Yes, physics does not explain everything. However, there are still boundaries. Small immeasureable things don't somehow make a large effect (which is the only way we could hear a difference._

 

John, doesn't this type of argument also apply to amps, i.e., aren't the differences, if any, of extremely small magnitude, yet people don't seem to dispute there are audible differences between amps? I know this issue was raised before somewhere in the 28 or so pages, but I don't remember if there was ever an explanation.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Hi Phil,

 Amplifiers have significantly higher measureable qualities that affect sound. Amplifiers have THD (maybe 0.01%), but wires have *no* THD (<0.00001%). My guess is that differences in amplifiers are possible but difficult to hear (tube amplifiers excluded--they carry with them even higher levels of THD and noise). If you look at sources, they can have 100+ of dynamic range, 110+ of signal to noise, etc. Okay, now I've got a SACD, well now I've got 103+ dynamic range and 116 of S/N. Well, I listen at about 85 db (typical max.), so that means that there is just more signal that is inaudible (0 dB is the threshold of audibility of someone with perfect hearing).

 Back to wires. The only reason I stick my neck out on wires and cable burn-in (not transducer burn-in) is because to the very best of my knowledge there is no technical reason that there are difference. If there are real audible improvements, I would really like to know...

 Transducer THD: ~0.1% (probably, very best case)
 Amplifier THD: <0.01%
 Cable THD: <0.00001%


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Publius* 
_Bull. You also claim that objectivists are operating under an ideology, while simultaneously stating that you operate under no such ideology._

 

That's not correct. The ideology accusation is only addressed to people who claim that there are or can be no differences with cables. And of course someone using the term «believer» for persons who hear differences counts to this category. 

  Quote:


 _In fact, you are just operating under a different paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the term). You perceive the same phenomenon in a different way, because you have an entirely different theory for how that phenomenon exists. Just because you trust your senses more doesn't mean you're more open in your beliefs._ 
 

I neither have a plausible theory nor do I _believe._ Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen. 

  Quote:


 _I'm firmly in the objective camp you describe. I have listened to headphone amps, and several different sound cards, and at least one power cable, and even though I have experienced differences in sound I could probably describe, that still doesn't mean that I actually believe those differences actually exist. There is such a thing as knowing one's limitations and not trusting your senses, according to the well-known laws of psychology, which one side of this argument is using as a key point, and the other side is ignoring._ 
 

Yes, you're really an objectivist! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But do you swallow all the chemicals the modern medicine describes you? Because the medicine industry knows better than yourself what's good for you? Trust your own senses? Humans are absolutely unreliable! Well, they are, but the human hearing is nevertheless an extremely sensitive sense organ, much more differentiating than every measuring instrument. It's a pity not to make use of it. If an impression is absolutely continuous, such as the sonic characteristic of an amp or a cable, there's no reason to think it's imagined. 

  Quote:


 _But there is _also_ such a thing as changing your beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I will certainly believe that cables cause a difference for the better if somebody gives good objective reasons for it being the case. I already believe that solid state amps can differ considerably, based on my own blind tests, although there were issues in the way I conducted them so I can't really toot my own horn just yet on that._ 
 

Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. I was a cable skeptic myself, and even now I see no reason why cables should cause sonic differences. If I hadn't heard them myself I wouldn't believe it too. I had no such expectations when I first tried some new cables in my setup. But the difference was glaring. And I didn't like it at all. I went back to my cheap cables I had then, and the world was alright again. So my first encounter with cables was a negative one, but actually positive if you will. I think any measurable differences with cables would be of a similar shape as those among solid-state amps, although of reduced intensity. 

  Quote:


 _I agree that it takes a significant paradigm shift for objectivists to be able to explain audible cable differences beyond glaring LC differences, of which your Zu comparison did NOT identify. Expectation bias and placebo are theories that explain so many things that other theories cannot explain. But every listener has some notion of "reasonably" high end equipment, objectivist or not, and that can be influenced considerably whether or not DBTs exist for that equipment. So I don't think skeptic's mindsets are quite as rigid as you think._ 
 

Well, there are skeptics _and_ skeptics.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_That's not correct. The ideology accusation is only addressed to people who claim that there are or can be no differences with cables. And of course someone using the term «believer» for persons who hear differences counts to this category. 

 I neither have a plausible theory nor do I believe. Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen. 

 Yes, you're really an objectivist! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But do you swallow all the chemicals the modern medicine describes you? Because the medicine industry knows better than yourself what's good for you? Trust your own senses? Humans are absolutely unreliable! Well, they are, but the human hearing is nevertheless an extremely sensitive sense organ, much more differentiating than every measuring instrument. It's a pity not to make use of it. If an impression is absolutely continuous, such as the sonic characteristic of an amp or a cable, there's no reason to think it's imagined. 

 Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. I was a cable skeptic myself, and even now I see no reason why cables should cause sonic differences. If I hadn't heard them myself I wouldn't believe it too. I had no such expectations when I first tried some new cables in my setup. But the difference was glaring. And I didn't like it at all. I went back to my cheap cables I had then, and the world was alright again. So my first encounter with cables was a negative one, but actually positive if you will. I think any measurable differences with cables would be of a similar shape as those among solid-state amps, although of reduced intensity. 

 Well, there are skeptics and skeptics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







_

 


 In light of the technical reasons against audible difference, no one can reference to a formal DBT or a ABX test that supports that cables have audible differences because....?


 JF


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I neither have a plausible theory nor do I believe. Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen._

 

Yes, "trusting your own senses" is a sort of paradigm, in this context. Again, "ideology" doesn't quite express what I mean: more of like a worldview, with differences not only in theories of how things operate but also in what building blocks you use to describe things, epistemological differences (whether something really exists), etc. Everybody has a worldview about audio, even those who don't have a theory about how it all works. If you hear something and you therefore assert it to exist, you are making assertions about existence and about fallibility that people operating from other worldviews may not do - perhaps assert different things, or use different ways to express the same thing.

 Going back to my original reply, my point is that while it is fair to criticize somebody as dogmatic if they do not even allow the _possibility_ of the existence of an effect, it is unfair to criticize them simply because of theory or ideology. There's an important distinction between ideology and dogmatism.

  Quote:


 Yes, you're really an objectivist! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But do you swallow all the chemicals the modern medicine describes you? Because the medicine industry knows better than yourself what's good for you? Trust your own senses? Humans are absolutely unreliable! Well, they are, but the human hearing is nevertheless an extremely sensitive sense organ, much more differentiating than every measuring instrument. It's a pity not to make use of it. If an impression is absolutely continuous, such as the sonic characteristic of an amp or a cable, there's no reason to think it's imagined. 
 

On the contrary, there are many examples - from the history of mainstream science, no less - where (in at least the modern view) expectation bias and placebo effects led to repeated measurements, large research developments, and eventually entire _scientific theories_, which turned out to be solely in the eye of the beholder. I touched on this in an earlier post. I'll quote myself just once here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


 You can make subjective observations, and believe you are very accurate in them, and see obvious and repeatable results, even get published in papers, and still be dead wrong. 
 

 Quote:


 Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. I was a cable skeptic myself, and even now I see no reason why cables should cause sonic differences. If I hadn't heard them myself I wouldn't believe it too. I had no such expectations when I first tried some new cables in my setup. But the difference was glaring. And I didn't like it at all. I went back to my cheap cables I had then, and the world was alright again. So my first encounter with cables was a negative one, but actually positive if you will. I think any measurable differences with cables would be of a similar shape as those among solid-state amps, although of reduced intensity. 

 Well, there are skeptics _and_ skeptics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

Agreed; I suspect I'll need to pick up some Zus or Nitrogens or something at some point and see where that winds up going. So far my only dabbling has been with the Quails, and while I do get warm fuzzies about them, I'm not really prepared to listen to them critically.


----------



## Publius

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_In light of the technical reasons against audible difference, no one can reference to a formal DBT or a ABX test that supports that cables have audible differences because....?


 JF_

 

There might have been some negative tests done at some point, I'll need to dig up some AES articles at some point and see what they've said. For the most part though, since cable differences lay outside the paradigms of modern audio engineering, it's not really an important problem for anybody, and therefore nobody researches it.

