# Is Cryo Worth The Cost?



## Buggs

There are some amazing sonic claims out there regarding subjecting copper to a liquid nitrogen, which BTW very significantly increases the price.

 Got this from an ad:

 "Deep-immersion cryogenic treatment tightens and aligns the molecular structure of conductive alloys and metals at the molecular level. The result of this metallurgical transformation is significantly lower line resistance in the signal path for significantly less harmonic distortion. The overwhelming benefits of our proprietary cryogenic treatment process for audio cable are dramatically increased harmonic resolution, greater detail and transparence in the soundstage, and more accurate dynamic response throughout the audible range."


----------



## SilverPilot

Does anyone know if a cryo copper cable is able to withstand more abuse (twisting) than a normal one?


----------



## TheMarchingMule

For *SilverPilot*: "Talk about exotic wire, folks this is it. Made especially for Jena Tech for treatment in their Cryo lab. This stuff is the best kept secret in the interconnect world. I sat and bent 3 of these wires back a fourth for a hour, not only did they not break but there was zero stress or strain. Awesome stuff."

 That's from http://www.aloaudio.com/

 For *Buggs*: it's up to you in the end. I knew I could tell the difference between Jumbo Cryo and regular Cryo docks of ALO, so I decided to go all out. I went from Bling Bling to Cryo. Big and welcome difference. For instance, with the BB, Tool CDs, when they got heavy, sounded as if all of it was being forced through the skinny wire; massive bandwidth problem, no? Now with the Jumbo Cryo, everything is given its own space and room to breathe, and details are therefore easier to hear and pick out.

 Both of you, try and look at the Cable buy/sale/trade forum every now and then if you are still interested in cryo docks. That's how I got my Jumbo Cryo for cheap!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Lowering line resistance can easily be achieved by using a bigger diameter for the conductor.

 The rest of course, is a completely undefinite omnium gatherum of subjective, pseudo technical/acoustical fantasy terms with the purpose to build up an excessive expectation on the product and arouse the appeal of physicall replicability.
 Hopefully for the advertiser, this should increase your willingness to spend a disproportional amount of money on an otherwise rather useless and/or unfancyful or untrustworthy product as well as priming your imagination and sensibility for the placebo-effect when "testing" it later.

 Now that wasn't too difficult, was it?


----------



## PhilS

Yawn.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ sounded as if all of it was being forced through the skinny wire_

 

It's still being pushed through the tiny pins on the male and female connectors.


----------



## SilverPilot

Thanks, I'm considering getting a cryo dock from ALO.


----------



## barqy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Buggs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are some amazing sonic claims out there regarding subjecting copper to a liquid nitrogen, which BTW very significantly increases the price.

 Got this from an ad:

 "Deep-immersion cryogenic treatment tightens and aligns the molecular structure of conductive alloys and metals at the molecular level. The result of this metallurgical transformation is significantly lower line resistance in the signal path for significantly less harmonic distortion. The overwhelming benefits of our proprietary cryogenic treatment process for audio cable are dramatically increased harmonic resolution, greater detail and transparence in the soundstage, and more accurate dynamic response throughout the audible range."_

 

well, you could always buy some cryo treated wire and non-cryo wire and make your own?

 anyway just a suggestion.

 i bought some cryo treated copper vampire wire (22awg) and some regular copper vampire wire (22awg) to make an ipod dock out of.

 i finished the cryo one and it definately sounds different from the silver and silver in silk line out docks i previously made.

 i haven't made a regular vampire line out dock yet, so i can't say if it really makes a difference.


----------



## RCM

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *barqy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i finished the cryo one and it definately sounds different from the silver and silver in silk line out docks i previously made._

 

Different as in you like it better, or...?


----------



## ken36

Not when you go to sell it.


----------



## meat01

I am not sure what you are looking for Buggs. There has been no scientific proof that cryo makes cables sound better. You will hear a lot of people claim they sound better and you will hear a lot of people say there is no difference. You will really just have to try for yourself and see if it is worth it to you.


----------



## Happy Camper

On discussion threads about this topic, the issue of using the cooling process to change the normal structure would have to be done from liquid to solid state of the copper. There is some suspicion that dropping a molded cable into liquid won't change the alignment. I do not know. 

 Would it help the conductivity to magnatize the liquid copper while cooling? Perhaps align the polarity of molecules?


----------



## meat01

OK, here is some more information to help you with your decision. Most people on this forum would agree that cables add the least amount of change to the overall sound of your system. With that logic, changing the cable characteristics doesn't seem like the most value added tweak.

 There are also amazing sonic claims for ERS paper, stones and rainbow foil. That does not mean they are the best solution. Your ears are really the only solution.


----------



## Buggs

Thanks for the posts. 

 As far as what I thought I might get. 

 Well, maybe some convincing or persuasive findings that might convince a fair-minded, critically thinking person to dig down and pay the extra for cryo treated items.


----------



## Buggs

Link


----------



## SilverPilot

I'll give some impressions of the ALO mini cryo compared to a Turbodock II and Turbo cable after I get it.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Buggs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Link_

 

Just don't forget to order some liquid nitrogen with your new cable.


----------



## tom10167

what about the multi array? Not much more than the jumbo.

http://www.aloaudio.com/multiarray/MA%20dock.html


----------



## braillediver

"significantly lower line resistance"

 If that statement had any validity or truth they would post measurements!

 Resistance is a known and understood quantity. It is accurately measurable to 3 decimal places with reasonbly priced 4 wire ohm meters. Being they don't show / list the actual "significantly lower line resistance" means it's BS.

 If not Show Me the measurements!


 Mitch


----------



## RCM

I'm looking forward to trying mine out-I never thought I'd be spending this much on cables.

 Or spending this much on IEMs (UE-10s), amp (Tomahawk) and source (Redwine iMod).

 HeadFi has got to be a high-end manufacturer's conspiracy.


----------



## omendelovitz

You ever see a circuit board? Ever notice how miniscule the signal paths tend to be? You ever look at the pins on an iPod Line-out dock? Bottom line - bottleneck. A 3 lane highway will jam up very quickly if the on-ramps have 5 lanes...


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *omendelovitz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You ever see a circuit board? Ever notice how miniscule the signal paths tend to be? You ever look at the pins on an iPod Line-out dock? Bottom line - bottleneck. A 3 lane highway will jam up very quickly if the on-ramps have 5 lanes..._

 

That statement really hits home if you have ever made your own dock. That expensive wire isn't even connected to the pins directly. 

 And if lowered resistance is the benefit of cryo treating copper why not just use silver to begin with?


----------



## tnmike1

I own both ALO's "regular" jenna cryodock and Moon Audio's Silver Dragon Pocket Dock. Both been used about 200+ hrs so they're burned properly. Used with SR-71 and Portaphile into a 5g Ipod.

 Love them both and for different reasons: the copper gets used for jazz, vocals and 30s and 40s Big Band stuff. Silver gets used for symphonic stuff and classical where there's lots of orchestration.

 I really feel I get a bigger soundstage with silver, but copper is warm and more intimate, if that makes any sense.

 Now investigating dropping $160+ for the Jumbo, but having the same problem as a previous poster: all that cable still has to be fed thru a miniplug??? I wonder. Altho in all fariness, Ken offers a return policy so might just do it.

 And the copper does withstand more twisting and convoluting than the silver, which is way more rigid. But Iwonder how in the world you can abuse a cable whose only use is being plugged and unplugged into an amp and player

 O forgot to add: check out the new cotton docks offered at ALO. Somewhat less money than the Jumbo and have talked with Ken--he feels that cotton/silver may give better soundstage, altho I've told him it's for big symphonic stuff. So that may be a caveat


----------



## barqy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RCM* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Different as in you like it better, or...?_

 

well sound is all subjective, so with that said

 i like both the silk dock and the cryo dock i made.







 yes that wasn't too helpful i know


----------



## Duggeh

Anyone have any experience with cryo-treated tubes vs non-cryo of the same? The price tag is like £12 more on a £15 pair of tubes.


----------



## cotdt

Guys, cyro treating is BAD! it changes the magnetic properties of the metal and causes alignment, and in our noisy world of EMI, this can only increase distortion!

 it will also make your cables brittle!

 liquid nitrogen is cheaper than gasoline, so obviously those guys are making a huge profit cyrotreating cables. it should not cost more than $5!


----------



## naamanf

You forget the stopwatch...I mean computer monitored warming process


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys, cyro treating is BAD! it changes the magnetic properties of the metal and causes alignment, and in our noisy world of EMI, this can only increase distortion!

 it will also make your cables brittle!

 liquid nitrogen is cheaper than gasoline, so obviously those guys are making a huge profit cyrotreating cables. it should not cost more than $5!_

 

Damn, crack really _is_ bad for you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And if you shoot yourself with a .45 cal you might die!

 Also, grass is green!

 Oh, and fire can burn your skin!


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Damn, crack really is bad for you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

i know you intended to imply that cotdt is on crack, but it sounded like you just stumbled upon some completely obvious epiphany that everyone else in the world already figured out. you might as well have said something even more obvious, like "if you shoot yourself in the head with a .45 cal you might die!" or "grass is green!" or "fire can burn your skin!".


----------



## Harricanes

I have never seen any comparison of cryo copper and non cryo copper. How do you tell them apart?


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Harricanes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have never seen any comparison of cryo copper and non cryo copper. How do you tell them apart?_

 

Price.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Price._

 

And structure. if you would take a slice out of a core, they would be quite different. 

 Cryo: it only helps during processing the copper or silver cores. Cryo after the cables are manufactured is not really all that effective and yes, it can change the structure for worse.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_they would be quite different. 
_

 

Really? How do you figure?


----------



## bluey_02

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Price._

 

Oh, perfect, perfect comment. That really made me laugh.

 Yeah I'm kinda wondering if the price really is the only reason that people think these cables are of such high quality. Before the guy who makes ALO cables goes off at me, I honestly doubt that his cables are worth anywhere near to what they are priced. An example, if the wire is so expensive to make, why is there only a 5 dollar difference between a *clearly* half-sized micro dock to a normal cryo dock?


----------



## Febs

Can anyone recommend (or link to) any papers regarding the effect that cryogenic treatment has on cables? I'm looking for a description of the physical changes and the electrical effects of those more so than subjective impressions of such cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? How do you figure?_

 


 The cryogenic treatment effects the crystal structure of a core. One with or one without treatment can be distinctly identified. As is with ohno single crystal structure or without single crystal structure.

 While it might do some good during process, when you actually melt the copper or silver into a core and cool it rapidly, it changed the crystal structure of the metal. This ensures better conductivity. If you do it with a completely manufactured cable, it might get brittle. I highly doubt the effect of cryotreatment with existing cables.

 It can purify the crystal structure and remove any impurities.

 quote:
 "In Cryogenic treatment the material is subject to deep freeze temperatures of as low as -185°C (-301°F), but usually -75°C (-103°F) is sufficient. The Austenite is unstable at this temperature, and the whole structures becomes Martensite. This is the reason to use Cryogenic treatment."

 quote:
 Advantages 
 Increase resistance to abrasive wear 
 Requires only one permanent treatment 
 Changes the entire grain structure of the metal, not just the surfaces 
 Refinishing or regrinds do not affect permanent improvements 
 Eliminates thermal shock through a dry, computer controlled process 
 Transforms most retained austenite to hard martensite 
 Forms micro-fine carbide fillers to enhance carbide structures 
 Increases durability and wear life 
 Decreases residual stresses in tool steels 
 Decreases brittleness 
 Increases tensile strength, toughness and stability 
 Relaxes internal stresses 
 Works on new or used tools 
 Reduced down time, less maintenance and higher productivity 
 Deep cryo processing is compatible with other treatments (TiN, Chrome, Teflon etc.) 
 High alloy steel cutting tools stay sharper longer, fewer micro-cracks, less chipping 
 Results in the orderly arrangement of crystals, increases internal bonding energy, and achieves a structural balance throughout the mass of the material ""

 especially the last one is important for audio cables.

 Link with pics before and after cryo treatment:
http://www.cryogenicsinternational.com/


----------



## Harricanes

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And structure. if you would take a slice out of a core, they would be quite different. 

 Cryo: it only helps during processing the copper or silver cores. Cryo after the cables are manufactured is not really all that effective and yes, it can change the structure for worse._

 

Maybe you can share the link with the photos showing slices of both.

 I don't understand what you mean "during the processing the copper or silver cores". How is cryo used during the manufacturing/processing of copper and silver? What is a core?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Harricanes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe you can share the link with the photos showing slices of both.

 I don't understand what you mean "during the processing the copper or silver cores". How is cryo used during the manufacturing/processing of copper and silver? What is a core?_

 

Link is in the post above.


----------



## Harricanes

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Link is in the post above._

 

Definitely a change in ferrous metal, and this is well documented by science. Copper on the other hand is a non ferrous metal and might not be subject to the same molecular changes that appear in ferrous metals.

 It would be interesting to know if there is a difference.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Harricanes* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Definitely a change in ferrous metal, and this is well documented by science. Copper on the other hand is a non ferrous metal and might not be subject to the same molecular changes that appear in ferrous metals.

 It would be interesting to know if there is a difference._

 

yes, if you use the ohno single crystal structure there is a big difference. I posted pictures of normal ofc copper and oh-ofc cooper and the crystal structure IS quite different. Much better conductivity and better frequency transport, less frequency loss that is.

 Quote:
 "When copper, silver, or brass, or any metal used in audio, is formed into cables or AC plugs, the materials develop residual stress. For example, microscopic examination of the copper in an AC cord would reveal many voids in the crystal lattice structure of the copper due to these residual stresses. Deep cryogenic treatment works at the atomic level; as the temperature decreases the atomic bonds start to weaken and the crystal structure of copper reverts to its original state. In addition, the surface of the metal becomes much smoother, ensuring a much better fit between metal pieces."


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Much better conductivity and better frequency transport, less frequency loss that is._

 

No, no, and no. 

 I think we have already shown what the frequency loss between silver and tin is. And it isn't enough to make a difference in the realm of human hearing with cables under a couple miles long. Let alone the difference between copper and copper


----------



## Uncle Erik

Interestingly, cryo makes a difference with tool steel. I've used cryo drill bits and blades for planes, and they do, genuinely, hold up much better than non-cryo tools.

 Thing is, I don't see how cryo would make any difference at passing an electrical signal. Cables are not subject to physical wear when passing electricity, so it's like saying that a mirror would make a great boat because it reflects sunlight well. It is a _non sequitur_ and a logical fallacy.

 Also, the price of cryo cables is *incredibly* high. If you look around, there are a number of places that'll cryo your tools in liquid nitrogen. A few years back, I saw one place offering to treat simple, small blades for as little as $9. Yes, nine dollars. Anyone asking hundreds for cryo treated cables is ripping you off. There's zero room for argument about that, too. If you don't believe me, here's some cryo prices for gun parts:

http://www.onecryo.com/onecryo/firearms-armprice.htm


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Dammit, this is becoming more and more bad for me and others who invested in a (Jumbo) Cryo dock from ALO. Thankfully a Head-Fi'er gave me a generous discount on it, but still...


----------



## bluey_02

Wonderful, can't wait for my DIABOLOUS V7 to arrive..


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, no, and no. 

 I think we have already shown what the frequency loss between silver and tin is. And it isn't enough to make a difference in the realm of human hearing with cables under a couple miles long. Let alone the difference between copper and copper
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

YOU THINK:

 Please let ME decide what to think or what to hear!

 I know where you stand according to cables.

 I showed in other threads that there is a measerable difference between ofc copper and oh-ofc copper, You're simply wrong so think again. Copper isn't just simply copper. 

 If the titanic was made with the steel quality we have today it simply wouldn't have happened, Old steel has lots of impurities and was quite brittle!

 One human isn't simply the same as another human.

 You never heard cryo treated cables, never heard high end cables but you still asume. Now, what do you want me to THINK of that.

 A measuring instrument doesn't dictate ME what to hear. Psychology, remember.

 Cheers.

 Cryo during process might help, i doubt cryo afterwards helps(already constructed cables).

 The question was: is cryo treatment worth the cost. if it is just 9 dollars, there's nothing much to loose. If it costs hundreds of dollars, i would suggest to listen to those cables very carefully. Some NONE cryo treated cables simply sound better then cryo treated cables.(no, i am not talking about the cheap 50 dollar cables).


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Psychology, remember.
_

 

That about sums it up.

 And that about sums up every other little gimick salesmen have some up with to fleece music lovers. You could also go on and say how great that jar of moon rocks sitting next to the amplifier makes everything sound. Or that zebra wood is far superior to oak for cable stands because the stripes disrupt the earths magnetic field.

 But the fact of the matter is you never showed anything that proved anything. Go back and look again. Unless your hearing is 1000 times better than any other human you couldn't hear the difference between a silver and tin wire. Let alone two 99.999% pure copper ones.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That about sums it up.

 And that about sums up every other little gimick salesmen have some up with to fleece music lovers. You could also go on and say how great that jar of moon rocks sitting next to the amplifier makes everything sound. Or that zebra wood is far superior to oak for cable stands because the stripes disrupt the earths magnetic field.

 But the fact of the matter is you never showed anything that proved anything. Go back and look again. Unless your hearing is 1000 times better than any other human you couldn't hear the difference between a silver and tin wire. Let alone two 99.999% pure copper ones._

 

Not for me,

 since a cable isn't only a core, the rest of the components is also off importance. So, there are still differences in cables, no matter what you say.

 As of psychology; you don't think there is a difference in cables, then you won't hear a difference in cables.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I heard plenty of cables in different priceranges and of different brands and i can confidently say there is a HUGE difference in the sound of differend cables.

 You also said a human cannot hear 20khz, But pro's showed that some hear even to 25khz. Now what does that prove about you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Either you're simply wrong or you are deaf.

 But, you're entiteled to your opinion, i am to mine and i listen to cables, not look at them. In all those years i have gained enough listening experience to hear differences in cables, gear and speakers and also can point em out specifically. if i try a cable that has been cryo treated and i don't hear a difference with one that was the same and not treated, i wouldn't do it again. it's that simple.

 Trial and error gets you further, also in finding the best synergy or setup. Measuring instruments don't tell you anything about that.

 P.s.
 Get the technical papers of the ohno single crystal technology and you won't say anything anymore about not proving anything is better then ofc copper. It measurably IS better! But then again you'll just simply say that the differences are too small to be heard, you never proved that, didn't you.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dammit, this is becoming more and more bad for me and others who invested in a (Jumbo) Cryo dock from ALO. Thankfully a Head-Fi'er gave me a generous discount on it, but still... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Don't let others who don't know you, your preferences, your system, or what you have heard determine for you whether you made a correct decision in purchasing something or not, at least with respect to the particular item under discussion. Certain folks around here have some valuable and interesting things to say on these subjects, on both sides of the issue -- and some people are just trolls who let to get their jollies by p*issing on other things and other people, which makes them feel better for some odd reason.