 Or alternatively, you could argue that everybody on the objectivist side got convinced of their arguments 20 years ago and see no reason to revisit the issue. The original question came, and died, with the introduction of the first ABX tester and the AES articles relating to it.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Amplifiers have significantly higher measureable qualities that affect sound. Amplifiers have THD (maybe 0.01%), but wires have *no* THD (<0.00001%). My guess is that differences in amplifiers are possible but difficult to hear (tube amplifiers excluded--they carry with them even higher levels of THD and noise). _

 

I'm still not sure I understand. Also, let's stick to amplifiers for a moment and not sources. It would seem to me that the issue is not the absolute level of THD for an amp, but the differences between the THD for one amp vs. another. Aren't those differences so negligible in a measurement sense that they should not be able to be heard? Is there something else other than THD that is being heard that explains the differences between the sound of amps? If so, can it be measured? Has it been? What I am trying to find out is whether someone can point to something that has been measured with amps that will explain why one might sound different from another (excluding different tubes)?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I'm still not sure I understand. Also, let's stick to amplifiers for a moment and not sources. It would seem to me that the issue is not the absolute level of THD for an amp, but the differences between the THD for one amp vs. another. Aren't those differences so negligible in a measurement sense that they should not be able to be heard? Is there something else other than THD that is being heard that explains the differences between the sound of amps? If so, can it be measured? Has it been? What I am trying to find out is whether someone can point to something that has been measured with amps that will explain why one might sound different from another (excluding different tubes)?_

 

Hi Phil,

 I don't have a lot of time here, but maybe you'll like this.

 I'm aware that in the late 80's Bob Carver challenged the editors of Stereophile magazine that he could match the sound of their favorite amplifier. They took him up on this. This has been referred to as something like the "Carver Audio Shootout"--it was kind of famous. Bob analyzed the transfer characteristics of their $10,000+ Conrad-Johnson (sp?) tube mono-blocks, and went to Radio Shack and purchased a small handful of parts. He modified his ~$400 solid state amplifer and they could *not* hear a difference in a blind test. The model of amplifier was 1.5, if people wished to have the same tube sound that fooled the editors of Stereophile magazine, they could purchase the 1.5T. Internally, this was known as the Carver Tweak...that amounted to a couple of resistors and a couple of capacitors.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Hi Phil,

 I don't have a lot of time here, but maybe you'll like this.

 I'm aware that in the late 80's Bob Carver challenged the editors of Stereophile magazine that he could matched the sound of their favorite amplifier. They took him up on this. This has been referred to as something like the "Carver Audio Shootout"--it was kind of famous. The editors took him up on this. Bob analyzed the transfer characteristics of their $10,000 Conrad-Johnson (sp?) mono-blocks, and went to Radio Shack and purchased a small handful of parts. He modified his ~$400 solid state amplifer and they could *not* hear a difference in a blind test. The model of amplifier was 1.5, if people wished to have the same tube sound that fooled the editors of Stereophile magazine, they could purchase the 1.5T. Internally, this was known as the Carver Tweak...


 JF_

 

 Pardon me for being thick (maybe I'm too focused on Thanksgiving and football), but I don't understand the point you are making. Also, I'm not sure how it is responsive to my questions.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Pardon me for being thick (maybe I'm too focused on Thanksgiving and football), but I don't understand the point you are making. Also, I'm not sure how it is responsive to my questions. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sorry, that was the best I could do. Enjoy Thanksgiving, football, and your stereo setup.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Sorry, that was the best I could do. Enjoy Thanksgiving, football, and your stereo setup.


 JF_

 

 Wow, you just said a mouthful. Enjoy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyone else want to come to Mr. Ferrier's aid?


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KZEE* 
_The problem I see with your stance is the fact that Zu not submitting a sample for review is given as the basis for your maybe agreeing with rodbac that the Zu might be coloring the sound. And my point is that it would seem to me that actually measuring and listening to the Zu would be a more concrete basis on which to comment on any influences the Zu may or may not have on the sound._

 

OK, fair enough, but I think that the cable-believers also believe the Zu colors the sound, no? (As well as most other aftermarket cables.) My assertion was that, b/c Zu did not submit a sample for measurement, it is a possibility that their cable has strange (R,L,C) values. Posts later by JaZZ may have indicated this is not the case.
  Quote:


 You seem to be sceptical - and please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing your beliefs - but you seem to be sceptical of those that believe cabling influences the sound that comes out of the speakers or headphones of our stereo systems - I'd be curious as to what wires, cables, amps, sources, etc., you have personally had experience with that leads you to be so sceptical. 
 

I certainly am skeptical, you are not mischaracterizing my beliefs. My skepticism is based on a few things:
 1) My personal experience with ABX of audio codecs (which have a measurable effect on the music waveform)
 2) My analog circuits and physics classes in university, which have taught me what (R,L,C) do to a cable, taught me about skin effect, taught me about RF interference, etc. (I am a junior in Computer Engineering.)
 3) My own admittedly limited experience with headphones and speakers -- still more than many here -- how many can claim to understand how a crossover works and how many have assembled one?
 4) The lack of any non-anecdotal evidence that cables have an effect

 I do not own any headphone cables because I refuse to purchase them given my understanding of (A) audio (B) electronics.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Now that's new to me: Even measurements have to be double(blind) to be credible in the eyes of the skeptics!_

 

Not double-blind, *reproducible*. And not to "skeptics", to scientists. 
  Quote:


 Well, be assured that I have measured more than once, I just can't remember how many times. 
 

An independent scientist should be capable of reproducing your measurements given the same equipment. So you should describe the equipment and conditions.
  Quote:


 Does the fact that Zu Cable has refused to send a Mobius sample still prove that it has high capacitance, but my measuring proves nothing? So that's how the world of a typical cable skeptic looks like... 
 

I said nothing of the sort and now you're just being churlish.
  Quote:


 You said you're willing to believe that cables cause differences -- well, that's not a common attitude with skeptics. But have you actually tried some of them yourself with really open ears instead of claiming for proofs before accepting what you might possibly hear? I don't think you'll find significant measuring differences with cables corresponding to the perceived characteristics -- at least not with conventional measuring signals. Do we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps? 
 

Out of three skeptics I saw posting in the thread -- me, JF, and rodbac -- two of us have said we believe cables could cause differences. I suspect even JF would admit poorly-designed cables could cause differences, however he doesn't think the Zu Mobius causes differences. As to whether we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps, yes. Increased high frequency amplification = "bright". Increased mids = "detailed". Increased midbass = "hey Bob this sure is good" (to all the non-audiophiles out there 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Wow, you just said a mouthful. Enjoy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyone else want to come to Mr. Ferrier's aid?_

 

Phil,

 Have you thought about asking the amplifier manufactures your questions? If it's difficult to get solid answers, you may ask yourself why. I could try to answer this for you, but I think you need to figure it out yourself.


 JF


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_That's not correct. The ideology accusation is only addressed to people who claim that there are or can be no differences with cables. And of course someone using the term «believer» for persons who hear differences counts to this category._

 

Then what he said is correct: you consider skeptics to have an ideology but yourself to not have one.
  Quote:


 I neither have a plausible theory nor do I _believe._ Unless trusting your own senses is a belief in your view. I hear the differences without a clue what causes them, and I just let it happen. 
 

You *believe* cables cause a difference in sound that is not ascribable to psychosomatic effect. I and other skeptics *believe* that there are no non-explainable (i.e. non-measurable) differences in sound caused by cables which is not a result of psychosomatic effect. We both have beliefs, however mine is based on the scientific method and is objective, yours is based on your own experience, which science tells us is a poor judge (due to human psychology) and is subjective.
  Quote:


 Yes, you're really an objectivist! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But do you swallow all the chemicals the modern medicine describes you? Because the medicine industry knows better than yourself what's good for you? 
 

Yes, actually, they are trained and have things like: several levels of studies, first in animals, then in humans; independent corroboration of effectiveness; peer review; etc.
  Quote:


 Trust your own senses? Humans are absolutely unreliable! Well, they are, but the human hearing is nevertheless an extremely sensitive sense organ, much more differentiating than every measuring instrument. 
 

Then why is the JND at minimum 0.2 dB according to studies but measuring instruments can easily resolve hundredths of a dB?
  Quote:


 If an impression is absolutely continuous, such as the sonic characteristic of an amp or a cable, there's no reason to think it's imagined. 
 

Unless the impression is unexplainable by scientific theory, but the imagined effect is explainable by scientific theory, aka the psychosomatic effect.
  Quote:


 Great! I think you're not the typical objectivist I would call biased by ideology. 
 

*ob·jec·tive* _adj_
 3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair
 So we are burdened by ideology? Right. Our ideology is "Results should be verifiable, and then once they are, we should attempt to explain them. If our theory doesn't fit with verifiable results, our theory is wrong." Your ideology is "I know what I hear, and I cannot be making it up, so I am right, ad that is that."
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Pardon me for being thick (maybe I'm too focused on Thanksgiving and football), but I don't understand the point you are making. Also, I'm not sure how it is responsive to my questions._

 

Amps have measurably different frequency responses given input, this is the "transfer characteristic" JF was referring to. Carver was able to measure the frequency response of an amp and then modify his own amp to reproduce the sound. Thus the science of why amps sound differently is fairly well understood. Cables don't have measurably different frequency responses.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Phil,

 Have you thought about asking the amplifier manufactures your questions? If it's difficult to get solid answers, you may ask yourself why. I could try to answer this for you, but I think you need to figure it out yourself.


 JF_

 

 No, because they are not the ones taking the positions that you have in this thread. I'm trying to understand your position and find out whether it is sound, and I'm having difficulty. You seem to assert with absolute certainty that different cables do not sound different (let's exclude poorly constructed cables) and you seem to assert as support for this proposition that cables to not measure differently. It seems to me, on the other hand, that you acknowledge that amps may sound different, yet it seems to me that they also would not measure differently (at thresholds that would be audible). You have not yet identified any way in which they measure differently (unless I missed it.) Thus, I am asking for an explanation of this apparent inconsistency, and you seem to be intent on dodging it. Why not humor me and provide it, even if it is fairly rudimentary? Or on the other hand, you could simply say: "I don't know."


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_Amps have measurably different frequency responses given input, this is the "transfer characteristic" JF was referring to. Carver was able to measure the frequency response of an amp and then modify his own amp to reproduce the sound. Thus the science of why amps sound differently is fairly well understood. Cables don't have measurably different frequency responses._

 

John, would you agree with this? Is this what you were saying?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_No, because they are not the ones taking the positions that you have in this thread. I'm trying to understand your position and find out whether it is sound, and I'm having difficulty. You seem to assert with absolute certainty that different cables do not sound different (let's exclude poorly constructed cables) and you seem to assert as support for this proposition that cables to not measure differently. It seems to me, on the other hand, that you acknowledge that amps may sound different, yet it seems to me that they also would not measure differently (at thresholds that would be audible). You have not yet identified any way in which they measure differently (unless I missed it.) Thus, I am asking for an explanation of this apparent inconsistency, and you seem to be intent on dodging it. Why not humor me and provide it, even if it is fairly rudimentary? Or on the other hand, you could simply say: "I don't know." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Okay, I'm going to try in a couple of hours (when I'm home). Amplifiers are not so clear cut as cables (that is why I've avoided them). Maybe in the mean time, you could humor me (since I assume you've passed the California state bar exam) with the legal definition of the word scam.


 *EDIT* 

 Transducer THD: ~0.1% (probably, very best case)
 Amplifier THD: <0.01%
 Cable THD: <0.00001%

 Amplifiers have measureable distortion. The best answer I've heard (credit: John Curl) that amplifiers sound differently is upper frequency harmonic distortion (specifically, high odd harmonics). Again, cables have *no* distortion. 

 *Please* think about what <0.00001% (-120dB) THD means, especially in light of transducers that distort ~0.1%.

 From what I see, the cable business is *not* a scam. They simply don't make a claim that there is an improvement in sound.


 JF


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Okay, I'm going to try in a couple of hours (when I'm home). Amplifiers are not so clear cut as cables (that is why I've avoided them). Maybe in the mean time, you could humor me (since I assume you've passed the California state bar exam) with the legal definition of the word scam.


 *EDIT* 

 Transducer THD: ~0.1% (probably, very best case)
 Amplifier THD: <0.01%
 Cable THD: <0.00001%

 Amplifiers have measureable distortion. The best answer I've heard (credit: John Curl) that amplifiers sound differently is upper frequency harmonic distortion (specifically, high odd harmonics). Again, cables have *no* distortion. 

 *Please* think about what <0.00001% (-120dB) THD means, especially in light of transducers that distort ~0.1%.

 From what I see, the cable business is *not* a scam. They simply don't make a claim that there is an improvement in sound.


 JF_

 

 We seem to be like two ships passing in the night. If two amps both measure at the same amount of THD (let's say for the sake of argument .01%), would that mean that they could not sound differently? If amps sound differently because of "upper frequency harmonic distortion," would they measure differently? What would the magnitude of the difference have to be, in terms of measurements, for it to be audible?


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_OK, fair enough, but I think that the cable-believers also believe the Zu colors the sound, no? My skepticism is based on a few things:
 1) My personal experience with ABX of audio codecs (which have a measurable effect on the music waveform)

 2) My analog circuits and physics classes in university, which have taught me what (R,L,C) do to a cable, taught me about skin effect, taught me about RF interference, etc. (I am a junior in Computer Engineering.)
 3) My own admittedly limited experience with headphones and speakers -- still more than many here -- how many can claim to understand how a crossover works and how many have assembled one?
 4) The lack of any non-anecdotal evidence that cables have an effect

 I do not own any headphone cables because I refuse to purchase them given my understanding of (A) audio (B) electronics._

 

Does the Zu color the sound, or does it in fact more accurately pass the amplifier's original signal through to the speakers?
 I appreciate your schooling (BTW, I build my own speaker systems - including the crossover networks - so at least one of us here has some understanding of that type of thing), and the experience that you've had with audio, but I'm sceptical that you have anywhere near the experience with _high-end_ audio gear that the majority of the participants of this web sight do. And that's kind of what I was gettting at when I inquired about the specific types and brands of audio equipment that you have had personal experience with - I didn't start hearing the differences in speaker wires and interconnects until I started upgrading my equipment to higher-end gear... the other stuff I had didn't have the resolution to reveal those differences. I first learned about high- end audio through such publications as Stereophile magazine, and when they woud talk about hearing differences in wires and cables, I too was sceptical. But like I said, when I started getting some higher-end equipment into the house, differences in wiring and cabling were became readily apparent, and then I understood what all the hoopla was about. And I suspect that perhaps you, and most of the other measurement/ABT folks in this thread, haven't had much- if any- experience with higher-end gear. So how about it - would you care to share with us the specific types/brands of amps, speakers, sources and cabling that you've had personal experience with? And how about the the other measurement/ABT naysayers out there... care to let us in on the hi-rez gear that you own/have had experience with? Because IMO, if it ain't hi-rez, you ain't going to hear the effects that cabling has on the sound that comes out of your speakers and or headphones (which are really just speakers that are little).


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I'm aware that in the late 80's Bob Carver challenged the editors of Stereophile magazine that he could match the sound of their favorite amplifier. They took him up on this. This has been referred to as something like the "Carver Audio Shootout"--it was kind of famous. Bob analyzed the transfer characteristics of their $10,000+ Conrad-Johnson (sp?) tube mono-blocks, and went to Radio Shack and purchased a small handful of parts. He modified his ~$400 solid state amplifer and they could *not* hear a difference in a blind test. The model of amplifier was 1.5, if people wished to have the same tube sound that fooled the editors of Stereophile magazine, they could purchase the 1.5T. Internally, this was known as the Carver Tweak...that amounted to a couple of resistors and a couple of capacitors.JF_

 

If there really were no differences between the sound of the Carver 1.5 and a $10,000 Conrad-Johnson, I would think that Carver would literally have sold millions of those amps. As far as I know that isn't the case, and I would supect it's because in the real world, the Carver and the $10,000 C-J in fact sound nothing alike. It's also been my experience that with most amplifiers, you get what you pay for.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_We seem to be like two ships passing in the night. If two amps both measure at the same amount of THD (let's say for the sake of argument .01%), would that mean that they could not sound differently? If amps sound differently because of "upper frequency harmonic distortion," would they measure differently? What would the magnitude of the difference have to be, in terms of measurements, for it to be audible?_

 


 Phil,

 A THD figure of say 0.01% actually says very little. I will point out that that headphones actually uses a figure like this, say 0.1% THD. However, it doesn't indicate at which frequency that this value was determined. A more meaningful number is say for an amplifier maximum THD is 0.01% (20-20khz). In this case, a person knows that the worst case distortion is 0.01% over the full audible bandwidth. However, what about the profile of the distortion? What is the ratio of distortion at 10khz to the distortion at 1khz (distortion increases with frequency). I read about this from an engineer at Philips Electronics: Bruno Putzeys.

 So, when you write that two amplifiers that have a distortion of 0.01%, it doesn't anything about the distortion profile. The components of the distortion can vary widely from design to design. Another way, what ever is 0.01% wrong may be mostly a 2nd order harmonic in one amplifer and in another amplifier it is the 5th order harmonic. Current thinking is that 2nd order distortion is *much* more pleasing than something like 5th order harmonics. Even harmonics are considered better than odd order harmonics. You see it gets more complex. Wires and cables *do not* have odd or even harmonic distortion.

 The above is just a doodle of what goes on with amplifiers. There is no reason for me to delve into this further. My only hope is that you can see that amplifers are complex. Look inside yours. Would it help to see a schematic? There are numerous different components that contribute noise and distortion.