----------



## Genetic

Team auto-deleted.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't let others who don't know you, your preferences, your system, or what you have heard determine for you whether you made a correct decision in purchasing something or not, at least with respect to the particular item under discussion. Certain folks around here have some valuable and interesting things to say on these subjects, on both sides of the issue -- and some people are just trolls who let to get their jollies by p*issing on other things and other people, which makes them feel better for some odd reason. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thanks, *PhilS*. The more I thought about it, the more I figured that I did indeed get what I paid for, and although I made a huge jump from a Bling-Bling to a Jumbo Cryo, I am happy about the improvement and shouldn't worry what material it was made out of or how it was done, because in the end it just sounds good...._very_ good.

 I'm personally disgusted that *Vul Kuolun* used me as part of his attack on Ken, but it just shows how low he will go.

 I'll be off enjoying my Hornet and Jumbo Cryo now, folks.


----------



## Tarheel

Cryo treatment is rather inexpensive. You can get a 1000' of copper wire treated for around $75. Here is a place that will treat a tuba for $150 and that's much larger than 1000' feet of 12AWG wire.
Link


----------



## Jaska

I sure like my Cryo Micro 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If I were more adept at soldering and had the talent that comes along with making hundreds (and thousands?) of audio cables, I suppose I would have been happy to fabricate a similar cable for my own use. But that's not currently the case, so I think it's fair to comment that the cryo-treated cable I bought from ALO fits my needs perfectly.

 As far as I can see, all good audio cables come at a price, whether cryo-treated or otherwise. For anyone contemplating buying a super-duper expensive IC, I would hope that they would arrange (if at all possible) some type of listening test before forking over the money.


----------



## naamanf

Lets break this down a bit.

 Retail prices

 Dock Connector = $2.10
 Canare Miniplug =$3.80
 Jenna wire=$6 foot x 3ft =$18 at the most
 Misc=$3

 Total=$26.90 at the most for parts to make the cable with the cryo wire. The wire costs for something like starquad would be about $1 and for $9 for silver wire. 

 For someone that has a good technique for building the wire I would say it takes 30min at the most per cable. And the typical going rate for someone doing electronic work would be $50-$70. So about $35 for labor. 

 So now we are up to about $60. Figure the rest of the cost is going into product development.

 Now does $165 seem steep? I would say yes when comparing it to the Vampire dock which costs $80 and costs $16 less to build. 

 But I would say it's consistent with other parts of the audio world. I really want a pair of Magico Mini speakers that cost $20,000. The parts cost about $3000. So I plan on building my own because I have the tools and the ability to do so. Will it be an exact copy? No. But it will close enough for the $17,000 savings. 

 I think the same applies to cables, not just the docks. If you don't have the tools/ability/time I don't see the problem spending the money if the product really makes that much of a difference. I think the problem arises when people are swayed to believe something is better based on price/hype/elegant sales pitches.


----------



## Nardin

Placebo/emotional bias effects are present in every listening experience and are with us all the time. We cannot get away from them. They are inherent part of human perception/psychology and occur in every listening experience - controlled comparison, uncontrolled comparison, or just kicking back in your living room and firing up your system/phones

 The best anyone can do is to isolate and identify them, and measure the way that they skew our perceptions, so that we can separate out the skewing effects from what we're really trying to evaluate.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I think the problem arises when people are swayed to believe something is better based on price/hype/elegant sales pitches._

 

True, but none of us knows whether any particular person on this thread (or on this board whether other similar topics arise) has been duped by such "pitches." I think it's useful to exchange information on how much the components of certain products cost, how much markup may be built into certain products (and cables are certainly not unique in this regard in the audio field), and the alternative of DIY, etc., but it's rather presumptuous for some folks to suggest others are getting ripped off because the purchaser thinks that something they bought is worth the money notwithstanding that they could have DIY'ed for much cheaper if they were so inclined. (I'm not saying you are being presumptuous, but it is typical of some folks on this thread and similar threads to be "know it alls" about what is right for someone else.)

 P.S. There are some folks on this thread whose time, based on what they charge in the market for their services, is valued in excess of $300 to $400 per hour. This is arguably the relevant rate for comparing the cost of DIY vs. a product one can buy off the shelf. So it's not surprising that such folks would not bat an eye about paying $150 for a product that involves a substantial markup. There will be no markup, i.e., there will be a "loss," if they DIY it at their hourly rate (i.e., opportunity cost). And that's assuming the person has the equipment and knowledge to do a DIY in any event.

 Now the issue is somewhat different if there are comptetive off-the-shelf products available at a much cheaper cost that deliver the same improvement. But I haven't seen proof yet that this is the case yet with respect to the product under discussion or similar products in similar threads. So, again, it's useful to discuss alternatives and cost vs. benefits of products, but when people make absolute judgments that a product is "not worth it" for someone else or in an absolute sense (and I'm not putting you in that category), they rarely have a basis for doing so. They are just advancing their own agenda or trying to pick a fight.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nardin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Placebo/emotional bias effects are present in every listening experience and are with us all the time. We cannot get away from them. They are inherent part of human perception/psychology and occur in every listening experience - controlled comparison, uncontrolled comparison, or just kicking back in your living room and firing up your system/phones

 The best anyone can do is to isolate and identify them, and measure the way that they skew our perceptions, so that we can separate out the skewing effects from what we're really trying to evaluate._

 

 An alternative is to make a reasoned judgment about whether the difference one hears is attributable to placebo -- without "isolating" the effect. For example, I feel confident that my car radio does not sound as good as my headphone system, and I don't think that placebo is influencing that judgment, or that the placebo effect needs to be "isolated" to make the judgment with confidence. In short, with all due respect, I think your statement is a bit overbroad, although I agree the placebo effect is real and can influence what we think we hear if we are not careful.


----------



## recstar24

http://www.vhaudio.com/cryo.html

 This is a pretty good basic primer on the subject of cryo treatment on cables. He shoots pretty straight and doesn't make any obnoxious claims even though he sells wire and cables with cryo treatment. However, I remember when he use to sell the cryo treatment as an upgrade option, I believe it was only $10-$15 more expensive to have the IC cryo treated. So at bare mininum, at least you weren't charged with an arm and a leg. When I bought my 1st set of pulsars, i had the option of the standard or cryo version, but I figured what the heck, its only 10-15 bucks more. They do sound nice, but never directly compared to the normal version. Now Chris only sells the cryo version.


----------



## elrod-tom

Now, a word of warning from the moderators:

 This thread is going downhill fast. I just dumped a whole series of posts that were either thread craps or responses to said posts.

 Anyone who wishes to post in this thread is expected to observe the topic of the thread. Those who prefer to argue and otherwise be beligerant are thus advised that they should do so and be so elsewhere.

 Thanks....


----------



## ScrambleDog

Advertising probably plays a bigger role in how you spend your $$ than it should.

 Example. I was in Seattle last year and went into a bar that had 15 local/regional microbrews on tap. Not knowing most of them, I asked which draft beer was the most popular.

 Answer: Bud Light


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ScrambleDog* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Advertising probably plays a bigger role in how you spend your $$ than it should.

 Example. I was in Seattle last year and went into a bar that had 15 local/regional microbrews on tap. Not knowing most of them, I asked which draft beer was the most popular.

 Answer: Bud Light_

 

It might be for less seasoned listeners or less experienced people. When you listened to high end gear or gear in general for a long time you know in time what you could expect from a certain pricepoint. The seasoned audiophiles know that only the ears tell the truth. If you like what you hear, buy it, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

 As for price...there are high end IC's for 3000-4000 a meter but also for 9000a meter. In this context 3000 dollars seems like a steal. It all depends what you are accustomed to and willing to pay!

 As for bear, budweiser and heineken are not even near the best beers around, they are consumer beer, like a cheap wine for dinner. So, apperntly the very nice and costly advertising of especially heineken is not affecting me. I had much better beers, especially belgian beers are a magnitude better.

 Does that say nobody can like budweiser? No, for every taste a beer.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lets break this down a bit.

 Retail prices

 Dock Connector = $2.10
 Canare Miniplug =$3.80
 Jenna wire=$6 foot x 3ft =$18 at the most
 Misc=$3

 Total=$26.90 at the most for parts to make the cable with the cryo wire. The wire costs for something like starquad would be about $1 and for $9 for silver wire. 

 For someone that has a good technique for building the wire I would say it takes 30min at the most per cable. And the typical going rate for someone doing electronic work would be $50-$70. So about $35 for labor. 

 So now we are up to about $60. Figure the rest of the cost is going into product development.

 Now does $165 seem steep? I would say yes when comparing it to the Vampire dock which costs $80 and costs $16 less to build. 

 But I would say it's consistent with other parts of the audio world. I really want a pair of Magico Mini speakers that cost $20,000. The parts cost about $3000. So I plan on building my own because I have the tools and the ability to do so. Will it be an exact copy? No. But it will close enough for the $17,000 savings. 

 I think the same applies to cables, not just the docks. If you don't have the tools/ability/time I don't see the problem spending the money if the product really makes that much of a difference. I think the problem arises when people are swayed to believe something is better based on price/hype/elegant sales pitches._

 

You are forgetting the one and formost important thing: research. Testing material and finding out wich materials combine best for the best sound of the materials you have at hand is time consuming! All the time you're not making any money, so, this is also calculated into the cable's price. High end cables have all the research in them and the cheaper cables are derived from the top end cables. Hence the higher price for material and manpower invested in making your top end cables.(think of machines for making those cables etc.)

 Do you really think they just buy blindly some things and put it together and hope for the best?
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Even DIY headfiers don't work that way.


----------



## ScrambleDog

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It might be for less seasoned listeners or less experienced people. When you listened to high end gear or gear in general for a long time you know in time what you could expect from a certain pricepoint. The seasoned audiophiles know that only the ears tell the truth. If you like what you hear, buy it, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

 As for price...there are high end IC's for 3000-4000 a meter but also for 9000a meter. In this context 3000 dollars seems like a steal. It all depends what you are accustomed to and willing to pay!

 As for bear, budweiser and heineken are not even near the best beers around, they are consumer beer, like a cheap wine for dinner. So, apperntly the very nice and costly advertising of especially heineken is not affecting me. I had much better beers, especially belgian beers are a magnitude better.

 Does that say nobody can like budweiser? No, for every taste a beer._

 

Granted, but Budweiser is the #1 selling beer in the USA and according to you not even the best.

 Res ipsa loquitur


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 As for price...there are high end IC's for 3000-4000 a meter but also for 9000a meter. In this context 3000 dollars seems like a steal. It all depends what you are accustomed to and willing to pay!
_

 

And again what does price have to do with it? Higher prices doesn't mean better.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And again what does price have to do with it? Higher prices doesn't mean better._

 

You can't tell since you never heard those cables.

 Asume, asume, asume.

 you asume alot and listen way to less.

 It might be, it might be not. But i was using it to compare price differences and how people look at it. For some 3000 is a steal compared to a 9000 dollar cable but most find 3000 even way to much for a cable...no matter how good it is. It was used in the context of advertising, not quality!


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really?

 As in live you have to pay for quality._

 

Normally I totally agree with that statement. And I also agree when it comes down to build and connectors used. But as for the actual wire itself that statement couldn't be farther off the mark. Just because a wire costs $9000 doesn't mean it does a better job at transferring the signal of $1 piece of wire.


----------



## tom10167

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can't tell since you never heard those cables._

 


 Fallacious logic defined.


 If I bought Budweiser, recanned it in a nice bottle(something like Stohl's swingtops) and charged $25 for a 4pack, it probably wouldn't be the most highly recommended beer on the market(but that's only because unlike H-Fi you're looking at a much bigger sample size) but it would certainly get great reviews by the "It's expensive it's at least really good" crowd.


----------



## Febs

I'm responding to your original post, before you edited it and completely changed it:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really?

 As in live you have to pay for quality._

 

Yes, you have to pay for quality. But you seem to assume that just because high quality may be expensive, that everything that is expensive is also high quality, and that is a fallacy.


----------



## threEchelon

I really don't think that research is costing ALO much. And people buy his prototype cables too.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm responding to your original post, before you edited it and completely changed it:



 Yes, you have to pay for quality. But you seem to assume that just because high quality may be expensive, that everything that is expensive is also high quality, and that is a fallacy._

 

I have yet to hear a cable that is higher priced that isn't better then a cheaper cable in a brand range.

 Assuming that everybody is an idiot and not listening to cables if they are any better or worth the price is a fallacy to me. I personally never bought a cable just because of a price. Also assuming that people who buy expensive cables are idiots is also fallacy. As some so passionately try to preach in every thread about cables.

 Some might, since some people have plenty of money to spend and don't mind quality but bling!

 I know people who spend 50.000 or more on a rig put together by a shop and don't care how it sounds, as long it is big, expensive and shiny. Those people i don't considder audiophiles.

 Audiophiles are people willing to spend time to test their rigs, listen to it extensively and change cables, sources, amps or speakers where needed to complete their dream rig. This for as less money as possible, if possible. Sometimes a component for your system is better then you where using before and you simply have to pay for it. I myself are very well aware of the deminishing returns as you go higher up the ladder!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tom10167* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fallacious logic defined.


 If I bought Budweiser, recanned it in a nice bottle(something like Stohl's swingtops) and charged $25 for a 4pack, it probably wouldn't be the most highly recommended beer on the market(but that's only because unlike H-Fi you're looking at a much bigger sample size) but it would certainly get great reviews by the "It's expensive it's at least really good" crowd._

 

Not really, since you faulsly assume that there are not any people who can actually tell the difference of beers! believe me, heineken and butweiser don't taste the same!

 So, in a sense your logic is also defined.

 people can tell differences between cables and therefor determin for themselves if a cable is worth the money or not. If something was relabeled and higher prices it eventually will be disclosed as being overpriced!

 If i find something not worth the price i simply don't buy it!period.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *threEchelon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really don't think that research is costing ALO much. And people buy his prototype cables too._

 

maybe not alo but i know some other brands spend much more money on research and equipment. That has to be earned back one way or the other.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Normally I totally agree with that statement. And I also agree when it comes down to build and connectors used. But as for the actual wire itself that statement couldn't be farther off the mark. Just because a wire costs $9000 doesn't mean it does a better job at transferring the signal of $1 piece of wire._

 

I didn't state anything about sound quality, so that is just your imagination.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I stated clearly that some people are willing to spend money on cables. period.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have yet to hear a cable that is higher priced that isn't better then a cheaper cable in a brand range._

 

Seems like your stating it here.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Testing material and *finding out wich materials combine best for the best sound* of the materials you have at hand is time consuming!_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*I didn't state anything about sound quality*, so that is just your imagination.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


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



_

 

Not in the same post and not in the same context, cherry picking that way IS really easy.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This was about research. So it doesn't state anywhere that it is better then another brand using other materials or other research. But the best a brand can do with resources and research and that it influences the cost of a cable..... and yes brands really think that their top end cables are their best. It doesn't mean you have to agree of what the company thinks about their cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seems like your stating it here._

 

Not in the same post and not the same context.

 yes, in a range of a brand there is always consistant improvement to the high end section, since i actually did this with a certain brand and can tell for certain that every step up in a pricerange was also a step up in sound. Since you go up in a range, you also go up in price, but that's with every brand. The difference between the top end cable and the almost top end cable is very small, but noticable yet there is is still a considderable price difference! The difference between the cheapest and the top end cable is huge!

 This is also true for sources, amps and speakers in a range of a brand.

 You really think a manufacterer makes his cheapest product much better then it's more expensive ones? If so, they would be very fast out of business!

 If so then the cheapest speakers would be as good or better then higher prices ones, or sources or amps.


----------



## ScrambleDog

Is it possible that cryo treatment of copper works by "intelligent design"? 

 I really don't know jack about metallurgy, but I can tell you it is not an exercise seeking subjective qualities.

 If there was anything to cryo treating alloys and non ferrous metals, NASA, Boeing, and the military aircraft manufacturers would have put hundreds of millions into it and there would be scientific papers on the subject.


----------



## naamanf

The problem is there is plenty of scientific data available. The difference in resistance between two cables can be measured. The thing is there isn't a difference that would have such a significant effect to change that ability of the cable to transfer electrons enough to alter the signal being passed. 

 Back to the original topic at hand. 

 Is it worth it? If you have already maxed out the sonic ability of the rest of the components and are hoping to eek out the smallest gain then by all means mix it up and try new things. You may/may not be surprised at what you hear/don't hear. But if you know the components in the system are not the best they can be then put the money towards them.

 Also if you have the time and the patience I suggest taking that money and buying a soldering iron and a bunch of connectors and different wire.


----------



## tom10167

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really, since you faulsly assume that there are not any people who can actually tell the difference of beers! believe me, heineken and butweiser don't taste the same!

 So, in a sense your logic is also defined.

 people can tell differences between cables and therefor determin for themselves if a cable is worth the money or not. If something was relabeled and higher prices it eventually will be disclosed as being overpriced!

 If i find something not worth the price i simply don't buy it!period._

 

Are you just choosing to read what you want?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tom10167* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you just choosing to read what you want?_

 

People will notice if something is relabeled or overpriced. 

 Remember red rose the sub company of mark levinson? They imported chinese high end amps and marked them up 7 times and sold them for 7000 dollars each. the chinese version was just about 1000 dollars. People quickly discovered they were the same and started importing the chinese version.

 So, relabeling cheap products is not gonna fool everybody. As it would with budweiser, a connesseur of beers will know it's the same taste with a higher price!

 In short, not everybody is fooled or drawn by high prices.

 In the end a product that is high priced and not that good will be disclosed. But what you said, that will not stop people from buying it because it is expensive.....the audiophiles know what to do with it.....just leave it as it is.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The problem is there is plenty of scientific data available. The difference in resistance between two cables can be measured. The thing is there isn't a difference that would have such a significant effect to change that ability of the cable to transfer electrons enough to alter the signal being passed. 

 Back to the original topic at hand. 

 Is it worth it? If you have already maxed out the sonic ability of the rest of the components and are hoping to eek out the smallest gain then by all means mix it up and try new things. You may/may not be surprised at what you hear/don't hear. But if you know the components in the system are not the best they can be then put the money towards them.

 Also if you have the time and the patience I suggest taking that money and buying a soldering iron and a bunch of connectors and different wire._

 

If you read my post of wich data are the most important for the caracter of a cable then you should know by now that it is NOT resistance that dictates the sound! It is clearly stated in that article that resistance has the least influence on that.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 you really are cherry picking, aren't you.

 I quote again:

 "The "personality" of a cable is determined by three basic electrical properties: resistance, capacitance, and inductance. *Resistance is probably the smallest factor, because cables use good conductors (copper and silver). *_*The real culprits in cable transmission are capacitance, measured in picofarads or pF (trillionths of a farad) per foot, and inductance, measured in microhenrys (millionths of a henry) per foot."*_


 "Any time conductors are surrounded by an insulator (dielectric), capacitance occurs. You want this to happen with capacitors inside the amplifier, but not in the cables. *Depending on the insulator, some of the electrical signal passing through the cable is transferred to the insulator, stored as energy (electrons), then released back into the cable where it causes a degradation in the sound quality.* The type of insulator has a direct effect on the capacitance. Various insulators are used in high fidelity cables, and, in increasing quality, they are PVC, followed by polyethylene, polypropylene, and finally, *Teflon, which is the best.* Usually, *Teflon insulated cables are the most expensive, partially because it is a difficult material to work with.* Typical values of capacitance with high quality audio cables vary from 6pF to 50pF per foot. Inductance is the property of the signal in one conductor inducing current in another nearby conductor, and inhibiting current flow in the opposite direction. This is desirable in transformers, but not in cables. Since cables usually have two leads, each conducting in the opposite direction to complete the circuit, *high inductance can cause the flow of current in one lead to interfere with the flow in the other lead.* Inductance values for audio cables vary from about 0.1 microhenrys to 0.6 microhenrys per foot."