*Cables have immeasureable noise and immeasureable distortion (20-20khz).*

 If you really need to understand better, try doing a Google search. If you happen to find a DBT or an ABX test that indicates that people hear difference in cables post a link. I hope, by then, that I've forgotten about this thread though.

*Is anyone from Cleveland reading this?* If so, please see the following...
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=94488


 JF


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KZEE* 
_Does the Zu color the sound, or does it in fact more accurately pass the amplifier's original signal through to the speakers?_

 

It must color the sound, otherwise people wouldn't be hearing a difference. Either that or the difference is entirely psychosomatic. The stock cable is enough to accurately reproduce the signal in all characteristics that can be detected audibly. (To borrow from *rodbac* earlier, this is something that is mindbogglingly trivial.) Again, I invoke the concept of a JND. Any difference in frequency response BELOW the JND cannot be heard by average human ears. I have not seen a frequency response curve for a Zu Mobius but one of two things is possible. (1) It is constructed to transmit the signal without altering the sound and it produces a flat (within the margin of error given by the JND) frequency response curve as expected. (2) It is constructed in some abnormal fashion which produces a non-flat (i.e., peaks/valleys above JND) frequency response curve. I believe either of these is equally possible. And if (2) is true and you LIKE the coloration produced by the Zu in that case, I don't think you are silly. I just think you are silly to claim it is more accurately passing the signal.
  Quote:


 I'm sceptical that you have anywhere near the experience with _high-end_ audio gear that the majority of the participants of this web sight do. 
 

I freely admit that I don't have the experience with listening to expensive audio gear that many of the participants of the website do. Luckily this doesn't detract from my ability to read scientific literature! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And I feel that if anything, an investment in expensive hardware *appears* to cloud one's ability to make judgements as to its merit.
  Quote:


 So how about it - would you care to share with us the specific types/brands of amps, speakers, sources and cabling that you've had personal experience with? And how about the the other measurement/ABT naysayers out there... care to let us in on the hi-rez gear that you own/have had experience with? Because IMO, if it ain't hi-rez, you ain't going to hear the effects that cabling has on the sound that comes out of your speakers and or headphones (which are really just speakers that are little). 
 

What would be acceptably "high-end" or "high-resolution" audio equipment? Is it something with less than 1% THD? Is it something that costs over $1000? Is it something that comes from a specific brand name? My opinion is that I could never answer this question satisfactorily -- there would always be someone who had spent a dollar more, someone who had tested one more cable, someone who had one more pair of headphones, someone who tested on a warm day, someone who tested when the tide was out, etc. And I am then told that only THEN do the clear differences reveal themselves.


----------



## rhfactor

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KZEE* 
_If there really were no differences between the sound of the Carver 1.5 and a $10,000 Conrad-Johnson, I would think that Carver would literally have sold millions of those amps. As far as I know that isn't the case, and I would supect it's because in the real world, the Carver and the $10,000 C-J in fact sound nothing alike._

 

Ah, you forget that we believe that there are no differences between the sound of 12awg zipcord and $750/ft cryo-treated silver dipped in snake oil under a full moon on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Yet people still buy the latter, so it's very easy for us to believe that few people would buy the former.
  Quote:


 It's also been my experience that with most amplifiers, you get what you pay for. 
 

It's been my experience that as with everything in life, the law of diminishing returns applies. At some point the returns diminish to inaudibility.


----------



## PhilS

JF, your explanation was helpful. Thanks.


----------



## Jorg

I've post it a while ago but there was no attention to it. I'll post again:

 why not use superconductivity instead of very expensive silver cables like 1000$/ft??? It's much cheaper (100$/ft max) and it will do NOTHING to the signal. Current can travel in a superconductive circuit for years without any change (!!!!!!!!!!!) while in silver/copper it goes to zero in few nanoseconds.

 BTW I havn't decided yet if I believe that cable makes a difference or not. Two years ago I've done an A/B (not blind) between Nordos Solar Wind 100$/meter 0.6 m IC and 0.3$/meter 10 m long (!!!) IC. My setup was EgoSys Waveterminal 2496 soundcard -> Grado RA-1 -> stock cabled HD600. All these components deserve each other and the system was very well balanced. 2496 is a very good soundcard and I say it owning a sub 4000$ CDP. I couldn't hear the difference between those two ICs. There were several possibilities:

 1) Those two didn't make a difference. The obvious answer for every "non-believer" but I can't be sure.
 2) I can't hear the difference because my ears are demaged. Not likely because I clearly hear difference between headphones and sources.
 3) The resolution of the system wasn't enough to determine the change in the ICs. It is the obvious answer for all "believers" and again I can't be sure.

 BTW one suggestion for believers who own some very good ICs (>100$/m retail) and a high-resolution headphone system. Buy a very cheap and very long IC and connect one channel to the expensive one and the other to a cheap one. Please tell us the differences (not subtle) that you hear if any. I can't do the comparison now because I already sold most of my Hi-End equipment.

 Again, I'm not on the either side and just looking for truth.

 And don't forget about superconductivity.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_And I feel that if anything, an investment in expensive hardware *appears* to cloud one's ability to make judgements as to its merit._

 

 Yes, and as we have learned from this thread, (1) the effect is so powerful that everyone on the planet earth, without exception, who has ever compared one properly-constructed cable to another and has heard a difference has fallen under this psychosis, (2) there is a similar effect that causes some who compare less expensive cables and more expensive cables to actually prefer the sound of the less expensive cables -- this might seem to cut against the "investment" explanation, but actually does not, as these folks subconsciously realize that choosing the more expensive cable could negatively impact their retirement planning, and so their subsconcious mind tricks them into preferring the less expensive cable (even though there is no difference in sound), and (3) it is good thing that some refuse to compare cables and make a judgment based on what they hear, as the mind-numbing effect of the psychosis is so powerful that no one can escape it, and therefore it is only because these stout souls refuse to obtain actual experience with cables that some are left unsullied and are able to freely extoll for the rest of us who have gone over to the other side the absolute truth of "should" be heard (and gosh darnit of what "must" be heard) based on what the science says.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_A more meaningful number is say for an amplifier maximum THD is 0.01% (20-20khz). In this case, a person knows that the worst case distortion is 0.01% over the full audible bandwidth. However, what about the profile of the distortion? ... So, when you write that two amplifiers that have a distortion of 0.01%, it doesn't anything about the distortion profile. The components of the distortion can vary widely from design to design. Another way, what ever is 0.01% wrong may be mostly a 2nd order harmonic in one amplifer and in another amplifier it is the 5th order harmonic. Current thinking is that 2nd order distortion is *much* more pleasing than something like 5th order harmonics. Even harmonics are considered better than odd order harmonics. You see it gets more complex. Wires and cables *do not* have odd or even harmonic distortion._

 

Indeed, individual distortion profiles _could_ be a cause for individual sonic characteristics with amps -- but this hypothesis is far from being established, and such a low distortion level is considered inaudible by classic objectivists. 
  Quote:


 _Cables have immeasureable noise and immeasureable distortion (20-20khz)._ 
 

Although I haven't measured myself (have you?), I don't think this is true. Harmonic distortion will certainly be lower than with electronic components, but if a distortion level classified as inaudible with amps is considered to be a possible source of colorations, the same could apply to cables. And the same could apply to other forms of distortion (e.g. phase distortion, which is a real and measurable phenomenon with cables).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_It must color the sound, otherwise people wouldn't be hearing a difference. Either that or the difference is entirely psychosomatic. The stock cable is enough to accurately reproduce the signal in all characteristics that can be detected audibly._

 

So you seem to be very familiar with the design of both cables. What design property is it that leads you to the conclusion that the Zu doesn't provide optimal conditions for the electrical signal, whereas the stock cable does? 

  Quote:


 _As to whether we know what signal characteristics are responsible for the sonic differences with amps, yes. Increased high frequency amplification = "bright". Increased mids = "detailed". Increased midbass = "hey Bob this sure is good" (to all the non-audiophiles out there). 
 ... 
 Amps have measurably different frequency responses given input, this is the "transfer characteristic" JF was referring to._ 
 

So have you measured any significant deviations from linearity with the transfer characteristic of amps? I don't believe that's the case, not with most modern solid-state amps.

  Quote:


 _Carver was able to measure the frequency response of an amp and then modify his own amp to reproduce the sound. Thus the science of why amps sound differently is fairly well understood. Cables don't have measurably different frequency responses._ 
 

AFAIK Carver has tried to reconstruct different harmonic- and phase-distortion patterns, not (primarily) frequency-response characteristics. And he has tried to mimic tube amps. I don't think his experiments, however «successful» or spectacular they may have been or been displayed, have led to an established theory.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Although I haven't measured myself (have you?), I don't think this is true. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, I haven't. However, here are measurements taken with an Audio Precision System Two Cascade ("the latest and greatest" distortion analyzer)... What one sees at 1khz is the notch at the test frequency (generally this area is disregarded...areas of interest are multiples of 1khz...i.e. 2k, 3k, 4k, etc.).

 "Cheap" cable





 "Expensive" cable




 image credits:Steve Eddy

 These are interconnect cables. Since ICs are upstream of amplication, I expect that they would have more of an effect on sound. Regardless, *immeasurable* distortion (<120db). (With my setup, I estimate the threshold of audibility of someone with perfect ears to be about -100dB. You would also need to listen with no background noise, like an anechoic chamber...if you can begin to hear blood pulse through your body, then background noise is low enough.)

 For more information: 
*The Story Behind the Cable THD Measurements: Debunking the Myth of Cable Distortion and Dielectric Biasing*
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...surements.html
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...istortion.html

 Highlights: "No distortion products even remotely attributable to the cable." "No news. No distortion."
 "Distortion: Not only sine wave, but also extremely complex full-spectrum multitone testing (including signal sequences derived from actual music). *There were NO differences between the cables tested.*"

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...asurements.pdf
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...f/4_cables.pdf

 Hey, "freebie" cables measure fine too, I see.

 (I didn't know about this article until this morning, I had known about the THD measurements that Steve Eddy prepared. It was worth it to me, to hang with this thread to find this article...)

 Don't knock stock cables. *Copper and silver are *excellent* conductors of electrons.*


 JF


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_why not use superconductivity instead of very expensive silver cables like 1000$/ft??? It's much cheaper (100$/ft max) and it will do NOTHING to the signal. Current can travel in a superconductive circuit for years without any change (!!!!!!!!!!!) while in silver/copper it goes to zero in few nanoseconds._

 

Even if the idea is interesting, you must be a "believer" before you try it. Otherwise it doesn't make sense not to use standard cables. But of course. I understand what you mean. Namely, if you use expensive silver cables, you already are a believer.

 Georg


----------



## Jorg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Namely, if you use expensive silver cables, you already are a believer._

 

Not necessarily. Just looking for that difference. Frankly, I want to join the team "believers". But I couldn't hear it when I was making A/B and this theme didn't get much of my attention after this test though I wasn't sure cables can't make any difference. I just figured that I better upgrade all other components before trying to find a difference between cheap and expensive cables.


----------



## JaZZ

Thanks for the graphs, John! They're fascinating. On first look the curves show no conspicuities. I guess the shivering curve is the noise floor. The interesting thing are the multiples of 1 kHz. And indeed, there are amplitudes in the curve: at 2 and 3 kHz both cables show a similar spike (could this be from the measuring device?). But then, at 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 kHz the cheap cable shows some very small spikes which don't seem to be random noise products and which are missing with the expensive cable. They could be interpreted as harmonic distortion of 5th, 7th, 11th, 13th and 17th order. The 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are shared by both cables.

 Now I'm not pretending harmonic distortion on this low level, -140 dB, is audible (although, you never know...). Nevertheless there's an indication that cables can behave slightly differently in terms of signal transfer properties and -- especially -- harmonic distortion. The question now is: why? And could this be an indication for audible differences?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_ I just figured that I better upgrade all other components before trying to find a difference between cheap and expensive cables._

 

 That makes a lot of sense IMO. I didn't hear the difference between cables and become one of the psychotic "believers" until I upgraded the rest of my system. BTW, I also found that silver interconnects (at least the ones I tried) did not fit well with the rest of my system. Thus, I sent them back (even though they were much more expensive than the cables I was replacing at that time).


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Thanks for the graphs, John! They're fascinating. On first look the curves show no conspicuities. I guess the shivering curve is the noise floor. The interesting thing are the multiples of 1 kHz. And indeed, there are amplitudes in the curve: at 2 and 3 kHz both cables show a similar spike (could this be from the measuring device?). But then, at 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 kHz the cheap cable shows some very small spikes which don't seem to be random noise products and which are missing with the expensive cable. They could be interpreted as harmonic distortion of 5th, 7th, 11th, 13th and 17th order. The 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are shared by both cables.

 Now I'm not pretending harmonic distortion on this low level, -140 dB, is audible (although, you never know...). Nevertheless there's an indication that cables can behave slightly differently in terms of signal transfer properties and -- especially -- harmonic distortion. The question now is: why? And could this be an indication for audible differences? 




_

 

JaZZ,

 *Without* knowing which is which, how many times out of 25 do you expect that you could tell the difference between a stock cable and a Zu cable?

 I actually conducted a ABX test with my wife and was shocked that she didn't detect the "audiophile" configuration. (This was when my mind was more open minded about this. Like others, I *want* to believe; however, conclude that a person can *only imagine the difference*.)


 JF


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_It must color the sound, otherwise people wouldn't be hearing a difference. Either that or the difference is entirely psychosomatic. The stock cable is enough to accurately reproduce 
 What would be acceptably "high-end" or "high-resolution" audio equipment? Is it something with less than 1% THD? Is it something that costs over $1000? Is it something that comes from a specific brand name? My opinion is that I could never answer this question satisfactorily -- there would always be someone who had spent a dollar more, someone who had tested one more cable, someone who had one more pair of headphones, someone who tested on a warm day, someone who tested when the tide was out, etc. And I am then told that only THEN do the clear differences reveal themselves._

 

Oh come now, Mr. Rhfactor... you're purposely being evasive. The list of hi-end products that offer a modicum of resolution is not that long, and is not as disagreed upon as you would have us to believe. I've also found that the vast majority of Head-fiers are a friendly and sincere bunch, and your fears in regard to being able to answer the question satisfactorily ring hollow. What are you so afraid of, Mr. Rhfactor? 
 Measurements and theory aside, I maintain my contention that you've never owned and or heard a system possessing the resolution necessary to allow you to hear the differences that exist in speaker wires and internet connectors. So c'mon, be a sport, take a chance, and list the types/brands of gear that you've had experience with, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhfactor* 
_Ah, you forget that we believe that there are no differences between the sound of 12awg zipcord and $750/ft cryo-treated silver dipped in snake oil under a full moon on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Yet people still buy the latter, so it's very easy for us to believe that few people would buy the former.
 It's been my experience that as with everything in life, the law of diminishing returns applies. At some point the returns diminish to inaudibility._

 

Ah, but _you_ forget that you're in the vast minority, and as such the majority of us would be lined up around the block if the opportunity arose to purchase a product that offered 10 times the sound at one tenth the price as in the case of Carver vs. Conrad-Johnson. 
 And sure, I whole heartedly agree that the laws of diminishing returns in some cases do apply, but I don't see what that has to do with what we're talking about here, which is that in the real world, the solid state Carver 1.5 sounds anything at all like a $10,000 Conrad-Johnson tubed monblock amp.


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_JaZZ,I actually conducted a ABX test with my wife and was shocked that she didn't detect the "audiophile" configuration. (This was when my mind was more open minded about this. Like others, I *want* to believe; however, conclude that a person can *only imagine the difference*.)JF_

 

What was your listening rig made up of? Did it possess the resolution necessary to resolve the differences that some say exist in wiring and cables?


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_Not necessarily. Just looking for that difference. Frankly, I want to join the team "believers". But I couldn't hear it when I was making A/B and this theme didn't get much of my attention after this test though I wasn't sure cables can't make any difference. I just figured that I better upgrade all other components before trying to find a difference between cheap and expensive cables._

 

Sorry. It is my English. With "you" I here mean that everyone that uses silver cables must be a believer before he or she buys such cables. And it is first when you are a believer that superconductivity is interesting.
 I have searched in google but i am still not sure what superconductivity is. I can understand it of the word of course, but could you explain it for an amateur in more simple words than I found in my google searching?
 Georg


----------



## Jorg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Sorry. It is my English. With "you" I here mean that everyone that uses silver cables must be a believer before he or she buys such cables. And it is first when you are a believer that superconductivity is interesting.
 I have searched in google but i am still not sure what superconductivity is. I can understand it of the word of course, but could you explain it for an amateur in more simple words than I found in my google searching?
 Georg_

 

My English is not perfect too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 In easy words: there are some materials that have almost 0 resistance when cooled to a very low temperature. The very best thing is that several materials are known to be superconductors even at temperatures higher than the nitrogens freezing point. It's very cheap to get a liquid nitrogen (the technology is wide-spread). I can see some companies (Nordost?) offering superconductors as ICs and speaker cables in the near future. It would really do nothing to the signal except of the RCA/XLR jacks (they can pass even these if they make a technology to built them into the speaker) and it can be made not very thick. I can see it priced higher than Valhalla but not because of prime cost. It is really cheap to make such a superconductor.

http://www.southafrica.globalsources...1W2/PBUCKY.HTM

 You can see in this article that the first material was discovered more than 3 years ago (the first that gives opportunity of cheap superconductivity). After that several other materials were discovered also.