 These people where cables sceptics at first but when they started measuring commercial cables they turned around quite quickly, they never expected such huge differences in cables.

 They also clearly state that the differences are clearly audible!(wich concurs with my own findings of cable tests).


 Back on topic:

 we need a test like this to be sure to make a statement about cryo is helping or not.

 What it does show is that it considderably cleans the crystal structure and removes the impurities in a conductor and binds the atoms more tightly together. If this results in a beter sound, theoretically it could.


----------



## Febs

Can you provide a link to the article that you are quoting?

 Edit: Never mind. I found it. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1_1/v1n1conn.html

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They also clearly state that the differences are clearly audible!(wich concurs with my own findings of cable tests)._

 

As a matter of fact, that is *not* what they state. They say:

  Quote:


 Such wide variation in electrical characteristics, not necessarily correlating with cost, has probably led to the conclusion and confusion by many audiophiles that high end cables don't improve the sound. Each amplifier may sound best with a specific cable, making the whole problem of cables and high fidelity quite complex. However, good cables do make a difference, and the best way to begin choosing is by testing models that have low resistance, capacitance, and inductance. Your final selection of cables should be used for connecting the sources to the preamplifier, preamplifier to power amplifier (these types of cables are usually called interconnects), and power amplifier to speakers (called speaker cables). 
 

I find interesting the observation that the electrical characteristics of cables do not necessarily correlate with cost, which is precisely the point that a number of people have made in this thread.

 Edit 2: in fact, they make an observation that is more directly on point to the subject of this thread:

  Quote:


 And just because one is thicker, more elaborate in the way the wires are wound, or more expensive, does not mean it will sound better than less elaborate cables.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ScrambleDog* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it possible that cryo treatment of copper works by "intelligent design"? 

 I really don't know jack about metallurgy, but I can tell you it is not an exercise seeking subjective qualities.

 If there was anything to cryo treating alloys and non ferrous metals, NASA, Boeing, and the military aircraft manufacturers would have put hundreds of millions into it and there would be scientific papers on the subject._

 

1. Huh?

 2. If you don't know jack, why comment -- especially with something that is unintelligible. This does not add to the discussion.

 3. A blatant _non sequitur _if I ever heard one -- at least in terms of relevance to the present discussion.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you provide a link to the article that you are quoting?

 Edit: Never mind. I found it. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1_1/v1n1conn.html



 As a matter of fact, that is *not* what they state. They say:



 I find interesting the observation that the electrical characteristics of cables do not necessarily correlate with cost, which is precisely the point that a number of people have made in this thread.

 Edit 2: in fact, they make an observation that is more directly on point to the subject of this thread:_

 


 Hmmm, i quote from your link:

 "Such wide variation in electrical characteristics, not necessarily correlating with cost, has probably led to the conclusion and confusion by many audiophiles that high end cables don't improve the sound. Each amplifier may sound best with a specific cable, making the whole problem of cables and high fidelity quite complex. *However, good cables do make a difference, and the best way to begin choosing is by testing models that have low resistance, capacitance, and inductance.* Your final selection of cables should be used for connecting the sources to the preamplifier, preamplifier to power amplifier (these types of cables are usually called interconnects), and power amplifier to speakers (called speaker cables)."


 Busted my friend.

 No, this is NOT the exact same story as i quoted from, that was an actual test of commercial cables and they also named a brand wich specifically measured much better then any other they measured in all respects! This is also not in this article. It could be that they just used the outcome of that other article to include in this one, but it IS not the same article. They also where more specific about IC's and speakercables.

 Best capacitance is if you use teflon, air or a vacuum. Those cables i know using these specific materials are expensive! Resistance, ohno single crystal technology, more expensive then normal copper. I highly doubt you can make a 10 dollar cable sounding as good as a reasonably priced cable. Teflon will cost you alone more then that! I don't judge by price but by listening experience and i found that the more pricy cables consistantly sounded better in brand. Performance difference cross brand is huge. Some can do it for much less money then others, sure, i grant you that. But it doesn't exclude the posability that a much more expensive cable of another brand can top the other brands best offering!

 There is a probability however that one can make a cable for say 250 dollars and another wants 1000 dollars for a cable performing at the same level. That's why cables are so contraversial. But it doesn't mean a 3000 dollar cable couldn't outperform a 250 dolar cable. The only way to tell is to listen to the cables and see for yourself how much better that cable is or how close the 250 dollar cable comes to the high end one. prices vary because of the research involved(has to be earned back), smart shopping(best materials for the lowest price) and what you want as a mark up.

 Some find the last 5% performance very important and are willing to pay for that. Some are willing to stay with the 250 dollar cable and are satisfied with those.

 Also, some manufacterers alter the cables specifics to give it a certain caracter! In this case measurements say nothing at all, since you specifically tailer the cable to a certain sound and that means that it doen't have to measure really well. Same thing as NONE oversampling dacs, they measure like crazy but sound, very, very good!

 Price, performance and taste determin for a person if he likes the cable or not! Not price alone!
 Some people are looking for a certain sound. Some want it nice and clean, some more dark and musical. I found that the cables that have both, clean and musical, are usually the more expensive cables.

 As for cryo: it might boost performance 5% or more. is it worth the money, only you can tell.
 As i said before, some none cryo treated cables sound better then cryo treated cables!

 As you can see, contradiction all over again.


----------



## rb67

For those of you who don't know how small the tabs in a dock are...




 The wires are 28 awg i think.

 Sure makes you think twice about paying for the cryo doesn't it?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For those of you who don't know how small the tabs in a dock are...




 The wires are 28 awg i think.

 Sure makes you think twice about paying for the cryo doesn't it?_

 


 I dunno, the only way you can tell is to cryo a none cryo cable listen to it again after the cryo treatment. This is the only way to find out if they sound better, worse or just different!


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes, if you use the ohno single crystal structure there is a big difference. I posted pictures of normal ofc copper and oh-ofc cooper and the crystal structure IS quite different. Much better conductivity...
_

 

I think resistance would be a product of this. No where do you or anyone else state that the capacitance and inductance of the cable is changed with cryo treatment. 

 Please stick with the topic at hand. Or you can go off on another tangent to avoid the failure in your argument.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Busted my friend._

 

I love the way that you think that you have made some sort of point, just by re-quoting the exact same language that I quoted. I am not disputing the part that you highlighted, so you cannot "bust" me by making it bold. I will assume for the sake of argument that there is an audible difference between cables. My point--and the point of the same people that you rely on for authority--is that the performance is not correlated to the price.

  Quote:


 No, this is NOT the exact same story as i quoted from 
 

Second request: please provide a link.

  Quote:


 But it doesn't mean a 3000 dollar cable couldn't outperform a 250 dolar cable. 
 

And likewise, a $30 cable could also outperform a $3,000 cable.


----------



## Awk.Pine

It strikes me that we can input a sine wave to a preamp, put a test cable between that and an amp, and measure the resulting signal from the speaker. Shouldn't we be able to measure any audible differences in the circuit from cable to cable? Cannot this be quanitified? Cannot that quantification provide meaningful, objective data to inform the value proposition of a cable? Wouldn't this be the exact sort of thing cable manufacturers would spend money on in research and development--which accounts for some of the premium over parts and labor in these products--and which they could use to sell us their products? 

 I certainly believe that cables can move a signal away from a flat response, but if I want that I'll use an equalizer, thank you. So the question is: can we show how commodity cables work poorly and specialized cables work better?

 I'm going off of a rather convincing article (pdf page 42) in The Audio Critic. It concludes:

  Quote:


 So, if we assume (1) no frequency-response anomalies due to weird source/load impedances, (2) quality construction without contact/conduction problems, and (3) adequate shielding and grounding to prevent hum and RFI, how could comparable lengths of interconnects sound different? Nohow. There exists no mechanism whereby an audible difference could occur. The metallurgical/geometrical/dialectric arguments are either total nonsense or at least irrelevant to audio frequencies (as distinct from the megahertz and gigahertz bands). Try to find a physicist, electrical engineer, or psychoacoustician--with a university graduate degree and no connection with an audio cable company--who will endose those arguments ... about the sound of interconnects. The whole scene is a farce. 
 

Now, if I'm truly losing sound quality by using $10 interconnects, I'd love to know about it. But I've seen a strong argument from the "they don't make a difference" camp and only subjective arguments from the "they do make a difference" group. Am I missing something, or shouldn't the differences be able to be quantified? If so, why haven't I seen any, and if not, why not?

 So, in conclusion, is paying even $0.50 worth it for cryo? I don't see how it could be. On the other hand, I'm certainly willing to pay a premium for good-looking and well-built products, and ALO's all seem to fit in that category.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 If there was anything to cryo treating alloys and non ferrous metals, NASA, Boeing, and the military aircraft manufacturers would have put hundreds of millions into it and there would be scientific papers on the subject. 
 

Why would NASA, Boeing and the military aircraft manufacturers put hundreds of millions of dollars into cryo treating metals to improve sound quality? Does NASA and Boeing have a high end audio division I am unaware of?


----------



## chroot

Hey guys,

 I'm relatively new here, and do not have as much experience with hi-fi gear as many of you. However, I do have something most of you probably do not: a Master's of Electrical Engineering from Stanford. I work as an integrated circuit designer (yes, including amplifiers) for one of the largest high-performance analog companies in the world.

 I would like to make a few points, some from an electrical engineering perspective, and some simply observations of human behavior.

*1) The "difficulty" misconception.*

 Most audiophiles want to believe that designing and building hi-fi sound equipment is difficult. They are used to seeing very elaborate equipment full of exotic materials and components. Their experience (and the messages targeted to them by the manufacturers of such equipment) leads them to have a very skewed understanding of what's "difficult" in the field of electrical engineering.

 To make it clear: shuffling bits across a noisy bus at 10 Gbit/s is a difficult problem. Building a 98% efficient 200 kW microwave amplifier is a difficult problem.

 Sending a 2 V peak-to-peak, 20 kHz band-limited signal across a 12-inch piece of shielded wire is *not* a difficult problem. At all. It's a cookie-cutter problem, solved handily by the basic circuit topologies shown in dozens of electrical-engineering textbooks. You can build an audio line-driver with essentially any THD you want, for example, without having to use your brain at all.

 It's hard to build excellent speakers. It's hard to build excellent headphones. It's hard to build excellent codecs. It's easy as pie to build excellent line-drivers that will work well over anything from cryogenically-treated super-engineered science-project cable to RadioShack's cheapest speaker wire.

*2) The capacitance misconception.*

 Many of the people who try to have empirical discussions about cables will bring up figures like capacitance. They mean well, but they are misguided. They are almost universally using a _linear no-threshold model_ without realizing it. A linear no-threshold model is embodied in the concepts "less capacitance always produces equivalently better sound" and "you can never have too little capacitance."

 Linear no-threshold modelling has unfortunately become downright mainstream in modern society. Everything from exposure to carcinogens and radiation to climate change is now almost exclusively discussed in the context of a linear no-threshold model by the popular media.

 The problem is that a linear no-threshold model is essentially never physically valid. In the context of audiophile gear, many people misunderstand that capacitance is _necessary_ for your amplifier to operate properly. Almost all op-amps, for example, require some load capacitance to remain stable. If you lower the capacitance, the amplifier will begin to distort or, worse, spontaneously oscillate. Op-amps are designed for efficiency over a relatively broad range of acceptable load capacitances, and thus capacitance *does not* obey a linear no-threshold model. Furthermore, the engineers who built your sound equipment stuck some capacitors on the board specifically to make sure the amplifier always sees _enough_ load capacitance.

 Besides -- look at the specifications on your cables. Almost all of them, even the super high-grade cables, will have capacitances in the ballpark of 10-20 pF per foot. The lesson is that you should be more concerned about the *length* of your cables than the *type* of your cables, if you worry about capacitance at all. (And you probably shouldn't.)

 Besides, if you really want zero-capacitance cables, you can do it with basic matching networks at both ends. All you need is a couple of small, cheap inductors and _viola_ your cable presents a purely real impedance to your amplifier.

 And don't forget those chintzy 3.5mm mini-phono plugs! They're *terrible* from an electrical engineering perspective. They have large capacitance, large contact resistance, etc. If you're really concerned about interconnect, why not use modern connectors like SMA or SMB that have vastly superior electrical characteristics? That'll certainly have a much larger effect on the overall transmission line than simply connecting two mini-phono plugs with a wire as big as a baby's arm. 

*3) The resistivity misconception.*

 The second figure everyone brings up is resistivity. Since you're not driving power over your interconnect, resistance should be the least of your concern. If you look at the telegrapher's equations, you'll see that real resistance only contributes to attenuation. In other words, you'll lose some signal amplitude over a length of cable if its resitance is high. Real resistance does not alter the transmitted waveform in any other way; it does not affect waveform shape or spectral content.

 Oxygen-free copper and so on provide improvements in resistivity of at most about 2%. This means, well, essentially nothing. It means you'll have to turn the knob on your receiver a couple more microns clockwise if you use normal cables.

*4) The size misconception*

 Many people intuitively believe that larger conductors are better. Some people buy luidcrously large conductors -- large enough to use as mains power cabling for a hospital -- in the hopes that it will improve sound quality.

 It's already been discussed here many times, so I won't belabor the point, but there's no point in using an enormous cable to connect integrated circuits. Forget about the pins on the iPod dock. Forget about the 10 micron board traces. Realize that inside the black plastic package of your integrated circuits, the signals are being carried on tiny gold wires *thinner than a human hair.*

 And, I just have to pick on TheMarchingMule a bit:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* 
_For instance, with the BB, Tool CDs, when they got heavy, sounded as if all of it was being forced through the skinny wire; massive bandwidth problem, no? Now with the Jumbo Cryo, everything is given its own space and room to breathe, and details are therefore easier to hear and pick out._

 

Anytime someone tries to personify electrons, or make weird analogies between fluid flow or feng shui and electron conduction, be wary: that person doesn't know anything about how signals actually propagate through wires.

*5) The measurement misconception.*

 Anyone who tells you they can hear things that cannot be conclusively shown on a decent-quality oscilloscope is lying to you (and probably to themselves, as well). Measurement equipment is hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive than human senses. It's positively silly for someone to claim that they can hear something that a high-end spectrum analzyer cannot detect.

*6) The tone-color misconception.*

 Audiophiles openly admit that they buy amplifiers and headphones because they like the way they color the sound. People love tube amplifiers, for example, specifically because they are such *poor* amplifiers, from an electrical engineering perspective. They color the sound quite strongly, changing its spectral content enormously. Yet people enjoy the sound, and pay loads of money for them. On the other hand, the same people will spend hundreds of dollars on cables that they believe to be superior because they *do not* color their sound.

*6) The price misconception.*

 As has been mentioned (and demonstrated), people have a fascination with price, and tend to think that anything expensive must be good.

 Anyone who's ever listened to music before can tell you that a $20 pair of headphones don't sound as good as a $100 pair of headphones (unless they're Bose). It's so easy to tell the difference between headphones that the market economy reliably drives their prices to a reasonable delta -- given equal market exposure, the good ones cost more than the bad ones, almost universally. (Marketing screws this up a bit by affecting market exposure, but I digress.)

 On the other hand, almost no one can really tell the difference between cables, even experienced audiophiles. Perhaps a few people really can, but the majority of the market cannot. This means the market cannot reliably set prices, which is why you find cables priced at anything from $1 to $3000.

 The stock market works the same way, by the way -- it's hard to make a windfall on large, well-known stocks where everyone has the same information, because everyone pretty much agrees on what the prices should be. When you get down to the small, relatively unknown companies, no one really knows which ones are better, and the prices between them can fluctuate wildly with no real rhyme or reason.

*8) What to do?*

 Now for the warm and fuzzy part.

 I personally feel the best hi-fi system is the one you enjoy the most. "Enjoyment" is a subjective term, of course. Personally, I enjoy musical variety more than anything else. I love having (and knowing) a large collection of music, because I enjoy always having the right music for every occassion. I like always being able to get people dancing at parties. I like having people come up to me and say "wow, I love this music, what is it?" I like taking road trips with people, and having them tell me later that the best part of the trip was the music.

 Other people like the look of their sound systems. They want lights and meters and fancy looking interconnects. Maybe they want to impress people, or maybe lights and meters are just their thing. To them, it's incredibly important that their system look as good as it sounds. So be it.

 Other people simply view cables as the "final touches" on their masterpiece sound system. They may admit that it doesn't really affect the sound perceptibly, but they enjoy the system more because it feels "complete" and finished to them. So be it.

 Again, the best hi-fi is the one you enjoy and use the most.

 - Warren


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love the way that you think that you have made some sort of point, just by re-quoting the exact same language that I quoted. I am not disputing the part that you highlighted, so you cannot "bust" me by making it bold. I will assume for the sake of argument that there is an audible difference between cables. My point--and the point of the same people that you rely on for authority--is that the performance is not correlated to the price.



 Second request: please provide a link.



 And likewise, a $30 cable could also outperform a $3,000 cable._

 

It is however correlated to the materials used, they clearly state that. And teflon IS not cheap. So, you would expect to see teflon in more expensive cables, this is the fact! Also ohno single crystal structure is more expensive, also seen in more expensive cables...same goes for cryo treatment, more expensive cables. So, logically, would a 30 dollar cable that lacks all these features outperform a more expensive cable, i highly doubt that.

 As a matter of fact i never encountered that magical cheap cable, on the other hand i encountered magically high end cables.

 They stated a better cable does matter. They also stated that the materials mentioned add to a better cable(teflon etc), so logically, a very cheap cable cannot outperform a high end cable that lack those materials. What IS however possible is that someone could do it for much less then high end prices! But it would still cost more then your 30 quit. You don't get teflon insulated cables for 30 quit.

 In these terms their and your statement IS busted since they mix good cables with high end materials! So, price is of concequence of performance. They clearly state that teflon IS expensive and hard to work with! Silver IS more expensive then copper. I have yet to find a copper cable that can outperform a silver plated or a pure silver core in extreem high extension!

 I happen to know wich brand was the best measuring cable in all respects and i can tell you that it wasn't a 30 quit cable. This was true for IC's and speakers cables, they were consistantly better then any other cable measured of other brands thus far they measured.