 Now the hardest question is would it make any difference to the sound or would it be just pure marketing? I can't answer to this question. This problem deserves a good investigation, but I really doubt that the type of using materials (starting from OFC) makes any difference. If there is a difference, it is probably because of bad shielding and some other factors. Just IMHO.

 P.S. There IS a measurable difference between OFC and silver, but I doubt it is near audible levels.


----------



## ipodstudio

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Sorry. It is my English. With "you" I here mean that everyone that uses silver cables must be a believer before he or she buys such cables. And it is first when you are a believer that superconductivity is interesting.
 I have searched in google but i am still not sure what superconductivity is. I can understand it of the word of course, but could you explain it for an amateur in more simple words than I found in my google searching?
 Georg_

 

I wasn't a believer when I bought my Cardas ICs and headphone cable, I just had an open mind. I bought the cables and tested them. When I found that they resulted in a positive audible difference within my system, I kept them and thus became a believer..


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_ With "you" I here mean that everyone that uses silver cables must be a believer before he or she buys such cables._

 

 That is false assumption. Lots of people try high end cables, including silver cables, without any expectation of what they might do. In some instances, people who try them are actually disbelievers (like I was) who take advantage of liberal return policies offered by cable vendors with the intent of trying to cables in a system merely to confirm that they do NOT make a difference. Sometimes the disbelievers get converted. I suspect that many others who try a particular cable may be neutral on the issue, or who may believe that cables make a difference, but may have no expectation about whether the particular cable that they are trying will improve or worsen the sound in their system.


----------



## Langrath

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_That is false assumption. Lots of people try high end cables, including silver cables, without any expectation of what they might do. In some instances, people who try them are actually disbelievers (like I was) who take advantage of liberal return policies offered by cable vendors with the intent of trying to cables in a system merely to confirm that they do NOT make a difference. Sometimes the disbelievers get converted. I suspect that many others who try a particular cable may be neutral on the issue, or who may believe that cables make a difference, but may have no expectation about whether the particular cable that they are trying will improve or worsen the sound in their system._

 

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that you must be a believer to try silver cables. Of course not. I said that you must be a believer to use silver cables. Otherwise you should sell them or return them to store.

 Georg


----------



## john_jcb

There was an interesting article in the most recent edition of the GB publication Hi-Fi. They did blind testing and the listeners consistently could differentiate between cables.


----------



## Hirsch

So, we seem to have two camps:

 "Objectivists": If we don't have a scientific rationale for it, and can't meaure it in an objective manner, it doesn't exist.

 "Subjectivists": We hear what we hear. If there is no rationale, and we can't measure it objectively, find a new rationale and refine the measurement.

 Of the two, the subjectivist approach actually is closer to the true scientific method. The objectivist approach to measuring perceptual differences has long since taken a wrong turn, and is not attempting to address serious methodological flaws. 

 For example, in any given ABX test, what control groups are run to insure that the test is sensitive to differences in aspects of sound *that are known to be detectable to the human ear*. Without some objective index that a test is capable of detecting known differences, much less hypthetical ones, the test is useless from a scientific standpoint, much less a hobbyist one.

 Any objective test has to take into account the nature of the process of perception. The assumption is usually made that perception goes one way. That is, a receptor is triggered, a response is sent to the brain, which we can either detect or not. If not, there is a tendency to invoke the magic word "placebo" and call it not real. However, this is only part of the story. The path from receptor to brain can be called "bottom-up" perceptual processing. However, there is another set of neural pathways going from the brain that actually modulate the input received by the brain. These pathways can be inhibitory, and can actually block an impulse triggered by a receptor from ever reaching the brain. This is "top-down" processing. It's one of the ways that the brain modulates input. The literature on this goes back many years.

 So, we ask another set of questions. Under what conditions would a signal from a receptor be inhibited? Would it be inhibited in some people but not others? What would be the factors that would cause a stimulus to be perceptable or not? Some of these factors are psychological, and not physical. How does attention modulate perception? In a complex sonic environment, attention allows us to hear things of interest to us, and filter out others. Think of a crowded room, with multiple conversations going on, and then someone mentions your name in one of the conversations. You might not have been picking up anything from that conversation previously, but you will be now.

 How about fatigue effects? For some perceptual stimuli, we habituate, and become less sensitive over time. For others, we sensitize, and become more sensitive. For still others, we are insensitive until a learning process occurs. Why are some systems fatiguing over the long haul (but sound great when we first hear them)? Will a DBT or ABX quantify this in any way?

 Want to talk about whether cable differences are real or not? Then you need to understand all of these phenomena, and include many others that I can't fit into a short internet response, and include them in your testing scheme. Until then, all a so-called "objective" test can do is to tell you that you're not hearing a difference under a given set of conditions in a given time and place. Whether you would hear differences under other conditions, in other setups, with other experiences, simply cannot be generalized from the test. 

 The oversimplification of the word "placebo" doesn't work. As used by the objectivists, it's a catchall to describe any perceived effect that they can't explain. A question for them: "Is that really science?" Before using the word "placebo", it would be useful to understand exactly what's going on with it. In part, it could explain subjective impressions of non-existent differences ...or are they really non-existent? Remember, the brain can filter perception. It's equally likely that the brain can filter out real and measureable sonic differences as it is that it is causing people to hear things that are not. In fact, the so-called "placebo effect" may be reflective of the brain's filtering of perceptual stimuli, to the point where perceived differences where none actually exist is occurring in the nervous system. While the stimuli may have been identical at the receptor level, differences in filtering could cause the differences in the stimuli to become very real by the time the impulse actually reaches the brain. 

 There are also certain replicable ways that perceptual systems routinely distort incoming signals (see any optical illusion for an example). These tend to be shortcuts, that allow us to perceive and react to stimuli without having to spend hours processing them. They also need to be accounted for in any model of how we perceive an acoustic stimuli. 

 If you're getting the idea that perception is a complex process, you're getting closer. Use of any test involving perceptual differences needs to take into account the nature of perception. I've long since learned that methods for "objectively" measuring perceptual stimuli really aren't. 

 I haven't even bothered with methodological issues, for the most part. Suppose that you go through the whole process, do the statistics, and find that the reported differences between pairs of cables is not significant with alpha set at 0.05 (conventional in science). What does this mean? At alpha= 0.05, there's still one chance in twenty that the reported absence of a difference is wrong. And there's still no indicator of just how probable it is that the reported absence of a difference is wrong. That's a second statistic, sometimes called beta. I've yet to see any ABX test report this, but I'm open to reading one.

 True "scientific" study of why some people hear differences between cables is going to be a much more complicated process than simply whipping out the old ABX box. Until then, my idea of the hobby is that it's intended to maximize the enjoyment I get out of listening to music. For my purposes, if I hear it, it's real enough for me.


----------



## Jorg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Of the two, the subjectivist approach actually is closer to the true scientific method. The objectivist approach to measuring perceptual differences has long since taken a wrong turn, and is not attempting to address serious methodological flaws._

 

There just hasn't been done enough investigation to prove the difference.

 If there is a difference, it can be measured. Obviously science has enough knowledge to explain every difference in the cables.

 True objectivist approach is not close to the true scientific method. It IS the scientific method.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Until then, all a so-called "objective" test can do is to tell you that you're not hearing a difference under a given set of conditions in a given time and place._

 

Or -- with a bit of luck -- that you can hear and there is in fact a difference. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Good post, Hirsch!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that you must be a believer to try silver cables. Of course not. I said that you must be a believer to use silver cables. Otherwise you should sell them or return them to store.

 Georg_

 

 Maybe I misunderstood. Your post said "everyone that uses silver cables must be a believer before he or she buys such cables." (Emphasis added.) That is what my comment was referring to.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_ Obviously science has enough knowledge to explain every difference in the cables._

 

This is not so "obvious" to me, since people are hearing differences, and science hasn't explained it yet. Hirsch's post perhaps explains some of the reasons why.


----------



## Jorg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Maybe I misunderstood. Your post said "everyone that uses silver cables must be a believer before he or she buys such cables." (Emphasis added.) That is what my comment was referring to._

 

Don't be so critical to persons with English as a secondary language


----------



## Jorg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_This is not so "obvious" to me, since people are hearing differences, and science hasn't explained it yet. Hirsch's post perhaps explains some of the reasons why._

 

Are you a scientist?

 This theme is not interesting for science. Give me some money and I'll make this investigation for you.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_Don't be so critical to persons with English as a secondary language 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

 Who's being critical? He said I misunderstood. I clearly did not. Nevertheless, I said in my follow up post that perhaps I indeed had misunderstood, but then explained what he had said earlier so that there was no confusion.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_Are you a scientist?

 This theme is not interesting for science._

 

 You lost me there.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Jorg* 
_This theme is not interesting for science._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_You lost me there._

 

I don't understand Russian, but I understand _Jorg_. Of course cable sound is not very high on the priority list of scientists -- that's why not much research has been done.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I don't understand Russian, but I understand Jorg. Of course cable sound is not very high on the priority list of scientists -- that's why not much research has been done. 
_

 

 Oh, I see. I thought he was referring to Hirsch's post, which contained several items that would seem to be of interest to a number of "scientific" disciplines.


----------



## JohnFerrier

It starts with proof that people do hear a difference.

 A signal >140dB down from the primary signal is like knowing when a pin drops across a street during heavy traffic.


 JF

 *EDIT* changed the symbol < to >


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I don't understand Russian, but I understand Jorg. Of course cable sound is not very high on the priority list of scientists -- that's why not much research has been done. 




_

 

I'm sure studies have been done. Seems like a very interesting topic. Cable companies have the most to gain from the results. How many listening studies do the cable companies refer to? None.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

If Sennheiser endorsed the view that cables really make a difference, I believe that they would either offer a model with "audiophile" cables and/or offer "audiophile" cables for 600/650s. If Sennheiser did, *I* would purchase them, A LOT of people would purchase them. Sennheiser profits for a short time would jump. However, guess what they are afraid of long term? That people find out that "audiophile cables" don't make a difference. There is no scientific evidence that people hear a difference. If there is, please post it. 

 Someone mentioned the HiFi+ article. I have not read it, but appearantly, the editors undermined their own "tests" with some of their statements. Such as cable X should have sounded better for its cost and yes on further listening we did find it to sound better.

 Someone posted that someone at Sennheiser wrote back that cables may make a difference in sound. Well, as long as you purchase Sennheiser headphones, they are not too worried what additional purchases a person makes.


 JF

 *EDIT* Seperated paragraphs.


----------



## tom hankins

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_If Sennheiser endorsed the view that cables really make a difference, I believe that they would either offer a model with "audiophile" cables and/or offer "audiophile" cables for 600/650s. If Sennheiser did, *I* would purchase them, A LOT of people would purchase them. Sennheiser profits for a short time would jump. However, guess what they are afraid of long term? That people find out that "audiophile cables" don't make a difference. There is no scientific evidence that people hear a difference. If there is, please post it. 

 Someone mentioned the HiFi+ article. I have not read it, but appearantly, the editors undermined their own "tests" with some of their statements. Such as cable X should have sounded better for its cost and yes on further listening we did find it to sound better.

 Someone posted that someone at Sennheiser wrote back that cables may make a difference in sound. Well, as long as you purchase Sennheiser headphones, they are not too worried what additional purchases a person makes.


 JF

 *EDIT* Seperated paragraphs._

 

I was wondering why senn. doesnt make aftermarket cables. I'm glad you know why senn. doesnt make them. Can you please lead me to the senn. rep that told this, or did you just pull this out of thin air?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_If Sennheiser endorsed the view that cables really make a difference, I believe that they would either offer a model with "audiophile" cables and/or offer "audiophile" cables for 600/650s. If Sennheiser did, *I* would purchase them . . . . 
_

 

 Surely you jest. I thought your position was that such cables could not possibly make any difference? Isn't your position that if Sennheiser did endorse that view that they would be wrong? Are you now suggesting that, while there is no reason for you to try aftermarket cables and evaluate the issue for yourself with your own ears, if Sennheiser merely says it, you will now believe it? Who are you and what have you done with JF?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_I'm sure studies have been done. Seems like a very interesting topic. Cable companies have the most to gain from the results. 


 JF_

 

 I would venture that perhaps one of the problems with this assumption is that it might be predicated on the further assumption that a cable company would benefit by proving that aftermarket cables in general make a difference. It seems to me, however, that a particular cable company really only benefits from such a study if they prove that THEIR cables sound better than all the rest, and I think this will be very difficult to establish (as cables invariably are system dependant - note that even with the Senn phones, some prefer the Zu, some the Silver Dragon, etc.), and the results are likely to be subject to interpretation. I would suspect that the cost of such a study outweighs the risks, and also there is little need in any event, since (1) thousands and thousands of potential customers don't need a study to consider their products, and (2) the return policies offered by these vendors allows every consumer to do their own study.

 Also, why don't speaker companies do studies that show that their speakers sound better than all the rest?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tom hankins* 
_I was wondering why senn. doesnt make aftermarket cables. I'm glad you know why senn. doesnt make them. Can you please lead me to the senn. rep that told this, or did you just pull this out of thin air?_

 

Did you notice that I wrote "believe...". (I'll admit that I couldn't get through your long post.) 

 In short, I trust Sennheiser not equip $400 headphones with cables that are inferior or defective. 


 JF

 *EDIT* removed two extraneous words


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_
 In short, I trust that Sennheiser to not equip $400 headphones with cables that are inferior or defective. 


 JF_

 

 I just bought a Rio Karma. It includes a pretty cheap earbud. Based on your logic, it must sound as good with the Karma as earbuds or phones costing $200 more (e.g., the Ety ER-4S), as why would Rio include with the product a phone that is "inferior" or "defective"?


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I would venture that perhaps one of the problems with this assumption is that it might be predicated on the further assumption that a cable company would benefit by proving that aftermarket cables in general make a difference. It seems to me, however, that a particular cable company really only benefits from such a study if they prove that THEIR cables sound better than all the rest, and I think this will be very difficult to establish (as cables invariably are system dependant - note that even with the Senn phones, some prefer the Zu, some the Silver Dragon, etc.), and the results are likely to be subject to interpretation. I would suspect that the cost of such a study outweighs the risks, and also there is little need in any event, since (1) thousands and thousands of potential customers don't need a study to consider their products, and (2) the return policies offered by these vendors allows every consumer to do their own study.

 Also, why don't speaker companies do studies that show that their speakers sound better than all the rest?_

 

Hi Phil,

 I'm trying to cook Broccoli soup and will try to get back to this...


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I just bought a Rio Karma. It includes a pretty cheap earbud. Based on your logic, it must sound as good with the Karma as earbuds or phones costing $200 more (e.g., the Ety ER-S), as why would Rio include with the product a phone that is "inferior" or "defective."_

 

Well, $400 cables won't make them sound any better.


 JF

 *EDIT* Reworded.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Phil,

 Would it stand up in a court of law for someone to say they hear differences in wires, in light of technical evidence that indicates that it is not remotely possible? 

 Wouldn't the jury desire more evidence that it was possible to hear differences in wires? An independent study?


 JF


----------



## crackerkorean

I havent read the whole thread ( its really long ) so dont mind me if i repeat anything or am off topic. In replying with the orginal question.

 I at first though that a cable is a cable no matter if its cheap speaker cable or something really nice.

 I know I bought some nice audio quest cables for my home theatre/ living room stereo because I didnt want to test on it wether cables make a difference or not. I assume that nicer more expensive cables sound better so im going with that. ( I hope I am right ). 

 for my stereo upstairs in my computer/recording room I just had cheap speaker wire hooked up to my cheap aiwa amp and used it with my Boston Acoustis A100s. It sounded pretty ok so I went with it.

 I ended up making a set of braided Cat5 cables to see if its any better. And to me it actually sounded worse. I lost alot of top end but picked up some bottom end. Not what I wanted.

 Just to make sure this was not a plecebo effect I had a friend listen to the speaker. ( left - old speaker wire right - cat5 ) 
 He to could also tell a difference and he did not know what speaker was wired with what. 

 So I think it does make a difference. Wether its worth it to spend hundreds on cable probably not. 

 Just my .02


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Well, $400 cables won't make them sound any better.


 JF

 *EDIT* Reworded._

 

 That's not germane to the point under discussion, but that's ok.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_Phil,

 Would it stand up in a court of law for someone to say they hear differences in wires, in light of technical evidence that indicates that it is not remotely possible? 

 Wouldn't the jury desire more evidence that it was possible to hear differences in wires? An independent study?