 As for the link: i searched but couldn't find it anymore. Maybe it was deleted or altered. I should have added the link as a favourite.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys,

 I'm relatively new here, and do not have as much experience with hi-fi gear as many of you. However, I do have something most of you probably do not: a Master's of Electrical Engineering from Stanford. I work as an integrated circuit designer (yes, including amplifiers) for one of the largest high-performance analog companies in the world.

 I would like to make a few points, some from an electrical engineering perspective, and some simply observations of human behavior.

*1) The "difficulty" misconception.*

 Most audiophiles want to believe that designing and building hi-fi sound equipment is difficult. They are used to seeing very elaborate equipment full of exotic materials and components. Their experience (and the messages targeted to them by the manufacturers of such equipment) leads them to have a very skewed understanding of what's "difficult" in the field of electrical engineering.

 To make it clear: shuffling bits across a noisy bus at 10 Gbit/s is a difficult problem. Building a 98% efficient 200 kW microwave amplifier is a difficult problem.

 Sending a 2 V peak-to-peak, 20 kHz band-limited signal across a 12-inch piece of shielded wire is *not* a difficult problem. At all. It's a cookie-cutter problem, solved handily by the basic circuit topologies shown in dozens of electrical-engineering textbooks. You can build an audio line-driver with essentially any THD you want, for example, without having to use your brain at all.

 It's hard to build excellent speakers. It's hard to build excellent headphones. It's hard to build excellent codecs. It's easy as pie to build excellent line-drivers that will work well over anything from cryogenically-treated super-engineered science-project cable to RadioShack's cheapest speaker wire.

*2) The capacitance misconception.*

 Many of the people who try to have empirical discussions about cables will bring up figures like capacitance. They mean well, but they are misguided. They are almost universally using a linear no-threshold model without realizing it. A linear no-threshold model is embodied in the concepts "less capacitance always produces equivalently better sound" and "you can never have too little capacitance."

 Linear no-threshold modelling has unfortunately become downright mainstream in modern society. Everything from exposure to carcinogens and radiation to climate change is now almost exclusively discussed in the context of a linear no-threshold model by the popular media.

 The problem is that a linear no-threshold model is essentially never physically valid. In the context of audiophile gear, many people misunderstand that capacitance is necessary for your amplifier to operate properly. Almost all op-amps, for example, require some load capacitance to remain stable. If you lower the capacitance, the amplifier will begin to distort or, worse, spontaneously oscillate. Op-amps are designed for efficiency over a relatively broad range of acceptable load capacitances, and thus capacitance *does not* obey a linear no-threshold model. Furthermore, the engineers who built your sound equipment stuck some capacitors on the board specifically to make sure the amplifier always sees enough load capacitance.

 Besides -- look at the specifications on your cables. Almost all of them, even the super high-grade cables, will have capacitances in the ballpark of 10-20 pF per foot. The lesson is that you should be more concerned about the *length* of your cables than the *type* of your cables, if you worry about capacitance at all. (And you probably shouldn't.)

 Besides, if you really want zero-capacitance cables, you can do it with basic matching networks at both ends. All you need is a couple of small, cheap inductors and viola your cable presents a purely real impedance to your amplifier.

 And don't forget those chintzy 3.5mm mini-phono plugs! They're *terrible* from an electrical engineering perspective. They have large capacitance, large contact resistance, etc. If you're really concerned about interconnect, why not use modern connectors like SMA or SMB that have vastly superior electrical characteristics? That'll certainly have a much larger effect on the overall transmission line than simply connecting two mini-phono plugs with a wire as big as a baby's arm. 

*3) The resistivity misconception.*

 The second figure everyone brings up is resistivity. Since you're not driving power over your interconnect, resistance should be the least of your concern. If you look at the telegrapher's equations, you'll see that real resistance only contributes to attenuation. In other words, you'll lose some signal amplitude over a length of cable if its resitance is high. Real resistance does not alter the transmitted waveform in any other way; it does not affect waveform shape or spectral content.

 Oxygen-free copper and so on provide improvements in resistivity of at most about 2%. This means, well, essentially nothing. It means you'll have to turn the knob on your receiver a couple more microns clockwise if you use normal cables.

*4) The size misconception*

 Many people intuitively believe that larger conductors are better. Some people buy luidcrously large conductors -- large enough to use as mains power cabling for a hospital -- in the hopes that it will improve sound quality.

 It's already been discussed here many times, so I won't belabor the point, but there's no point in using an enormous cable to connect integrated circuits. Forget about the pins on the iPod dock. Forget about the 10 micron board traces. Realize that inside the black plastic package of your integrated circuits, the signals are being carried on tiny gold wires *thinner than a human hair.*

 And, I just have to pick on TheMarchingMule a bit:



 Anytime someone tries to personify electrons, or make weird analogies between fluid flow or feng shui and electron conduction, be wary: that person doesn't know anything about how signals actually propagate through wires.

*5) The measurement misconception.*

 Anyone who tells you they can hear things that cannot be conclusively shown on a decent-quality oscilloscope is lying to you (and probably to themselves, as well). Measurement equipment is hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive than human senses. It's positively silly for someone to claim that they can hear something that a high-end spectrum analzyer cannot detect.

*6) The tone-color misconception.*

 Audiophiles openly admit that they buy amplifiers and headphones because they like the way they color the sound. People love tube amplifiers, for example, specifically because they are such *poor* amplifiers, from an electrical engineering perspective. They color the sound quite strongly, changing its spectral content enormously. Yet people enjoy the sound, and pay loads of money for them. On the other hand, the same people will spend hundreds of dollars on cables that they believe to be superior because they *do not* color their sound.

*6) The price misconception.*

 As has been mentioned (and demonstrated), people have a fascination with price, and tend to think that anything expensive must be good.

 Anyone who's ever listened to music before can tell you that a $20 pair of headphones don't sound as good as a $100 pair of headphones (unless they're Bose). It's so easy to tell the difference between headphones that the market economy reliably drives their prices to a reasonable delta -- given equal market exposure, the good ones cost more than the bad ones, almost universally. (Marketing screws this up a bit by affecting market exposure, but I digress.)

 On the other hand, almost no one can really tell the difference between cables, even experienced audiophiles. Perhaps a few people really can, but the majority of the market cannot. This means the market cannot reliably set prices, which is why you find cables priced at anything from $1 to $3000.

 The stock market works the same way, by the way -- it's hard to make a windfall on large, well-known stocks where everyone has the same information, because everyone pretty much agrees on what the prices should be. When you get down to the small, relatively unknown companies, no one really knows which ones are better, and the prices between them can fluctuate wildly with no real rhyme or reason.

*8) What to do?*

 Now for the warm and fuzzy part.

 I personally feel the best hi-fi system is the one you enjoy the most. "Enjoyment" is a subjective term, of course. Personally, I enjoy musical variety more than anything else. I love having (and knowing) a large collection of music, because I enjoy always having the right music for every occassion. I like always being able to get people dancing at parties. I like having people come up to me and say "wow, I love this music, what is it?" I like taking road trips with people, and having them tell me later that the best part of the trip was the music.

 Other people like the look of their sound systems. They want lights and meters and fancy looking interconnects. Maybe they want to impress people, or maybe lights and meters are just their thing. To them, it's incredibly important that their system look as good as it sounds. So be it.

 Other people simply view cables as the "final touches" on their masterpiece sound system. They may admit that it doesn't really affect the sound perceptibly, but they enjoy the system more because it feels "complete" and finished to them. So be it.

 Again, the best hi-fi is the one you enjoy and use the most.

 - Warren_

 

In no particular order:

 Misconception 1)

 people CAN hear differences in cable and cores used(silver versus copper).

 Misconception 2)
 people can hear as high as 25khz!

 Misconception 3) 
 going from my not so cheap IC to a high end one was a HUGE difference!
 Misconception 4)
 audiophiles listen to the cables, they don't look at it. if it doesn't sound better then what they had before they won't replace it for more money!

 Misconception 5)
 most high end cables are tailered for a very nice and pleasing sound. That's why some expensive cables don't measure as good as cheap cables but that doesn't say anything about frequency responce or how it sounds! measuring instruments don't say anything about that! 2 sources or 2 cables with the same specs simply don't sound the same!

 an analyzer doesn't say anything of how people experience sound!

 In this respect measuring doesn't say anything and is just silly..you listen to cables, not look at it or you don't listen to it via an analizer. As a matter afact cables alter behavier of amps, that's why some have more influence on the sound then others, most likely. Especially speaker cables.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is however correlated to the materials used, they clearly state that. And teflon IS not cheap. So, you would expect to see teflon in more expensive cables, this is the fact! Also ohno single crystal structure is more expensive, also seen in more expensive cables...same goes for cryo treatment, more expensive cables. So, logically, would a 30 dollar cable that lacks all these features outperform a more expensive cable, i highly doubt that.
_

 

First of all Teflon is not expensive. http://www.action-electronics.com/teflontube.htm $15 for 100ft of 12 gauge. And that is retail. A manufaturer would get it at at least 1/2 the cost if not more. So thats busted. 

 Back to special copper. Did you read the post above yours? What don't you understand about how electrons move through wire? So it's super structured copper that costs a lot. Doesn't mean it's going to transfer the signal any better. 

 I think you forget our little demonstration between tin and silver.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_most high end cables are tailered for a very nice and pleasing sound. That's why some expensive cables don't measure as good as cheap cables but that doesn't say anything about frequency responce or how it sounds! measuring instruments don't say anything about that! 2 sources or 2 cables with the same specs simply don't sound the same!

 an analyzer doesn't say anything of how people experience sound!

 In this respect measuring doesn't say anything and is just silly..you listen to cables, not look at it or you don't listen to it via an analizer. As a matter afact cables alter behavier of amps, that's why some have more influence on the sound then others, most likely. Especially speaker cables._

 

Then why don't we just measure expensive cables with pleasing sounds and build cheap cables with the same measurements?

 And the measurements don't have anything to do with frequency response? That is one of the most ignorant statements you have made so far. They have everything to do with the frequency response.


----------



## meat01

You can use all of the most expensive materials in the world, but that does not mean that it will sound better than a cable made with less expensive materials. Teflon may be a good insulator, but it does not contribute anything to audible sound quality. Oxygen free copper may be a better conductor, but again, it just carries the signal from one place to another and does not add anything to the sound.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, logically, would a 30 dollar cable that lacks all these features outperform a more expensive cable, i highly doubt that._

 

I understand your point: that *if* Teflon insulation really improves SQ, and only expensive cables employ Teflon, then expensive cables must sound better than cheap cables.

 The problem with your argument is that its premise is not widely agreed upon: there is no general consensus that Teflon insulation really improves SQ. Sure, Teflon insulation results in an empirically smaller capacitance per foot, but a decrease in capacitance does not necessarily imply improved SQ, as I noted above.

 It is my opinion that, in the upper reaches of hi-fi audio, price has only a very weak correlation with real performance. We are all familiar with $100 headphones which outpeform $300 headphones (just think Bose). Many people also believe that some cheap amplifiers outperform much more expensive alternatives.

 Why should cables be any different?

 I provided the reason in my previous post. There is no clear correlation between a cable's e.g. gas impurity and its "performance," at least as far as most consumers are concerned. When the market is not able to reliably compare one product against another, it cannot reliably drive sensible prices.

 - Warren


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then why don't we just measure expensive cables with pleasing sounds and build cheap cables with the same measurements?

 And the measurements don't have anything to do with frequency response? That is one of the most ignorant statements you have made so far. They have everything to do with the frequency response._

 

Ahhh, so now they really do, but you state that ohno single crystal structure is the same as a normal copper cable YET they proved it is 1/5th better in frequency responce. So clearly better core is also a better cable!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 There is teflon and teflon. Alot of variaties and you don't know wich one is used. I happen to know there are poisenes versions of teflon and none poiseness versions. Not the same price!


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ahhh, so now they really do, but you state that ohno single crystal structure is the same as a normal copper cable YET they proved it is 1/5th better in frequency responce. So clearly better core is also a better cable!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 There is teflon and teflon. Alot of variaties and you don't know wich one is used. I happen to know there are poisenes versions of teflon and none poiseness versions. Not the same price!_

 

Links? They? What frequency range? You know what PTFE is used in different cable? 

 The moon is made of cheese because I say so.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In no particular order:

 Misconception 1)

 people CAN hear differences in cable and cores used(silver versus copper).

 Misconception 2)
 people can hear as high as 25khz!

 Misconception 3) 
 going from my not so cheap IC to a high end one was a HUGE difference!_

 

I'll note that none of your responses constitute any kind of actual rebuttal. I'm afraid that just repeating "they make a HUGE difference to me" is not much of an argument, even if you put a few more exclamation points after it.

  Quote:


 Misconception 4)
 audiophiles listen to the cables, they don't look at it. if it doesn't sound better then what they had before they won't replace it for more money! 
 

Many audiophiles *do* look at their equipment, and its appearance is important to them. And there are other reasons to choose a cable than just SQ: one may be stronger, have better connectors, have better workmanship, etc.

  Quote:


 Misconception 5)
 most high end cables are tailered for a very nice and pleasing sound. That's why some expensive cables don't measure as good as cheap cables but that doesn't say anything about frequency responce or how it sounds! 
 

A spectrum analyzer measures frequency response with a resolution absolutely impossible for you (or any other human being) to compete with. That's what a spectrum analyzer _is:_ a tool to measure frequency response.

 Everything that could possibly be perceived by a human ear can be laid out in exact, empirical terms by a spectrum analyzer. If you disagree, you will need to convince me of _why_ the ear is capable of detecting things that are not present in the spectrum.

 - Warren


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can use all of the most expensive materials in the world, but that does not mean that it will sound better than a cable made with less expensive materials. Teflon may be a good insulator, but it does not contribute anything to audible sound quality. Oxygen free copper may be a better conductor, but again, it just carries the signal from one place to another and does not add anything to the sound._

 

It does! if you read my post carefully then they clearly state that teflon has the LEAST leakage into the core.This means less frequency disruption! better frequecy responce means more (micro) detail! And better extreem highs.

 So, measurements CAN tell something about a cable and how it alteres sound. Frequencies are not altered in a reguar way, every frequency going to a cable is altered differently!

 That's why some cables can reproduce very soft sounds better then others and you have to listen very hard to pick up the soft sounds and the other let you hear them quite easally!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Links? They? What frequency range? You know what PTFE is used in different cable? 

 The moon is made of cheese because I say so._

 

There is no difference in cables or cryo treated cables cause YOU say so.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In the higher frequency ranges, beyond 16 khz. there is less frequency fall/roll off is you use oh-ofc copper.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll note that none of your responses constitute any kind of actual rebuttal. I'm afraid that just repeating "they make a HUGE difference to me" is not much of an argument, even if you put a few more exclamation points after it.



 Many audiophiles *do* look at their equipment, and its appearance is important to them. And there are other reasons to choose a cable than just SQ: one may be stronger, have better connectors, have better workmanship, etc.



 A spectrum analyzer measures frequency response with a resolution absolutely impossible for you (or any other human being) to compete with. That's what a spectrum analyzer is: a tool to measure frequency response.

 Everything that could possibly be perceived by a human ear can be laid out in exact, empirical terms by a spectrum analyzer. If you disagree, you will need to convince me of why the ear is capable of detecting things that are not present in the spectrum.

 - Warren_

 

You need to convince me if a spectrum analizer tells you how i experience the sounds! You simply can't.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can find it clear sounding , dark sounding, dull sounding, harsh sounding. Nothing an analizer would tell you!!!

 So, in this respect measurements are not the final word of HOW a cable transports a signal. it simply tells you what's left at the end.

 it's not a brain that translated the signal into sound!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then why don't we just measure expensive cables with pleasing sounds and build cheap cables with the same measurements?

 And the measurements don't have anything to do with frequency response? That is one of the most ignorant statements you have made so far. They have everything to do with the frequency response._

 

If they would it would cost as much as the original. That simple.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Links? They? What frequency range? You know what PTFE is used in different cable? 

 The moon is made of cheese because I say so._

 

i told you to get the technical papers on ohno single crystal structure.

 A cable doesn't simply transport a signal from a to b! there's alot of things happening in a cable before the final signal comes to point B! The best cables let the signal trough as unalter as posible! Frequency responce IS an important factor! as you mentioned before(wich i already new so it wasn't an ignorant remark but a provocation, since you stated there IS no difference in cables). there is, there is frequency loss in cables, there IS resistance in cables and there IS capicitance in cables, they all add to the degradation of the signal transported!


----------



## nickknutson

I hope all this knowledge you guys have has made you millionaires!


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It does! if you read my post carefully then they clearly state that teflon has the LEAST leakage into the core.This means less frequency disruption! better frequecy responce means more (micro) detail! And better extreem highs._

 

You are using terms like 'frequency response' without any idea of what they really mean in an engineering context. A shielded coaxial copper cable's frequency response is essentially constant over audio frequencies. We're talking picofarads of capacitance and fractions of an ohm of resistance -- the corner frequency is well into the gigahertz range. You won't get any significant roll-off in audio frequencies unless you're dealing with hundreds of microfards of capacitance.

 You seem to have this idea that some cables have perceptible dips in their frequency response, or roll-off at 20 kHz or so, but this just isn't true. If you continue to repeat it, you're simply showing your ignorance of mankind's knowledge of the physical world.

 - Warren


----------



## naamanf

I just read the one from Furutech. 1/5 frequency response. Nothing about it there. Did you read it? If you did and really knew how to apply what they said then you know that it does nothing that anyone could ever hear.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A cable doesn't simply transport a signal from a to b! there's alot of things happening in a cable before the final signal comes to point B! The best cables let the signal trough as unalter as posible! Frequency responce IS an important factor! as you mentioned before(wich i already new so it wasn't an ignorant remark but a provocation, since you stated there IS no difference in cables). there is, there is frequency loss in cables, there IS resistance in cables and there IS capicitance in cables, they all add to the degradation of the signal transported!_

 

Now's your chance to show off your understanding of electrical engineering. Can you give me R and C values of a prototype single-pole low-pass filter that causes 0.01 dB of attenuation at 25 kHz?

 - Warren


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just read the one from Furutech. 1/5 frequency response. Nothing about it there. Did you read it? If you did and really knew how to apply what they said then you know that it does nothing that anyone could ever hear._

 

i didn't read the furutech site since that IS not an independent site! I read technical papers on the ohno single crystal structure on the web, there is enough to read about, also pictures of the crystal structure!


----------



## naamanf

Yippy! Pictures! It's all clear now. I can look at crystal structure pictures and know the metal used is going to sound superior to ugly ones


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yippy! Pictures! It's all clear now. I can look at crystal structure pictures and know the metal used is going to sound superior to ugly ones
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

well, at least you have something to look at, while i listen to the cables.

 keep on measuring, i keep on listening.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My ears cast the final verdict of a cable, not an analizer!

 Did you read it allready???!!!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are using terms like 'frequency response' without any idea of what they really mean in an engineering context. A shielded coaxial copper cable's frequency response is essentially constant over audio frequencies. We're talking picofarads of capacitance and fractions of an ohm of resistance -- the corner frequency is well into the gigahertz range. You won't get any significant roll-off in audio frequencies unless you're dealing with hundreds of microfards of capacitance.

 You seem to have this idea that some cables have perceptible dips in their frequency response, or roll-off at 20 kHz or so, but this just isn't true. If you continue to repeat it, you're simply showing your ignorance of mankind's knowledge of the physical world.

 - Warren_

 

Frequency response is the measure of any system's response at the output to a signal of varying frequency (but constant amplitude) at its input. It is usually referred to in connection with electronic amplifiers, loudspeakers and similar systems. The frequency response is typically characterized by the magnitude of the system's response, measured in dB, and the phase, measured in radians, versus frequency. 

 thanks for the kind words.

 Quote:
 A shielded coaxial copper cable's frequency response is essentially constant over audio frequencies.

 Not necessaraly so. not all cables have a flat responce.

 You didn't respond to the comment about how an analizer tells me what to hear out of a signal! It simply doesn't!!!Now you have to prove your superior knowdledge of the human and physical world.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The analizer doesn't let you know anything of HOW i experience the sound and it never will. your ears/brain do tell you what to make out of a certain signal.

 Some frequencies get less loud (db)because of the deteriation of the signal due to things happening in the cable and wich insulator or wich core you use. it's about how loud or soft these frequencies are portrait in the final sound. Loosing micro details. Some cables sound much clearer/more transparent and need less amplification while others need more amplification and yet do not portray as much details as others! That's why they call it frequency loss or percieved frequency loss cause they aren;'t there in the final picture or less loud. if you could call it roll off, i dunno.

 if what you said is true then every cable would measure the same in all respects, they simply don't.

 Single crystal structure lets frequencies through unharmed as opposed to grainy structures.


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The analizer doesn't let you know anything of HOW i experience the sound and it never will. your ears/brain do tell you what to make out of a certain signal._

 

And marketing tells you how to tell the difference between 2 identical signals. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Stay away from that "analizer", it sounds more painful than listening to cheap cables.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Frequency response is the measure of any system's response at the output to a signal of varying frequency (but constant amplitude) at its input. It is usually referred to in connection with electronic amplifiers, loudspeakers and similar systems. The frequency response is typically characterized by the magnitude of the system's response, measured in dB, and the phase, measured in radians, versus frequency._

 

If you're going to copy things off wikipedia, you'd do well to cite your source. Otherwise, you know, it's theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_response

  Quote:


 You didn't respond to the comment about how an analizer tells me what to hear out of a signal! It simply doesn't!!!Now you have to prove your superior knowdledge of the human and physical world.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 

The studies I have read indicate that the best listeners in the world can detect differences in volume of two tones as low as 0.1 dB (about 2.3%).

 Assuming you have hearing that's utterly phenomenal compared to everyone else on the planet, and you can hear a difference of 0.01 dB (0.23%), you're still no match at all for even a bargain-basement spectrum analyzer like this one:

http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/na...881639/pd.html

 Even el-cheapo spectrum analyzers can measure differences in two cables so much smaller than your ear ever could it ought to make you giddy.

 - Warren


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're going to copy things off wikipedia, you'd do well to cite your source. Otherwise, you know, it's theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_response



 The studies I have read indicate that the best listeners in the world can detect differences in volume of two tones as low as 0.1 dB (about 2.3%).

 Assuming you have hearing that's utterly phenomenal compared to everyone else on the planet, and you can hear a difference of 0.01 dB (0.23%), you're still no match at all for even a bargain-basement spectrum analyzer like this one:

http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/na...881639/pd.html

 Even el-cheapo spectrum analyzers can measure differences in two cables so much smaller than your ear ever could it ought to make you giddy.

 - Warren_

 

I am speaking of HOW a cable sounds. An analizer doesn't tell you that! can you tell by looking at an analizer that a cable sounds sharp, dull, musically or even dark? No, it can't.

 Keep on using your analizer but i won't come listen to your setup, it probably will sound like crap!

 They allready did this over and over again, good measuring cables, equipment combining doesn't guarantee a sound YOU like! or even a pleasing sound.

 i rather use my ears to cast that final vote, measuring tells you one thing, my ears the other!

 Flat responce is nice for a monitor in a studio but not for listening to music. The best speakers don't even have flat responce! And the filters in a speakers are teaked by ear, not by instruments. So far for your presious instruments.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And marketing tells you how to tell the difference between 2 identical signals. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Stay away from that "analizer", it sounds more painful than listening to cheap cables._

 

I had enough of cheap cables, i found my precious hig end cable.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 ( without cryo, by the way).


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're going to copy things off wikipedia, you'd do well to cite your source. Otherwise, you know, it's theft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_response



 The studies I have read indicate that the best listeners in the world can detect differences in volume of two tones as low as 0.1 dB (about 2.3%).

 Assuming you have hearing that's utterly phenomenal compared to everyone else on the planet, and you can hear a difference of 0.01 dB (0.23%), you're still no match at all for even a bargain-basement spectrum analyzer like this one:

http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/na...881639/pd.html

 Even el-cheapo spectrum analyzers can measure differences in two cables so much smaller than your ear ever could it ought to make you giddy.

 - Warren_

 

0.1 db should be enough to tell a difference between the best measuring cable and the worst measuring cable, right?!!

 I read about smallest steps that can be heard of 0.5 db though.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some frequencies get less loud (db)because of the deteriation of the signal due to things happening in the cable and wich insulator or wich core you use. it's about how loud or soft these frequencies are portrait in the final sound. Loosing micro details. Some cables sound much clearer/more transparent and need less amplification while others need more amplification and yet do not portray as much details as others! That's why they call it frequency loss or percieved frequency loss cause they aren;'t there in the final picture or less loud. if you could call it roll off, i dunno._

 

It's really easy to tell when you stop copying from Wikipedia and start using your own words.

 You're talking about attenuation at audible frequencies, which requires incredibly enormous R and C values, orders and orders of magnitude larger than those of even horrendously low-quality cables. Again, please tell me the R and C values for a prototype single-pole low-pass filter with 0.01 dB of attenuation at 25 kHz.

  Quote:


 if what you said is true then every cable would measure the same in all respects, they simply don't. 
 

Well, yeah. That's pretty much true for audio frequencies.

  Quote:


 Single crystal structure lets frequencies through unharmed as opposed to grainy structures. 
 

"Lets frequencies through?" Can you provide a frequency response plot for single-crystal cables that demonstrates this?

 - Warren


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As for the link: i searched but couldn't find it anymore. Maybe it was deleted or altered. I should have added the link as a favourite._

 

Uh huh. That's pretty amazing, actually, since you were able to quote from it extensively just a few hours ago.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is however correlated to the materials used, they clearly state that._

 

Really? Where do they say that? Is it on one of those pages whose link you have conveniently lost, just hours after quoting extensively from it? 

  Quote:


 They stated a better cable does matter. They also stated that the materials mentioned add to a better cable(teflon etc), so logically, a very cheap cable cannot outperform a high end cable that lack those materials. 
 

Which part of "price is not correlated with performance" are you having difficulty understanding?

  Quote:


 Silver IS more expensive then copper. I have yet to find a copper cable that can outperform a silver plated or a pure silver core in extreem high extension! 
 

It's funny you should mention that. Because the same site also found that "The structural material (silver vs. copper) of conductors is not a guide for the character of sound."

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now's your chance to show off your understanding of electrical engineering. Can you give me R and C values of a prototype single-pole low-pass filter that causes 0.01 dB of attenuation at 25 kHz?

 - Warren_

 

Warren, let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Head-Fi. I have sincerely enjoyed reading your posts in this thread.


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A measuring instrument doesn't dictate ME what to hear. Psychology, remember._

 

Exactly, psychology dictates what you hear.....


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


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

 Warren, let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Head-Fi. I have sincerely enjoyed reading your posts in this thread._

 

I second that.

 As for cable and cost
http://cgi.ebay.com/500FT-SPOOL-SILV...QQcmdZViewItem

 Teflon-Check(unless it's the dreaded poisoned type, which would cost more because it is an additive to the PTFE)

 Silver-Check

 Copper-Check

 Mil-Spec - Check 

 Lower capacitace and inductance due to it's stranding - check 

 500ft for $30 shipped -Check 

 Four strands per stereo pair at 1m = $1 per pair 

 So what is wrong with this cable?


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So what is wrong with this cable?_

 

can't solder 22 awg on a line out


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_can't solder 22 awg on a line out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

How do you think they get 18awg on there?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*5) The measurement misconception.*

 Anyone who tells you they can hear things that cannot be conclusively shown on a decent-quality oscilloscope is lying to you (and probably to themselves, as well). Measurement equipment is hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive than human senses. It's positively silly for someone to claim that they can hear something that a high-end spectrum analzyer cannot detect._

 

Isn't it true that there are EE's (including several who post on this board) that don't agree with this? You pronounce this as an absolute fact as if the matter is free from any doubt whatsoever, to the extent that it would appear that anybody who thinks the opposite is a complete idiot or completely uninformed (as if someone were claiming the earth is flat). I would venture to say that the issue is not so clear cut.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*6) The tone-color misconception.*

 Audiophiles openly admit that they buy amplifiers and headphones because they like the way they color the sound. People love tube amplifiers, for example, specifically because they are such *poor* amplifiers, from an electrical engineering perspective. They color the sound quite strongly, changing its spectral content enormously. _

 

This sounds similar to the hogwash put out by The Audio Critic (no offense). In any event, there are a number of fine tubed headphone amplifiers put out by Singlepower, Ray Samuels, to name two, and I do not believe it is accurate nor fair to state that they are "poor" amplifiers, or that the color the sound "quite strongly."

 I don't begrudge you your opinions on these issues, and you know much more about the details of some of the items you address than I do, but I really question the authoritativeness with which you make the pronouncements you are making. If some of the matters were as clear as you make them out to be, we would not be having some of these debates repeatedly, and those in the "believer" camp would not be supported by EE's who have heard differences and some other other pretty intelligent folks.


----------



## chroot

PhilS,

 Of course, I'll concede that some people can hear things that other people can't, and we'll never be able to compare our experiences of a given sound objectively.

 On the other hand, I'm employed to design integrated circuits, including amplifiers, and have probably listened to more op-amps than virtually anyone on the planet.

 The semiconductor industry, of course, uses measurement equipment to validate specifications, not the subjective experiences of listeners. Perhaps that's simply skewed my judgement of the utility of measurements. (I honestly consider subjective listener experience to be unscientific and pretty much useless to anyone except the listener herself.) All I can say is that, as far as my decade of experience has taken me, the test and measurement equipment is far superior to *me* in terms of its ability to detect flaws, and this is probably true of *nearly* everyone else.

 - Warren


----------



## Awk.Pine

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Everything that could possibly be perceived by a human ear can be laid out in exact, empirical terms by a spectrum analyzer. If you disagree, you will need to convince me of why the ear is capable of detecting things that are not present in the spectrum._

 

I'm with Warren on this one. Has anyone even heard an intelligent argument regarding the hearing of unmeasurables?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can find it clear sounding , dark sounding, dull sounding, harsh sounding. Nothing an analizer would tell you!_

 

What physical phenomena--besides neurology--both explain "dark" sound and would not show up on a 'scope?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The analizer doesn't let you know anything of HOW i experience the sound and it never will. your ears/brain do tell you what to make out of a certain signal._

 

Yes, but if your ears/brain are making something sound different, the cables are irrelevant. If a cable makes a difference, it should make a difference in the sound as it enters your ear as distinct from the sound as you perceive it. That putative difference would be measurable.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This sounds similar to the hogwash put out by The Audio Critic (no offense). In any event, there are a number of fine tubed headphone amplifiers put out by Singlepower, Ray Samuels, to name two, and I do not believe it is accurate nor fair to state that they are "poor" amplifiers, or that the color the sound "quite strongly."_

 

Having read a lot of The Audio Critic lately, I have to say that my interpretation of their take on tube amplifiers isn't that tubes are categorically bad, but that even those well designed and good performing amps are orders of magnitude more expensive and less reliable than an indistinguishably-sounding solid state amp.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A linear no-threshold model is embodied in the concepts "less capacitance always produces equivalently better sound" and "you can never have too little capacitance."_

 

I hadn't read this term before; it is a good label for a definite problem. Thanks.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Uh huh. That's pretty amazing, actually, since you were able to quote from it extensively just a few hours ago.



 Really? Where do they say that? Is it on one of those pages whose link you have conveniently lost, just hours after quoting extensively from it? 



 Which part of "price is not correlated with performance" are you having difficulty understanding?



 It's funny you should mention that. Because the same site also found that "The structural material (silver vs. copper) of conductors is not a guide for the character of sound."



 Warren, let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Head-Fi. I have sincerely enjoyed reading your posts in this thread._

 

I copied that from an older thread, so don't get smart with me.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I searched for a while but couldn't find the exact same site, your link isn't the same as what i quoted.

 wich correleation do you not understand of teflon being the best insulator and more expensive cables? Silver cores are more expensive then copper cores. I've yet to encounter a copper core that outperformes a silver core in extension and detail, especially in the extreem highs. Silver sounds in general softer then a coppercable. other people confirmed this too. I don't go for one site.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I second that.

 As for cable and cost
http://cgi.ebay.com/500FT-SPOOL-SILV...QQcmdZViewItem

 Teflon-Check(unless it's the dreaded poisoned type, which would cost more because it is an additive to the PTFE)

 Silver-Check

 Copper-Check

 Mil-Spec - Check 

 Lower capacitace and inductance due to it's stranding - check 

 500ft for $30 shipped -Check 

 Four strands per stereo pair at 1m = $1 per pair 

 So what is wrong with this cable?_

 

probably nothing but would it sound as good as my high end cable? we can ony tell by comparing them side by side and then you'll know why some are more expensive.
 As i said before i have done extensive cable testing and the high end cables sound best for me. period. if you are satisfied with a 30 dollar cable is fine with, it doesn't bother me at all.

 Stating that 30 dollar cable performs as good as a high end cable per see is something i still have to encounter yet! maybe on your precious meter they do, but not to my ears! And i don't give anything for shiny or super expensive cables, sound is only important for me.

 I also experimented extensively with DIY cables and while they came close, they never performed on a level as my high end cables do at the moment. Thinking an analizer tells it all is simply not true. Music and sound is far more complex. As is the ear/brain combination.


 Can you explain why people listening to the same setup and cables report different sounds?!

 edit: i saw your link and i think i tried that same cable with furutech gold plated plugs, all i can say is it doesn't compete with my high end cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* 
_A linear no-threshold model is embodied in the concepts "less capacitance always produces equivalently better sound" and "you can never have too little capacitance."_

 

I would never thought we would agree on something;

 capacitance deteriates the signal to a degree(leakage in the core's signal again), the better the signal comes trough, the more detail it preserves!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PhilS,

 Of course, I'll concede that some people can hear things that other people can't, and we'll never be able to compare our experiences of a given sound objectively.

 On the other hand, I'm employed to design integrated circuits, including amplifiers, and have probably listened to more op-amps than virtually anyone on the planet.

 The semiconductor industry, of course, uses measurement equipment to validate specifications, not the subjective experiences of listeners. Perhaps that's simply skewed my judgement of the utility of measurements. (I honestly consider subjective listener experience to be unscientific and pretty much useless to anyone except the listener herself.) All I can say is that, as far as my decade of experience has taken me, the test and measurement equipment is far superior to *me* in terms of its ability to detect flaws, and this is probably true of *nearly* everyone else.

 - Warren_

 

The strange thing is that you designer guys recognize that amps have sound differences but cables and differences are taboo

 better capacitors, resistors and transformers make for a better sounding amp, why can't it be the same for cables that superieur components make for a better cable? Once a shop modded an amp with different cables and it sounded very different then the riginal design without these internal cables, so cables do have influence on sound!

 Why do you think the filters in a speaker are set by ear, not by instruments, granted, they are used during proces but in the final stage the ear dictates how to set the filter(s)! Cause meters don't tell you how something sounds!

  Quote:


 All I can say is that, as far as my decade of experience has taken me, the test and measurement equipment is far superior to *me* in terms of its ability to detect flaws, and this is probably true of *nearly* everyone else. 
 

 probably true, won't argue with you about that but what they don't say about the flaws is how that translates into different sounds!!!

 so, it does tell you something but then again nothing at all!

 If so, enlighten me and how flaws translate into different sounds, like more body, more speed, better detail, more transparent etc.

 I have yet to encounter an engeneer that can tell me why a cable sounds the way it does. partly you could because copper and silver sound different(to me anyway).


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The strange thing is that you designer guys recognize that amps have sound differences but cables and differences are taboo_

 

The differences in signal amplification of amps is easily measurable depending on the components. Such things as slew rate, accuracy of capacitance/resistance, distortion performance at certain frequencies, and peak current/voltage performance all are things that effect the shape of the signal. 

 These differences are easily measurable between amps by even basic oscilloscopes and also have audible differences that are readily discernible by even the most uninitiated.

 You can see actual amp performance measurements from Ti Kan's site
http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/
 as well as from his DIY site
http://www.amb.org


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Isn't it true that there are EE's (including several who post on this board) that don't agree with this? You pronounce this as an absolute fact as if the matter is free from any doubt whatsoever, to the extent that it would appear that anybody who thinks the opposite is a complete idiot or completely uninformed (as if someone were claiming the earth is flat). I would venture to say that the issue is not so clear cut._

 

There are people in any given scientific field that disagree with the commonly accepted basis of their field. My stating an opinion about the laws of physics that goes against the commonly accepted version doesn't suddenly blow the whole debate wide open, it just makes me a quack until I can show from basic principles why my statement has a claim to validity OR I can provide some emprical evidence that stands up to peer review. The burden of proof is on the dissenters from the commonly accepted scientific viewpoint.

 As you state, there are EEs (or people who claim to be EEs) on this forum who state that cables make big difference in sound. There are also EEs on this forum who state that cables change their "sound signature" after 100s of hours of burn in or that solid state electronics do the same. A number of these EEs are also depending on claims of this sort for their continued flow of income. None of these claims can be verified through measurement or empirical testing. This being so, how do you imagine they go about their research & development of new products? Sounds to me like these "engineers" are stumbling around in the darkness looking for a better sound.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This sounds similar to the hogwash put out by The Audio Critic (no offense). In any event, there are a number of fine tubed headphone amplifiers put out by Singlepower, Ray Samuels, to name two, and I do not believe it is accurate nor fair to state that they are "poor" amplifiers, or that the color the sound "quite strongly."
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

By "poor" amplifiers, I believe Warren was referring to their use for high fidelity amplification. Fidelity means to be true to something, in this case referring to the signal being amplified. It is measurably demonstratable that tube-based amplification is worse than solid state amplification if the objective is to increase the amplitude of the incoming signal by some factor with the highest possible fidelity. Tube amplifiers distort the incoming signal, and yes, to some people this distortion is pleasant. I don't believe Warren is claiming they all sound bad per se. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't begrudge you your opinions on these issues, and you know much more about the details of some of the items you address than I do, but I really question the authoritativeness with which you make the pronouncements you are making. If some of the matters were as clear as you make them out to be, we would not be having some of these debates repeatedly, and those in the "believer" camp would not be supported by EE's who have heard differences and some other other pretty intelligent folks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

There will always be people who will continue to adhere to their position of faith despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People in the "cables make a difference" camp have been known to vividly describe difference between identical cables that were presented to them as different cables. It still doesn't prove anything.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Why do you think the filters in a speaker are set by ear, not by instruments, granted, they are used during proces but in the final stage the ear dictates how to set the filter(s)! Cause meters don't tell you how something sounds!
_

 

I don't think anyone has ever argued this or that you can tell how a cable/amplifier/speaker will sound by measurement alone. 