 JF_

 

 Who knows, and who cares. One jury might believe the technical evidence, another might believe the testimony of those who claim to hear a difference. I bet most juries would like to hear both sides, however, and wouldn't say, "Well, we've heard the technical evidence and we're not interested in hearing the experiences of persons who have actually tried cables, as what they say they heard can't possibly be relevant." And I bet if they were allowed to, they might like to listen to the cables themselves and see what their own senses reveal.


----------



## KZEE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KZEE* 
_Originally Posted by JohnFerrier
 JaZZ,I actually conducted a ABX test with my wife and was shocked that she didn't detect the "audiophile" configuration. (This was when my mind was more open minded about this. Like others, I *want* to believe; however, conclude that a person can *only imagine the difference*.)JF

 What was your listening rig made up of? Did it possess the resolution necessary to resolve the differences that some say exist in wiring and cables?_

 

Have you noticed that the members of the measurement crowd, when asked to share with us the stereo equipment that they use to not hear differences in cabling, absolutley refuse to do so? (Mr. Ferrier has gone so far as to not even dignify my inquiry with a response... perhaps he thinks if he ignores me I'll just go away.) Why would that be, I wonder? Why the secrecy? What are they trying to hide? Wouldn't somebody that claims to be so objective and scientific want to, in the interest of science, have all variables out in the open? 
 It's kind of tough to have a good-faithed debate with those that hide things and won't let all sides of their position be examined.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Who knows, and who cares. One jury might believe the technical evidence, another might believe the testimony of those who claim to hear a difference. I bet most juries would like to hear both sides, however, and wouldn't say, "Well, we've heard the technical evidence and we're not interested in hearing the experiences of persons who have actually tried cables, as what they say they heard can't possibly be relevant." And I bet if they were allowed to, they might like to listen to the cables themselves and see what their own senses reveal. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Cool Phil,

 I look forward to seeing more of your guys posts and thoughts.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_Surely you jest. I thought your position was that such cables could not possibly make any difference? Isn't your position that if Sennheiser did endorse that view that they would be wrong? Are you now suggesting that, while there is no reason for you to try aftermarket cables and evaluate the issue for yourself with your own ears, if Sennheiser merely says it, you will now believe it? Who are you and what have you done with JF? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Good one Phil,

 I guess I'm confident that Sennheiser is more interested in developing the 700s for JaZZ, et al.


 JF


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* 
_I would venture that perhaps one of the problems with this assumption is that it might be predicated on the further assumption that a cable company would benefit by proving that aftermarket cables in general make a difference. It seems to me, however, that a particular cable company really only benefits from such a study if they prove that THEIR cables sound better than all the rest, and I think this will be very difficult to establish (as cables invariably are system dependant - note that even with the Senn phones, some prefer the Zu, some the Silver Dragon, etc.), and the results are likely to be subject to interpretation. I would suspect that the cost of such a study outweighs the risks, and also there is little need in any event, since (1) thousands and thousands of potential customers don't need a study to consider their products, and (2) the return policies offered by these vendors allows every consumer to do their own study.

 Also, why don't speaker companies do studies that show that their speakers sound better than all the rest?_

 

A decent study can be conducted in a short amount of time (a day, a weekend, a week...anything). My experience with listening tests is that as my mind loses track of what the configuration is, I get confused about which way sounds best. Beyond myself, I notice that a lot of people have strong aversions to listening tests. So far, this thread has only produced one report of a listening test. *There are boundaries to what is audible or not.*

 If anyone has purchased aftermarket cables and the build quality is good (because I expect that the connections to perturb the signal more than the wires), they are the equal of the stock cables.

 One interesting thing about the time and money that people invest in audio is that it seems that the equipment falls short of what people desire in an listening experience. For a long time, it's been almost a maxim that the transducers are where one ought to invest a significant amount of his/her money. It appears that will remain true for some time.


 JF


----------



## Langrath

Have aftermarket cables something in common with the exception of higher price? If you knew what they have in common, then you also could predict what is wrong with cheaper standard cables.
 If they have nothing in common but higher price, then I am getting more suspicious.

 Georg


----------



## e_dawg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_I have measured L and C with stock and Zu Mobius cable: _

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Stock (1.15 meter) ~290 pF
 Zu Mobius (1.0 meter) ~175 pF_

 

The stock HD650 cable is only 1.15 m long? I thought it was 10 ft (3.3 m). Well, my HD600 is 10 ft, and I assumed the 650 would be the same thing, although a little thicker.

 Anyways, my point is that the difference in capacitance is measurable and significant and could be responsible for the different sonic signature of the two cables. 

 jeffreyj discusses capacitance of the stock HD600 cable and the stability of op-amps in another thread:
  Quote:


 "The loop gain is an important factor for ensuring stability, but not
 the only one.

 I just measured the C and L characteristics of the detachable cord on
 my Senn's and got 470pF and 5.5uH per channel. Most high-speed op-amps
 will become great oscillators with so much capacitance and so little
 inductance in the line." 
 

to which ppl replies:
  Quote:


 "This would be true if the op amp is directly
 connected to the Headphones however in the instant cases the cans are
 connected to the Buffers." 
 

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=38061

 I don't think it is wrong to say that an unbuffered op-amp will behave quite differently with a higher capacitance load than it would with a low capacitance load. Or that even buffers could be affected without proper circuit design (input resistance or cap coupling??). 

 In other words, the capacitance of the cable not only acts as a high-pass filter and could be indicative of dielectric effect, but perhaps more significantly, the capacitive loading could induce undesirable effects in the amp itself.

 I am not sure how amps with buffers and circuit designs (e.g., PPA?) that are more tolerant of capacitance would be affected when faced with a high capacitance load.


----------



## e_dawg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Langrath* 
_Have aftermarket cables something in common with the exception of higher price? If you knew what they have in common, then you also could predict what is wrong with cheaper standard cables.
 If they have nothing in common but higher price, then I am getting more suspicious.

 Georg_

 

I would think all aftermarket cables have lower capacitance and better shielding / geometry (e.g., twisted pair) than stock cables.

 Come to think of it, can people who have aftermarket cables measure its capacitance and state the length? 

 So far, we have:

 Zu Mobius: 175 pF, 1 m
 Stock HD600: 470 pF, 3.3 m
 Stock HD650: 290 pF, 1.15 m ??
 Equinox: 
 Cardas:
 Headphile:


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *e_dawg* 
_The stock HD650 cable is only 1.15 m long? I thought it was 10 ft (3.3 m)._

 

I've shortened mine to this length.

  Quote:


 _In other words, the capacitance of the cable not only acts as a high-pass filter..._ 
 

Keep in mind that the capacitance is _parallel_ to the headphone drivers, thus it has no high-pass filter effect -- in contrast to inductance, which is in series.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Interesting e_dawg. At 30khz (the high frequency -3dB point), 470pF will have an impedance of ~8500 ohms. As JaZZ indicates, this is in parallel with the inductance of the transducer (which has an impedance of ~300 ohms). I don't see an issue.

 This in itself was not enough to post, however, I notice that Sennheiser's latest PDF for the 650 indicates a SPL of 115dB. This is contrast with the prior PDF and the user manual. Both state 103dB. Twelve dB is a large difference. Is this an error, or has the 650 changed? (Sent Sennheiser email about this.)


 JF


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JohnFerrier* 
_At 30khz (the high frequency -3dB point), 470pF will have an impedance of ~8500 ohms. As JaZZ indicates, this is in parallel with the inductance of the transducer (which has an impedance of ~300 ohms). I don't see an issue._

 

Interestingly my own cable designs show a pronounced (and rather sleek and glaring) treble with higher capacitance.


----------



## e_dawg

If the inductance is in series and the capacitance is in parallel, well then maybe it creates a 2nd order low-pass filter and increasing the capacitance will lower the Fc of the circuit. If you roll off the highest frequencies, all you will be left with is the lower/middle treble frequencies, which can make the treble glaring... just a guess.


----------



## e_dawg

Looks like my inkling was right... higher capacitance cables can form a low-pass filter and can roll off the high frequencies.

 Some excerpts from the Bryston(*) newsletter: Quote:


 ...The cable capacitance is charged and discharged by the signal through the output impedance of the source...*This characteristic makes the cable behave like a low-pass filter* so the output impedance and input load impedance is very important when connecting your equipment... *This is why it is critical when using tube equipment (which generally has high output impedance) to keep interconnects as short as possible. * 
 

http://www.bryston.ca/newsletters/82_files/vol8is2.html

 The corollary to the above is that if your ouptut impedance is low (e.g., PPA with quad output buffers, Gilmore amps, etc.) then headphone cables won't make that much of a difference.

 * - (Bryston is a Canadian manufacturer of home and professional amplifiers. I have the 3B and .3B power and pre-amps and would say they are a little better than most Adcom/Rotel/NAD mid-level gear.)


----------