 What is true is if they measure the same they will sound the same regardless of the metal used/dielectric/sleeving/price. 

 Because if they measure the same the signal passed will be changed in the exact same way. Thats a fact. 

 What high end cable do you use? 

 If I made a cheap cable that measured the same as your cable they would sound the same because electrically they are the same.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are people in any given scientific field that disagree with the commonly accepted basis of their field. My stating an opinion about the laws of physics that goes against the commonly accepted version doesn't suddenly blow the whole debate wide open, it just makes me a quack until I can show from basic principles why my statement has a claim to validity OR I can provide some emprical evidence that stands up to peer review. The burden of proof is on the dissenters from the commonly accepted scientific viewpoint._

 

 First, the burden of proof is not on the "dissenters." It's not on anybody. This is not a court of law, or a scientific forum. It's a hobbyists forum. We're trying to improve the listening experince and enjoy the music more (of course without wasting money), not prove something so that it can be published in a peer-reviewed journal. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Second, I would agree that just because one physicist states an opinion that contradicts accepted laws of physics does not throw "the whole debate wide open," but if thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of pretty intelligent people, including hundreds of EE's who presumably know the "science," claim to have experienced a particular phenomenon that goes against the "science," it does seem to me that some exploration and consideration of the phenomenon is warranted. And it is too facile to say: "We'll it doesn't show up on our measurerments and it's not the accepted science, so it must not be true. End of inquiry."

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As you state, there are EEs (or people who claim to be EEs) on this forum who state that cables make big difference in sound. There are also EEs on this forum who state that cables change their "sound signature" after 100s of hours of burn in or that solid state electronics do the same. A number of these EEs are also depending on claims of this sort for their continued flow of income. None of these claims can be verified through measurement or empirical testing. This being so, how do you imagine they go about their research & development of new products? Sounds to me like these "engineers" are stumbling around in the darkness looking for a better sound._

 

 Again, much too facile to say that the EE's who believe cables make a difference are all out to make money and so are deliberating spreading falsehoods. And while some may be "stumbling around" looking for better sound, if it sounds better, I really don't care if they found it by accident. Wasn't the polio vaccine (or something like that) found by accident?



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By "poor" amplifiers, I believe Warren was referring to their use for high fidelity amplification. Fidelity means to be true to something, in this case referring to the signal being amplified. It is measurably demonstratable that tube-based amplification is worse than solid state amplification if the objective is to magnify the incoming signal with the highest possible fidelity. Tube amplifiers distort the incoming signal, and yes, to some people this distortion is pleasant. I don't believe Warren is claiming they all sound bad, per se._

 

 This may be merely semantics, and there may be little point to debating this issue. But isn't it true that certain headphones are constructed _not _to have the "highest possible fidelity" to the original signal, because it is not pleasing to the ear. Does that make them "bad" headphones? I think the rest of us will listen to our systems and enjoy the music, while "you guys" listen to your systems that sound like krap but look really good on an oscilloscope. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There will always be people who will continue to adhere to their position of faith despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People in the "cables make a difference" camp have been known to vividly describe difference between identical cables that were presented to them as different cables. It still doesn't prove anything._

 

 There is overwhelming evidence on both sides of the issue. And I don't know what you're referring to when you say people "have been known to vividly describe difference between identical cables that were presented to them as different cables."


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


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

 I think the rest of us will listen to our systems and enjoy the music, while "you guys" listen to your systems that sound like krap but look really good on an oscilloscope. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





_

 

I enjoy my music just fine knowing I didn't drop a lot of money for snake oil and hogwash.

 But ignorance is bliss I guess.


----------



## mlhm5

Gee, I been banned for a while and come back to see a post where no one can answer the OPs original question. 

 The answer is pretty simple, IMO.

 All you have to do is ask the person *selling* you cryo treated whatever, to give you proof that it is better. 

 If they cannot, it isn't worth the price. 

 As far as the support for cryo, I am not surprised that people who paid $150+ for cryo hear a difference. After all it takes a large leap of faith to lay out big money for intangible and undocumented benefits. Companies full of engineers like Mogami and Belden can’t get the same $$$$ for 6" of wire and two $2 connectors.


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the rest of us will listen to our systems and enjoy the music, while "you guys" listen to your systems that sound like krap but look really good on an oscilloscope._

 

I think the point that you and the other posters arguing with Warren seem to be missing is that no one claims that if it "looks really good on an oscilloscope" it will sound really good. What is being claimed is that if 2 components measure the same within a certain set of parameters, they will sound the same. There is no emprical evidence to contradict this statement. There are just a bunch of people standing around stamping their feet and shouting "but I _can_ hear the difference".


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gee, I been banned for a while and come back to see a post where not one shred of fact has been put forward to answer the OPs original question. 

 The answer is pretty simple, IMO.

 All you have to do is ask the person *selling* you cryo treated whatever, to give you proof. If they cannot, it isn't worth the price._

 

Wow, what an absolutely outstanding _non sequitur_! 

 And a new standard for all us to employ in our purchasing decisions. If the vendor of any product does not give you "proof" of the merits of the product, _ipso facto_, it isn't worth the price.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can hear the difference, prove it - ABX it. Everyone who has gone before you has failed, but maybe you are the chosen one who has the Golden Ears required to discern the effect of Cardas' patented Golden Section. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Uh, dude, this is a DBT-free forum. See this thread.


http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229729


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Uh, dude, this is a DBT-free forum. See this thread.


http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229729_

 

My bad, I'll withdraw that portion of my statement.


----------



## mlhm5

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, what an absolutely outstanding non sequitur! 

 And a new standard for all us to employ in our purchasing decisions. If the vendor of any product does not give you "proof" of the merits of the product, ipso facto, it isn't worth the price. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's a new concept to you to ask the vendor to back up product claims with proof?


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a new concept to you to ask the vendor to back up product claims with proof?_

 

"I'm sorry, but with our new ResOH!Lux Cable, the soundstage is so wide, our measuring tape is not long enough!"


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mlhm5* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a new concept to you to ask the vendor to back up product claims with proof?_

 

 Every vendor of every product you buy? And you have to do it _before _you purchase the product? 
 And if the vendor doesn't give you the proof, you must conclude you wasted your money? With respect to how many of the hundreds of products you purchased in the past month did you ask for proof and conduct such an analysis? Ya know, it's silly to debate this. Your statement was ridiculously overbroad and dogmatic, although there may be a worthy point lurking in there somewhere. 

 Anyway, I'm not going to debate or discuss this diversion with you.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My bad, I'll withdraw that portion of my statement._

 

As our esteemed Governor would say: "No problema."


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think anyone has ever argued this or that you can tell how a cable/amplifier/speaker will sound by measurement alone. 

 What is true is if they measure the same they will sound the same regardless of the metal used/dielectric/sleeving/price. 

 Because if they measure the same the signal passed will be changed in the exact same way. Thats a fact. 

 What high end cable do you use? 

 If I made a cheap cable that measured the same as your cable they would sound the same because electrically they are the same._

 

Just an open question.
 Can you explain to me (or refer to another source or sources): 
 - what it is you are measuring.
 - why you are measuring just that.
 - what the effect / relation is of those measured parameters on the sound perceived.
 - why you are so shure you are measuring EVERYTHING that can influence the perceived sound.




 Could it not be that the accepted set of measurements are just missing some parameters?

 I am not an EE, but I would think that the fact that a lot of people (me included) hear differences in sound that are not measured in the signal, is an indication that not everything that can be heard is measured.....

 Is there any scientific proof that everything that is measured in the signal is everything that can be heard?


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every vendor of every product you buy? And you have to do it before you purchase the product? 
 And if the vendor doesn't give you the proof, you must conclude you wasted your money?_

 

I have to work very hard to earn the money required to purchase $xxx. When a manufacturer lays claim that the performance of their product is worth an order of magnitude greater than a competitor, I expect that claim to be verified or supported be it empirical evidence or independent testing. When I buy $200 headphones as opposed to $50 headphones I would expect to be insurmountable evidence that it is better than the competitor in aspects that are important to me. This is opposed to, say, purchasing a disposable razor with 4 blades. The risk that you are exposing yourself to is much lower. When I purchase a hybrid car, I expect the manufacturer to prove that it actually does perform better. Is that not reasonable?


----------



## Harricanes

This thread is silly!


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every vendor of every product you buy? And you have to do it before you purchase the product? 
 And if the vendor doesn't give you the proof, you must conclude you wasted your money? With respect to how many of the hundreds of products you purchased in the past month did you ask for proof and conduct such an analysis? Ya know, it's silly to debate this. Your statement was ridiculously overbroad and dogmatic, although there may be a worthy point lurking in there somewhere._

 

PhilS, I don't think that the statement is quite so silly as you are making it out to be. If I am buying a set of headphones, I might examine specifications like the frequency response, the impedance, etc. Outside of the audio arena, there are plenty of times when I will examine specifications of a product and use those specification in my purchasing decisions. If I am buying a computer, I'm going to want to know things like the type of processor, the processor's speed, the hard disk size, the amount and type of memory, etc. If I am buying a car, I might look at factors like the fuel economy, the size of the engine, etc. Why is it so inherently ridiculous to ask a cable vendor to specify the resistance or capacitance of a cable that I am considering buying?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not an EE, but I would think that the fact that a lot of people (me included) hear differences in sound that are not measured in the signal, is an indication that not everything that can be heard is measured.....

 Is there any scientific proof that everything that is measured in the signal is everything that can be heard?_

 

Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to answer this question without breaking the rules of this forum.


----------



## nickknutson

You guys should go on Jeopardy!


----------



## Vul Kuolun

It's simply not correct that science couldn't explain the phenomenon of sound altering cables and other humbug. 

 It's just that some people don't like the answer, which is known to the non-scientific person as "that-the-emperors-new-clothes-kinda-thing".
 Shamefuly for the vendors, it just hasn't got that much to do with physics as most of them try to imply.

 Just because it isn't physics doesn't mean it isn't scientifically ascertainable.
 Really, human suggestibillity is not nearly an unexplored area of research.

 Welcome Warren. What an awesome post.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PhilS, I don't think that the statement is quite so silly as you are making it out to be. If I am buying a set of headphones, I might examine specifications like the frequency response, the impedance, etc. Outside of the audio arena, there are plenty of times when I will examine specifications of a product and use those specification in my purchasing decisions. If I am buying a computer, I'm going to want to know things like the type of processor, the processor's speed, the hard disk size, the amount and type of memory, etc. If I am buying a car, I might look at factors like the fuel economy, the size of the engine, etc. _

 

I understand, but that doesn't mean that if you do not consider such specifications, or every specification, or the vendor doesn't give your "proof" of every claim made regarding the product, this establishes that you have wasted your money. Read the previous statement of milm5. I was responding to that. You have now changed the question.

 And I agree with Harricanes, this is getting silly.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would never thought we would agree on something;

 capacitance deteriates the signal to a degree(leakage in the core's signal again), the better the signal comes trough, the more detail it preserves!_

 

Just... wow.

 I spent all that time explaning how capacitance is *not *accurately described by a linear no-threshold model, and you come back and say "hey, we finally agree on something -- capacitance follows a linear no-threshold model!"

 This is why I told myself I wasn't going to participate in these threads. Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone. Perhaps it's back to the music forum for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 - Warren


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just an open question.
 Can you explain to me (or refer to another source or sources): 
 - what it is you are measuring.
 - why you are measuring just that.
 - what the effect / relation is of those measured parameters on the sound perceived.
 - why you are so shure you are measuring EVERYTHING that can influence the perceived sound.




 Could it not be that the accepted set of measurements are just missing some parameters?

 I am not an EE, but I would think that the fact that a lot of people (me included) hear differences in sound that are not measured in the signal, is an indication that not everything that can be heard is measured.....

 Is there any scientific proof that everything that is measured in the signal is everything that can be heard?_

 

Hey Kees,

 We're all implicitly treating a piece of wire as a "passive linear filter." A filter, in the EE sense, is some kind of device which is capable of modifying a signal. A passive filter is one that does not have any external power supply, and cannot _amplify_ a signal (increasing its amplitude or loudness) but only decrease it. Linearity means adding two signals and passing them through the filter together results in the same signal as passing two signals independently through the filter and adding the outputs.

 As it turns out, there are many different, yet equivalent ways of describing a linear filter. One such description is the so-called "frequency response," which is basically a set of two plots. One plot shows how the filter changes the amplitude of signals of different frequencies, while the other shows how the filter changes the phase of signals of different frequencies.

 It can be mathematically shown that if you have these two plots, you know *everything* about the filter. *These two plots comprise a complete description of the filter. *There are no other secrets or hidden information -- the frequency response is mathematically complete. I can't stress this enough.

 There are entire industries which develop test-and-measurement equipment, which can capture the frequency response of any filter you want to measure. They can capture the response with an incredible resolution. They can detect details in a frequency response that you could never hear. (And, again, the frequency response is mathematically complete, so there's nothing "in the signal" that isn't shown on a frequency response -- that's not physically possible.)

 Now, if you take a frequency response of two different pieces of cable, you can compare them at every frequency and see exactly how they differ in their transmission. If the two cables do not differ more than 0.1 dB or so in amplitude over the audible frequencies, and do not differ more than a couple degrees in phase over the audible frequencies, then they literally cannot sound any different to the ear.

 (I'm also being generous with phase -- the ear is not sensitive to phase, and even a large phase shift will not be audible, as long as it's relatively constant across the audible spectrum.)

 Despite what some people would like to believe, there cannot be any behavior that is not captured in the frequency response, and we have equipment which can measure frequency response to a resolution orders of magnitude better than the human ear. If the machine says the two cables are the same, they must sound the same. There's no physical way it could be different -- any difference a listener hears is inside his/her own head.

 - Warren


----------



## AC1

Can we dabate about synthetic vs regular oil too. 
 I swear, on every car forum there is the same debate over if we will really see benefits using synthetic and the same arguments over and over again. Same thing here, how many times are we gonna see the same things said over and over again.

 To me neither objective or subjective approaches are perfect and both probably will never be. If you want to pick a side that is fine, but don't expect people to believe somethng just because you said that is how it works.


----------



## rb67

Well put Warren.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is why I told myself I wasn't going to participate in these threads. Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone. Perhaps it's back to the music forum for me. 
_

 

I dont agree with everything you say (as you know) and to some extent we approach this issue from vastly different points of view, but I do appreciate your contributions to this discussion. You obviously have relevant knowledge and experience on matters germane to the issues we are discussing, and your comments are polite, tactful, and intelligible, unlike some of the comments we get from certain folks that always jump into these threads. Therefore, I hope you don't confine yourself to the music forum.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey Kees,

 We're all implicitly treating a piece of wire as a "passive linear filter." A filter, in the EE sense, is some kind of device which is capable of modifying a signal. A passive filter is one that does not have any external power supply, and cannot amplify a signal (increasing its amplitude or loudness) but only decrease it. Linearity means adding two signals and passing them through the filter together results in the same signal as passing two signals independently through the filter and adding the outputs.

 As it turns out, there are many different, yet equivalent ways of describing a linear filter. One such description is the so-called "frequency response," which is basically a set of two plots. One plot shows how the filter changes the amplitude of signals of different frequencies, while the other shows how the filter changes the phase of signals of different frequencies.

 It can be mathematically shown that if you have these two plots, you know *everything* about the filter. *These two plots comprise a complete description of the filter. *There are no other secrets or hidden information -- the frequency response is mathematically complete. I can't stress this enough.

 There are entire industries which develop test-and-measurement equipment, which can capture the frequency response of any filter you want to measure. They can capture the response with an incredible resolution. They can detect details in a frequency response that you could never hear. (And, again, the frequency response is mathematically complete, so there's nothing "in the signal" that isn't shown on a frequency response -- that's not physically possible.)

 Now, if you take a frequency response of two different pieces of cable, you can compare them at every frequency and see exactly how they differ in their transmission. If the two cables do not differ more than 0.1 dB or so in amplitude over the audible frequencies, and do not differ more than a couple degrees in phase over the audible frequencies, then they literally cannot sound any different to the ear.

 (I'm also being generous with phase -- the ear is not sensitive to phase, and even a large phase shift will not be audible, as long as it's relatively constant across the audible spectrum.)

 Despite what some people would like to believe, there cannot be any behavior that is not captured in the frequency response, and we have equipment which can measure frequency response to a resolution orders of magnitude better than the human ear. If the machine says the two cables are the same, they must sound the same. There's no physical way it could be different -- any difference a listener hears is inside his/her own head.

 - Warren_

 

Thanks a lot for your trouble to explain. At least now I know why you are stating certain things.
 If you don't mind I have some more questions on this:
 Why is a cable considered to be a linear passive filter?
 Is air, acting as a medium to carry a soundwave to our ears also considered a passive linear filter?
 How is it verified that the frequency reponse curve measured is the frequency response of the signal?
 Can every change in the (patern of) the frequency response curve be linked to specific audible effects?
 And the other way around?
 How is this done?

 I would understand if you don't want to go into great depth trying to explain all this and I would also be happy if you could point me to other sources where I can find more info on this topic.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is a cable considered to be a linear passive filter?_

 

It's passive because it cannot amplify the signal, only attenuate it. It's linear because it obeys Ohm's law, which is linear. It's a filter because I'm treating it as such.

 When I describe a cable as a passive linear filter, all I really mean is that the mathematical opus of linear systems (filters) can be brought to bear on the subject of cables.

  Quote:


 Is air, acting as a medium to carry a soundwave to our ears also considered a passive linear filter? 
 

Yes, but it's a bit more complicated to understand. As you're probably already aware, multi-channel speaker systems create the possibility of constructive and destructive inteference -- that is, the wavefronts from one speaker can overlap the wavefronts from another speaker to constructively or destructively interfere. Since this interference depends on the distance of the listener from each speaker, you could imagine each point in space as having its very own frequency response.

 Inside a headphone's earcup cavity, the biggest problems are reflections. Sound arriving at the ear after being reflected from one part of the earcup can interfere with sound arriving at the ear directly from the driver. As a result, the frequency response of the "headphone cavity filter" between the driver and ear is not at all flat. Small details like the shape of the ear, etc. can cause major changes in the frequency response via reflections.

  Quote:


 How is it verified that the frequency reponse curve measured is the frequency response of the signal? 
 

Thousands of people are involved with development of test equipment. There's a never-ending co-evolution of people developing better sources and better measurement tools all the time, each depending on the other.

  Quote:


 Can every change in the (patern of) the frequency response curve be linked to specific audible effects? 
 

No. The ear is not capable of hearing differences in amplitude of less than 0.1 dB, and changes in phase are pretty much unimportant. There are, in fact, a very large number of different waveforms which the ear/brain will percieve exactly the same way. (This is the idea which underlies the entire field of psychoacoustics, which gives us mp3 compression, etc.)

 For example, let's do a little thought experiment. Consider two flutes playing two different notes simultaneously, their waveforms added. (The flute produces a vibration very close to a pure sine wave when played in certain styles.) Even if you change the phase between the two flutes, resulting in waveforms that look very different, the perceived sound is the same.

 If you put these flutists in a well-designed anechoic chamber and walk around them in a circle, their relative phase (as heard by your ear) will move by 360 degrees, but you'll never notice a thing perceptually.

  Quote:


 And the other way around? 
 

Yes -- measurement equipment can detect things (like phase shifts) that the human ear simply cannot.

 - Warren


----------



## Nardin

For my two cents, I think Warren has framed the discussion in such a way that makes good sense.

 Having said that, anyone can chose to believe what they want to believe, however if you choose to believe different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly different, you must also believe that physicists' understanding of how electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally flawed.


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is a cable considered to be a linear passive filter?_

 

To add on to chroot's response a filter is a circuit that does not allow certain frequencies to be pass through in the form of voltage swings in the signal. Engineers can easily create filters to block certain frequencies from passing through by utilizing capacitors, inductors, and resistors. The basic possible physical measurements one can make on a cable are capacitance, inductance, and impedance. Thus, one can create a simple, yet accurate circuit to model the behavior of the cable which would essentially be a passive filter.


----------



## tnmike1

Interesting thread: I'm a user of ALO's Cryodock--regular, not the jumbo--and simply love it; use it and Moon Audio's Silver Dragon for different types' music.

 That said, I'd like to hear responses from these cable builders--not to justify themselves, but to see their responses to some of the comments made here. I understand we don't do DBT on the forum, but some comments from the builders may be interesting and add to the education of all of us


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think anyone has ever argued this or that you can tell how a cable/amplifier/speaker will sound by measurement alone. 

 What is true is if they measure the same they will sound the same regardless of the metal used/dielectric/sleeving/price. 

 Because if they measure the same the signal passed will be changed in the exact same way. Thats a fact. 

 What high end cable do you use? 

 If I made a cheap cable that measured the same as your cable they would sound the same because electrically they are the same._

 

In some cables you just hear much more then with some other cables. So i figure frequency loss/or loss of detail in the frequencies,whatever you call it) is not the same.

 It would mean you need to use the exact same core, insulator, silverplating etc. otherwise you won't get it to sound the same.

 High end cables are from Nordost. I know some tried to copy them but never go the real deal! The original still sounded best. They use a very expensive way to braid the teflon and have air between the core and the teflon, very hard to do that yourself.

 As i said before i tried that military spec cable and while really good, it doesn't come close to the nordost for musicality and body. With the Nordost cables it sounds real. With that military spec cable it sounded liveless. And i had even worse cables, were i would loose about 50% of the things i can hear now!

 So, for a cheap alternative those cables are pretty good but they are not the last word in absolute musical bliss.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just an open question.
 Can you explain to me (or refer to another source or sources): 
 - what it is you are measuring.
 - why you are measuring just that.
 - what the effect / relation is of those measured parameters on the sound perceived.
 - why you are so shure you are measuring EVERYTHING that can influence the perceived sound.




 Could it not be that the accepted set of measurements are just missing some parameters?

 I am not an EE, but I would think that the fact that a lot of people (me included) hear differences in sound that are not measured in the signal, is an indication that not everything that can be heard is measured.....

 Is there any scientific proof that everything that is measured in the signal is everything that can be heard?_

 


 I recall a quote of a respected audio critic;

 he said he didn't know why the cable he tested sounded so good, the measurements would indicate otherwise but the fact was it sounded not as he would expected looking at the measuring instruments. It was the most respected independent critic around and was very sceptical about high end in general. He just couldn't explain what was hapening!


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 It would mean you need to use the exact same core, insulator, silverplating etc. otherwise you won't get it to sound the same.
_

 

No, all that would be required is that the specs/freq response is the same. 

 If the frequency response is the same a signal passed through both cables will be the same. Then amplified the same. Then the speakers will move the same causing the same sound.

 It's suspect if people can really hear the difference in cables. But there is no way someone could hear the difference if they pass the signal exactly the same.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just... wow.

 I spent all that time explaning how capacitance is *not *accurately described by a linear no-threshold model, and you come back and say "hey, we finally agree on something -- capacitance follows a linear no-threshold model!"

 This is why I told myself I wasn't going to participate in these threads. Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone. Perhaps it's back to the music forum for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 - Warren_

 


 It doesn't mean i agree with you on the other things. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 maybe it was just me not carefully reading your post. I am not a native american, so english doesn't come natural to me. Explains also the difference in quotes from real americans and MY english! Surpised you can read it that well at all.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Most of the time it's late at my end of the line....


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, all that would be required is that the specs/freq response is the same. 

 If the frequency response is the same a signal passed through both cables will be the same. Then amplified the same. Then the speakers will move the same causing the same sound.

 It's suspect if people can really hear the difference in cables. But there is no way someone could hear the difference if they pass the signal exactly the same._

 


 How can you explain the fact that some cables let you hear much more details and is much more transparant(how deep you can look into the stage) then other cables?

 This is not the same with cables. And i had a lot; alot of variation in frequncy heard and especially transparancy also speed was a big factor. Some sounded dull and slow whilst others, like Nordost, sound lifelike, as somebody in real life would hit the drums.

 So, logically, there must be somthing doing something to the signal during transport. I really don't think so it is the ear/brain combo, since then it would be not consistant.

 I really would love to know why people hear different things in a cable. I can understand that 2 different people don't have to hear the same thing in a rig, granted, but if the same person hears different things just by altering an IC, then it HAS to be that factor that changed the sound...one thing i can think of is that the amp responds better to the cable...but in case of the Nordost, they have the same caracter on any rig.

 If that's true what you're saying then simply no IC is the same......


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How can you explain the fact that some cables let your much more details and is much more transparant(how deep you can look into the stage) then other cables?

 This is not the same with cables. And i had a lot; alot of variation in frequncy heard and especially transparancy also speed was a big factor. Some sounded dull and slow whilst others, like Nordost, sound lifelike, as somebody in real life would hit the drums.

 So, logically, there must be somthing doing something to the signal during transport. I really don't think so it is the ear/brain combo, since then it would be not consistand._

 

This is the deal. At the end of the signal chain is a speaker. The speaker has a voice coil that is sitting in a magnet(the motor). The electrical signal from the amp builds up a magnetic field in the coil. The magnetic field opposes the magnetic field in the motor causing the coil/cone assembly to move. The cone movement causes air movement which is the sound you hear.

 If the frequency passed through two cables is the same the end result will the cone moving in the exact same way. Nothing more nothing less. If you listen to two cables that pass the frequency any differences heard are psycological.


----------



## Nardin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How can you explain the fact that some cables let your much more details and is much more transparant(how deep you can look into the stage) then other cables?_

 

What facts? Maybe you mean, IMO.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really would love to know why people hear different things in a cable. I can understand that 2 different people don't have to hear the same thing in a rig, granted, but if the same person hears different things just by altering a IC, then it HAS to be that factor that changed the sound...one thing i can think of is that the amp responds better to the cable...but in case of the Nordost, they have the same character on any rig.

 If that's true what you're saying then simply no IC is the same......_

 

The explanation is quite simple. Placebo/emotional bias effects. 

 They are present in every listening experience, are with us all the time and we cannot get away from them. 

 They are an inherent part of human perception/psychology and occur in each and every listening experience - controlled comparison, uncontrolled comparison, or just kicking back in your living room and firing up system/phones.

 The best we can do is to isolate and identify them, and measure the way that they skew our perceptions, so that we can separate out the skewing effects from what we're really trying to evaluate.

 I have read a few of your posts and you claim there is a difference in copper wire. Engineers have stated instruments capable of measurements 1000X more sensitive than the human ear detect no difference yet you still claim there is a difference. 

 I have offered a reason for the difference, a listener bias.

 If the explanation of the difference is beyond the scope of science or psychology, then that leaves only magic or intelligent design.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is the deal. At the end of the signal chain is a speaker. The speaker has a voice coil that is sitting in a magnet(the motor). The electrical signal from the amp builds up a magnetic field in the coil. The magnetic field opposes the magnetic field in the motor causing the coil/cone assembly to move. The cone movement causes air movement which is the sound you hear.

 If the frequency passed through two cables is the same the end result will the cone moving in the exact same way. Nothing more nothing less. If you listen to two cables that pass the frequency any differences heard are psycological._

 


 The differences heard are consistant between cables. If it was the ear/brain combo it would not be consistant! That is a rule of pshycology. So, there must be a physical instrument at work. The only logical thing i can think of is that the amp is responding differently to cables, and the site i quoted confirms this!

 If i would hear differences between cables then it would logically also be true that i would hear differences on a different day in the same cable. This IS not the case with people that hear differences in cables, only between 2 different cables but not in 1 cable, this should also occur. Since it doesn't, i doubt it's pure psychological, there are more things at work.

 I listen often to the same music; logically i had to hear differences in themusic from day to day, if was lisitening to the same music over and over again. This is not the case, the sound is consistantly the same.

 One simple conclusion could be that all the cables on the market don't measure the same. Thus far i've never had a cbale sounding the same as another one.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nardin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What facts? Maybe you mean, IMO.



 The explanation is quite simple. Placebo/emotional bias effects. 

 They are present in every listening experience, are with us all the time and we cannot get away from them. 

 They are an inherent part of human perception/psychology and occur in each and every listening experience - controlled comparison, uncontrolled comparison, or just kicking back in your living room and firing up system/phones.

 The best we can do is to isolate and identify them, and measure the way that they skew our perceptions, so that we can separate out the skewing effects from what we're really trying to evaluate._

 

let's try an experiment and see if your and my ic sound the same on your rig. pretty shure it doesn't.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Fact is that no cable measures the same. That site has measured quite alot of cables of different brands and they simply don't measure the same.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The differences heard are consistant between cables. If it was the ear/brain combo it would not be consistant! That is a rule of pshycology. So, there must be a physical instrument at work. The only logical thing i can think of is that the amp is responding differently to cables, and the site i quoted confirms this!_

 

Link?

 It's not possible with cables that meassure the same. Even with cables that are different it still isn't going to matter.

 If the electric signal to the speakers is the same regardless what is in between, they will sound the same.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_let's try an experiment and see if your and my ic sound the same on your rig. pretty shure it doesn't.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'll take you up on that.

 What state are you in?


----------



## Nardin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_let's try an experiment and see if your and my ic sound the same on your rig. pretty sure it doesn't.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This is a DBT free forum as you well know.


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In some cables you just hear much more then with some other cables. So i figure frequency loss/or loss of detail in the frequencies,whatever you call it) is not the same._

 

If there were attenuation ("frequency loss") or distortion ("loss of detail") at any frequency, a spectrum analyzer would register this attenuation or distortion long before your ears could.

 The problem you are running into here is that you are claiming to hear differences that don't exist in the physical world, therefore the best explanation for what you are "hearing" is what psychologists refer to as suggestion (ie: you are expecting the Nordost cables to sound better, therefore the Nordost cables do sound better.). There have been enough documented psychological studies done at this point to demonstrate that suggestion is a real phenomenon in human beings. I'm making the wild assumption that you are not a dolphin, otherwise all hearing related bets are off... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Unfortunately, the only way to truly dispell your belief that cables do make a difference to the sound is via standard methods of empirical testing whose discussion is banned in this forum.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The differences in signal amplification of amps is easily measurable depending on the components. Such things as slew rate, accuracy of capacitance/resistance, distortion performance at certain frequencies, and peak current/voltage performance all are things that effect the shape of the signal. 

 These differences are easily measurable between amps by even basic oscilloscopes and also have audible differences that are readily discernible by even the most uninitiated._

 

Definitely no.

 There _are_ measuring differences with (solid-state) amps, but they don't correlate with the sonic impressions. Most are on a level generally considered below the hearing threshold anyway. 


  Quote:


 _...things that affect the shape of the signal._ 
 

Show me an oscillograph that demonstrates signal-shape deviations with different (solid-state) amps if you can!



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...What is being claimed is that if 2 components measure the same within a certain set of parameters, they will sound the same._

 

The decisive part is the «certain» parameters. Where's the threshold, and who defines them according to what criteria?



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think anyone has ever argued this or that you can tell how a cable/amplifier/speaker will sound by measurement alone. 

 What is true is if they measure the same they will sound the same regardless of the metal used/dielectric/sleeving/price. 

 Because if they measure the same the signal passed will be changed in the exact same way. Thats a fact._

 

How something «sounds» to an individual person is always dictated by that person's perception, not measurements with limited resolution or limited bandwidth. If a certain measurement is considered identical or different depends on individual standards. It will never measure _exactly_ the same and in every aspect through different components, though. 


  Quote:


 If I made a cheap cable that measured the same as your cable they would sound the same because electrically they are the same. 
 

If that's true, then identical measurements don't mean identical sound. Because identical sounding cables are a fiction, in my experience. As are identical sounding amps, BTW. But in reality the two cables will show clear measuring deviations anyway, they're just generally considered below the hearing threshold.


 I have no experience with cryo treatment -- sorry!
.


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only logical thing i can think of is that the amp is responding differently to cables, and the site i quoted confirms this!_

 

This I can agree with. When I hook radio shack cables up to my amp, it gets a bit pouty and whines about how I'm just not treating it right and how I only love the DAC. But when I come home with a big bouquet of freshly picked nordost, my amp starts making the sweetest sounds.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'll take you up on that.

 What state are you in?_

 

Not even in your country but i could find someone in the us for ya to try the same IC.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This I can agree with. When I hook radio shack cables up to my amp, it gets a bit pouty and whines about how I'm just not treating it right and how I only love the DAC. But when I come home with a big bouquet of freshly picked nordost, my amp starts making the sweetest sounds. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Spot on, Nordost sounds simply better. I am not feading it flowers though but electrical signals.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Most sceptics even never heard a real high end cable.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If there were attenuation ("frequency loss") or distortion ("loss of detail") at any frequency, a spectrum analyzer would register this attenuation or distortion long before your ears could.

 The problem you are running into here is that you are claiming to hear differences that don't exist in the physical world, therefore the best explanation for what you are "hearing" is what psychologists refer to as suggestion (ie: you are expecting the Nordost cables to sound better, therefore the Nordost cables do sound better.). There have been enough documented psychological studies done at this point to demonstrate that suggestion is a real phenomenon in human beings. I'm making the wild assumption that you are not a dolphin, otherwise all hearing related bets are off... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Unfortunately, the only way to truly dispell your belief that cables do make a difference to the sound is via standard methods of empirical testing whose discussion is banned in this forum._

 

I don't suggest, as a psychological rule i cannot suggest the same every day, so i should also hear differences per day in a cable! this IS not the case. the case is that the sound difference only occurs between different cables and is constant. It doesn't sound better one day and the next day it sounds worse then the other cable, NO, it sounds either much better then the other cable or it sounds worse then the other cable! This is consistant!

 Logically, on a psychological basis, there would have been a variation between sound in music on a day to day basis, this is just not true!

 As a matter afact it didn't know when i got them what to expect. I really was surprised when i hooked em up the rig how much of a difference they made compared to the old IC! The differences heard are still the same as off today! if i would switch back again, i simply would loose alot of detail, speed, transparancy and body! The difference was quite huge and a shock to me!

 The difference between the next in line of Nordost was quite smaller, yet noticable by slightly more detail and body. So, if i would go down the line, i would loose musicallity, body, transparency and detail. The speed of all Nordost cables are superb.

 I said before that i have done lots of tests and experments myself but as of yet, no DIY cable can match this one!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Definitely no.

 There are measuring differences with (solid-state) amps, but they don't correlate with the sonic impressions. Most are on a level generally considered below the hearing threshold anyway. 


 Show me an oscillograph that demonstrates signal-shape deviations with different (solid-state) amps if you can!



 The decisive part is the «certain» parameters. Where's the threshold, and who defines them according to what criteria?



 How something «sounds» to an individual person is always dictated by that person's perception, not measurements with limited resolution or limited bandwidth. If a certain measurement is considered identical or different depends on individual standards. It will never measure exactly the same and in every aspect through different components, though. 


 If that's true, then identical measurements don't mean identical sound. Because identical sounding cables are a fiction, in my experience. As are identical sounding amps, BTW. But in reality the two cables will show clear measuring deviations anyway, they're just generally considered below the hearing threshold.


 I have no experience with cryo treatment -- sorry!
._

 


 Agree, people don't simply hear the same, that's why you will read such a variaty of responces to the same cables or IC's in general. Some persons hear higher frequencies better then others.

 I highly doubt all cables measure the same. This would imply that in all three aspects they need to be the same, resistance, inductance and capacitance, this is simply not possible. Other plugs, cores and insulators!

 Since these things differ, maybe that's why a cable sounds different then another. Hearing threashold is 0.5 db difference, some even suggest 0.1 db differences can be heard. An increase of 3db would make a sound twice as loud, just for comparison. So, 0.5 db would be quite a small difference that could be detected.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Advil* 
_I A/B'd Nordost Valhalla to Some 400 dollar balanced cabled (speaker system) through some amazing equipment today.

 and.. well.. i really liked it!

 sounds a lot more spacious and airy, adds detail to vocals and has a much better decay in the highs AND lows.

 Overall.. damn

 but...like 4000 dollar good?

 ..eh_

 

Pretty darn good cables. This does NOT mean that these cables are for everybody. Synergy and taste come to mind.

 That's what i am wondering about...sure, some are better then other but why these prices! it certainly is not all in the materials used, although i know Nordost cables are quite expensive to produce.


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Show me an oscillograph that demonstrates signal-shape deviations with different (solid-state) amps if you can!_

 

Sources: www.amb.org http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/

http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/show...0square%20wave
http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/show...Hz%20lissajous
http://www.amb.org/audio/ck2/showpic...0square%20wave
http://www.amb.org/audio/ck2/showpic...Hz%20lissajous
http://www.amb.org/audio/mmm/showpic...0square%20wave
http://www.amb.org/audio/mmm/showpic...Hz%20lissajous
http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/dy..._100khz_sq.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/dy..._lissajous.jpg


 Now what these shapes relate to in terms of sonic performance is still up in the air in my opinion. I can, however, tell you that one can easily tell the difference between say a dynahi vs a CKKIII. Beta22 vs dynahi on the other hand...

 In contrast, cables do not differ enough that there should be reasonable sonic differences assuming they are properly shielded and have proper connections.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hearing threashold is 0.5 db difference, some even suggest 0.1 db differences can be heard. An increase of 3db would make a sound twice as loud, just for comparison. So, 0.5 db would be quite a small difference that could be detected._

 

I do a lot of sound editing, and I can easily hear differences below 0.5 dB. However, the measuring differences among amps are in a magnitude of 0.2 dB at most when it comes to frequency response deviations within the audible range. Considering that 0.1% corresponds to ~0.1 dB and harmonic distortion among modern solid-state amps usually ranges at 0.01% and below, an effective hearing threshold of even below 0.01 dB could very well be established -- if the perceived differences have anything to do with different harmonic-distortion patterns.
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sources: www.amb.org http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/

http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/show...0square%20wave
http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/show...Hz%20lissajous
http://www.amb.org/audio/ck2/showpic...0square%20wave
http://www.amb.org/audio/ck2/showpic...Hz%20lissajous
http://www.amb.org/audio/mmm/showpic...0square%20wave
http://www.amb.org/audio/mmm/showpic...Hz%20lissajous
http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/dy..._100khz_sq.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audio/dy..._lissajous.jpg_

 

I wasn't clear enough. Of course you can demonstrate the influence of bandwidth limitations by means of square waves. But I had a real-world signal in the audio band in mind. 


  Quote:


 _Now what these shapes relate to in terms of sonic performance is still up in the air in my opinion._ 
 

That's what I wanted to express. 


  Quote:


 _I can, however, tell you that one can easily tell the difference between say a dynahi vs a CKKIII. Beta22 vs dynahi on the other hand..._ 
 

I'm glad you can. Now, in which _relevant_ aspect does their output differ when they're fed by a CD player? 


  Quote:


 _In contrast, cables do not differ enough that there should be reasonable sonic differences assuming they are properly shielded and have proper connections._ 
 

You see, it's not so much about measuring data, but actually about the physical potential to cause sonic differences which affects the openmindedness of many skeptics (except for the ones who deny sonic differences among modern electronics components generally). 
.


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm glad you can. Now, in which relevant aspect does their output differ when they're fed by a CD player?_

 

I do have to concede that I personally cannot relate square wave performance with real world applications. Maybe another member can. However, I did find that the dynahi had more clarity and bass punch than the CKKIII. I went into it not thinking that there would be audible differences as I normally am a skeptic. Whether it is a result of the signal performance, or overall performance when connected to low impedance headphones (RS-2's) is a variable that I was not able to test.

 To me the fact that there are physical differences of the magnitudes we see is sufficient evidence for me that there is reason to believe that differences in sound is a result of physical properties. The fact that we don't see this in cables to a meaningful magnitude have supported the conclusions I have made that there is no physical reason to prefer one cable over the other assuming quality connections and shielding.


----------



## lutwey

i been reading the debate for a while and these are the 2 major sides:

 yes-cryo gives a better sq....through "hearing"
 no-since it hasn't been proven scientifically 
 i'm still confuse though

 why would someone pay large amount of $$$ on something without any proof that it actually"delivers?"

 to thoose who can determine the difference in sq,how sure are you guys that it is your ears that is leading you to that conclusion and not your imagination?

 i'm not attacking anybody........i'm just asking some "straight up" questions so we can get something out of these.

 if somebody is offended with these questions, i apologize.


----------



## tom10167

And the other side is of course is there anyone here who's saying there's no difference who has actually listened to a jumbo?


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To me the fact that there are physical differences of the magnitudes we see is sufficient evidence for me that there is reason to believe that differences in sound is a result of physical properties. The fact that we don't see this in cables to a meaningful magnitude have supported the conclusions I have made that there is no physical reason to prefer one cable over the other assuming quality connections and shielding._

 

You can easily demonstrate how different cables affect the reproduction of square waves, although to a lesser degree than different amps would. One could also consider this an indication of audible effects. However, square-wave response sais little about sonic accuracy and sound quality -- be it with amps or cables. But of course I understand that amps' obvious higher signal-degradation potential makes it easier to accept a sonic impact from their part. Nevertheless, isn't it somewhat naive to just trust your ears -- in view of the absence of clearly _relevant_ measuring differences?
.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lutwey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_why would someone pay large amount of $$$ on something without any proof that it actually"delivers?"_

 

For some people -- perhaps many people -- the placebo effect is reward enough. If the buyer can afford the cables, and he really thinks they sound better, then he got what he paid for... even if no one else could ever hear the difference he claims to hear.

 My only problem with people like tourmaline is that they often make outlandish claims about vastly improved SQ (50% more detail?!) as it if were a universal fact. They often do not seem capable of understanding that it may be all in their heads, nor are they willing to concede that they're vulnerable to bias.

 If they were to just admit that it really might be all in their heads, but they still like their expensive cables anyway, so be it. I have no problem with that.

 - Warren


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can easily demonstrate how different cables affect the repoduction of square waves, although to a lesser degree than different amps would. One could also consider this an indication of audible effects. However, square-wave response sais little about sonic accuracy and sound quality -- be it with amps or cables. But of course I understand that amps' obvious higher signal-degradation potential makes it easier to accept a sonic impact from their part. Nevertheless, isn't it somewhat naive to just trust your ears -- in view of the absence of clearly relevant measuring differences?
._

 

In case anyone is not aware of what "square wave testing" implies, I'd like to comment on it.

 A square wave is a signal with frequency content extending out to infinity. A perfect square wave involves an instantaneous change from one voltage to another, which requires components of infinite frequency.

 This means that no electronic equipment -- none -- can accurately represent square waves. Cables -- all of them -- begin to suffer attenuation up in the MHz range. Eventually, when you get to microwave frequencies, you have to give up on wires altogether and use electromagnetic waveguides or other exotic techniques.

 So, the quality of a square wave is only going to tell you about the bandwidth of the cable far up in the MHz range. This information is utterly irrelevant for judging a cable's transmission of frequencies in the audible range.

 - Warren


----------



## Nardin

If an explanation of the perceived sonic differences among different cables is beyond the scope of science and psychology, would someone please explain the source of the difference.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Nardin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If an explanation of the perceived sonic differences among different cables is beyond the scope of science and psychology, would someone please explain the source of the difference._

 

It's certainly not beyond the scope of either science or psychology. It's pretty clear cut, actually. Science essentially says there's no audible difference between cables. Psychology says any perceived difference is just that: perception. And perception is an extremely complicated process, involving much more than just the ear -- it extends from the ear, through the brain, down the spine, and into the wallet.

 - Warren


----------



## Nardin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's certainly not beyond the scope of either science or psychology. It's pretty clear cut, actually. Science essentially says there's no audible difference between cables. Psychology says any perceived difference is just that: perception. And perception is an extremely complicated process, involving much more than just the ear -- it extends from the ear, through the brain, down the spine, and into the wallet.

 - Warren_

 

Too funny!!


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_People will notice if something is relabeled or overpriced. 

 Remember red rose the sub company of mark levinson? They imported chinese high end amps and marked them up 7 times and sold them for 7000 dollars each. the chinese version was just about 1000 dollars. People quickly discovered they were the same and started importing the chinese version.

 So, relabeling cheap products is not gonna fool everybody. As it would with budweiser, a connesseur of beers will know it's the same taste with a higher price!

 In short, not everybody is fooled or drawn by high prices.

 In the end a product that is high priced and not that good will be disclosed. But what you said, that will not stop people from buying it because it is expensive.....the audiophiles know what to do with it.....just leave it as it is._

 

Wait what? People found out that a $1000 amp from china was the same as a $7000 mark levinson amp and thats somehow a correlation between high price not fooling people? Thats a false correlation if i ever saw one. 

 Do you have the specific model of this amp? i want to look for reviews, im willing to bet most of them say things like "this amp is not very good for the money but it compares easily to $5000-$6000 amps"


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since these things differ, maybe that's why a cable sounds different then another. Hearing threashold is 0.5 db difference, some even suggest 0.1 db differences can be heard. An increase of 3db would make a sound twice as loud, just for comparison. So, 0.5 db would be quite a small difference that could be detected._

 

A 10db gain is required to sound twice as loud.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's certainly not beyond the scope of either science or psychology. It's pretty clear cut, actually. Science essentially says there's no audible difference between cables._

 

No, science says no such thing. Science simply doesn't care about audio cables and audiophile-grade audio in general. 
.


----------



## Obelus

Okay, I read the whole thread. I believe I've made up my mind. I'm convinced enough to stipulate that any SQ differences that I discern among the interconnects between my iPods and headphone amps are not due to the wire but, all other things considered equal, are psychological. Good to know. Thank you everyone for the effort you put into the discussion--it was helpful, interesting, and entertaining. And free, which makes me happy given the perhaps unnecessary $ I've already put into silver and cryo.


----------



## Kees

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, science says no such thing. Science simply doesn't care about audio cables and audiophile-grade audio in general. 
._

 

X2.
 Science never proved there is no audible difference. They just state they cannot measure it.
 They also state without any kind of proof that the small differences they do actually measure cannot be heard.
 They just believe it cannot be heard.

 If something is not scientifically proven, it does not mean it is not really there.
 It IS there, it is just not yet proven.
 Otherwise things would not have fallen on the ground before Newton formulated the laws of gravity.


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, science says no such thing. Science simply doesn't care about audio cables and audiophile-grade audio in general. 
._

 

Some basic reading to clear up your confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Scientific_method

 If you'd like to expand the body of scientific knolwedge in the areas of psychoacoustics, electron mechanics and related fields, by all means do. We are waiting with bated breath to review your contributions. Until then, science DOES say there is no audible difference between cables that meet or exceed spec.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_X2.
 Science never proved there is no audible difference. They just state they cannot measure it.
 They also state without any kind of proof that the small differences they do actually measure cannot be heard.
 They just believe it cannot be heard.

 If something is not scientifically proven, it does not mean it is not really there.
 It IS there, it is just not yet proven.
 Otherwise things would not have fallen on the ground before Newton formulated the laws of gravity._

 

It actually had been done many times. We just can't talk about it here.

 It is actually scientifically proven. There is nothing magic about sound. Nothing different about audio cables and frequencies than any other cables and frequencies.

 There actually has been a lot of research about about sound recreation and how the ear works. Is there something we don't know about picked up on the mic? Then stamped into the CD? No.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, science says no such thing. Science simply doesn't care about audio cables and audiophile-grade audio in general. 
._

 

This is, of course, false. I didn't take any classes at Stanford about the acoustics of interconnect cables, but that doesn't mean the subject is any less amenable to scientific study.

 The scientific method could certainly be used to evaluate the hypothesis "different cables sound different." In fact, there's a very clever, almost trivial experimental setup which can completely eliminate bias and....

 ...but we can't talk about it, so I won't.

 - Warren


----------



## JaZZ

In fact I have been able to identify two (headphone) cables without knowing which was which. It's still not a proof -- everybody can pretend anything in the internet.

 Nevertheless, I'm really enjoying the fine-tuning cables allow me, and the same cables do the same thing every time. Still not a scientific proof, but a useful basis, at least for me. BTW, I was born as a cable skeptic as well...
.


----------



## Obelus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 It can be mathematically shown that if you have these two plots, you know *everything* about the filter. *These two plots comprise a complete description of the filter. *There are no other secrets or hidden information -- the frequency response is mathematically complete. I can't stress this enough.


 - Warren_

 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* 
_The scientific method could certainly be used to evaluate the hypothesis "different cables sound different." In fact, there's a very clever, almost trivial experimental setup which can completely eliminate bias and....

 - Warren_

 


 Are you weakening your position of mathematical certainty by adding hypothesis testing to the discussion?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wait what? People found out that a $1000 amp from china was the same as a $7000 mark levinson amp and thats somehow a correlation between high price not fooling people? Thats a false correlation if i ever saw one. 

 Do you have the specific model of this amp? i want to look for reviews, im willing to bet most of them say things like "this amp is not very good for the money but it compares easily to $5000-$6000 amps"_

 

mark levinson(red rose) admitted eventually that it was the same amp imported from china! To their defence they said they did some mods. Nobody could confirm this, however. they opened a chinese imported amp and a red rose amp and couldn't tell the difference. it was an amp made by reputable high end chinese brand though, so basically it WAS a very good amp. Only red rose wanted 7000 dollars for it and the chinese oem 1/7th less.

 So, no, red rose did indeed offer the exact same amp for a 7 times mark up and the people who bought it from red rose said it was worth that money(before it came out it was the same as the oem amp)....so, the 1000 dollars for the self imported amp is a steal. soundwise it was performing on a 7000 dollar level but it was build in china and also sold under it's oem name and was only 1000 dollars or so.

 Eeventually, when a cable IS too pricey, people will notice. Alot of people, like me are testing cables and if a very expensive one is not playing on high end level, it will be noticed by these people!


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Obelus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you weakening your position of mathematical certainty by adding hypothesis testing to the discussion?_

 

Not in the slightest. Just like in physics, the mathematics only tells you what experiments to perform.

 - Warren


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_mark levinson(red rose) admitted eventually that it was the same amp imported from china!. To their defence they said they did some mods. Nobody could confirm this, however.

 So, no, red rose did indeed offered the exact same amp for a 7 times mark up and the people who bought it from red rose said it was worth that money....so, the 1000 dollars for the self imported amp is a steal. soundwise it was performing on a 7000 dollar level but it was build in china and also sold under it's oem name and was only 1000 dollars or so._

 

Thinks don't perform to their dollar value. They don't know how much they are worth. Some people pay $100,000+ for Wilson Audio speakers. I don't think they are worth(maybe on the "they look cool" scale) or sound better than $5000.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For some people -- perhaps many people -- the placebo effect is reward enough. If the buyer can afford the cables, and he really thinks they sound better, then he got what he paid for... even if no one else could ever hear the difference he claims to hear.

 My only problem with people like tourmaline is that they often make outlandish claims about vastly improved SQ (50% more detail?!) as it if were a universal fact. They often do not seem capable of understanding that it may be all in their heads, nor are they willing to concede that they're vulnerable to bias.

 If they were to just admit that it really might be all in their heads, but they still like their expensive cables anyway, so be it. I have no problem with that.

 - Warren_

 

it is a huge difference between my old one and the new high end cable.

 how much that is in real percentage, i dunno, to me it sounds like 50% better! What i can say is that i just hear more, clearer and more musical.

 What if we measured the output in a treated room and measure the outcome of a speaker? this would eleminate the ears and the brain.

 It could be that some cables effect certain frequency ranges.

 I am never biased! I didn't even know what to expect of the cable. I said that i was totally surprised HOW MUCH better the cable was. I didn't expect it to be as huge as it is.

 Sound is always in my head, i need a brain to translate the incomming signals from my ears. So that is just a way to easy statement.

 physical doctors always say when they don't know why a patient is sick, it's in your head...more and more illnesses are discovered that were stated psychological before and turn out to be actual physical mallfunction.

 As i said before, a foremost audio critic measured cables and couldn't explain why they sounded as he heard. Even the measurements he got didn't indicate the performance of that cable. It performed much better then he would expect!

 If all is psychological, wich i don't think it is, then why are two different people listening to the same amp stating something else. independantly from eachother. They don't hear the same, sometimes they do. Now what does that tell you. Even amps, headphones and cables are rated differently by other people with the same rigs. In a testroom people like or dislike different speakers or amps when listening to a rig.


 if audio was so absolute, it has to sound the same to everybody. it simply doesn't. Is one brain working better for audio then another?

 We know not all people of different ages hear the same frequencies.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thinks don't perform to their dollar value. They don't know how much they are worth. Some people pay $100,000+ for Wilson Audio speakers. I don't think they are worth(maybe on the "they look cool" scale) or sound better than $5000._

 

yes you can, compare that amp with other amps in that pricerange and you "know" if it's up to the competition at that pricepoint. Not that hard.


----------



## Obelus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey Kees,

 We're all implicitly treating a piece of wire as a "passive linear filter." A filter, in the EE sense, is some kind of device which is capable of modifying a signal. A passive filter is one that does not have any external power supply, and cannot amplify a signal (increasing its amplitude or loudness) but only decrease it. Linearity means adding two signals and passing them through the filter together results in the same signal as passing two signals independently through the filter and adding the outputs.

 As it turns out, there are many different, yet equivalent ways of describing a linear filter. One such description is the so-called "frequency response," which is basically a set of two plots. One plot shows how the filter changes the amplitude of signals of different frequencies, while the other shows how the filter changes the phase of signals of different frequencies.

 It can be mathematically shown that if you have these two plots, you know *everything* about the filter. *These two plots comprise a complete description of the filter. *There are no other secrets or hidden information -- the frequency response is mathematically complete. I can't stress this enough.

 There are entire industries which develop test-and-measurement equipment, which can capture the frequency response of any filter you want to measure. They can capture the response with an incredible resolution. They can detect details in a frequency response that you could never hear. (And, again, the frequency response is mathematically complete, so there's nothing "in the signal" that isn't shown on a frequency response -- that's not physically possible.)

 Now, if you take a frequency response of two different pieces of cable, you can compare them at every frequency and see exactly how they differ in their transmission. If the two cables do not differ more than 0.1 dB or so in amplitude over the audible frequencies, and do not differ more than a couple degrees in phase over the audible frequencies, then they literally cannot sound any different to the ear.

 (I'm also being generous with phase -- the ear is not sensitive to phase, and even a large phase shift will not be audible, as long as it's relatively constant across the audible spectrum.)

 Despite what some people would like to believe, there cannot be any behavior that is not captured in the frequency response, and we have equipment which can measure frequency response to a resolution orders of magnitude better than the human ear. If the machine says the two cables are the same, they must sound the same. There's no physical way it could be different -- any difference a listener hears is inside his/her own head.

 - Warren_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Obelus* 
_*Are you weakening your position of mathematical certainty by adding hypothesis testing to the discussion?

 Obelus*_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not in the slightest. Just like in physics, the mathematics only tells you what experiments to perform.

 - Warren_

 

*I'm not sure, but it now sounds as though you might be suggesting that there could be some secret or hidden information pertinent to choosing an interconnect for which mathematics does not account. Do you think I should retract my earlier statement about stipulating that the wire has no effect on how a interconnect sounds until after I familiarize myself with the results of empirical research on the subject?

 Obelus*


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Obelus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*I'm not sure, but it now sounds as though you might be suggesting that there could be some secret or hidden information pertinent to choosing an interconnect for which mathematics does not account. Do you think I should retract my earlier statement about stipulating that the wire has no effect on how a interconnect sounds until after I familiarize myself with the results of empirical research on the subject?*_*
*
*


Again, I have no idea what's prompted this, but no -- I'm absolutely not saying that, nor did I ever say anything that could even be construed this way.

 - Warren*


----------



## bluey_02

Firstly, Warren, you're the man. Secondly, has tourmaline realised his posts have taken up nearly half this thread? Thirdly, tourmaline, give up already, after reading your posts all you seem to be saying is that a more expensive cable sounds better to you, and after reading Warren's comments, a guy who knows his stuff, I believe perception and bias has warped your opinion and reasoning. Plus, all the evidence you seem to be providing is your opinion.

 Yeah ok this has been said before in this thread, but, the cryo is not worth the cost when you consider the various cons it has against it (relatively cheap to make, not an amazing difference between that and a cheaper non-cryo copper wire, the dock connector's pins, considering the 'higher-quality' jumbo is only a thicker wire this is made null by the limiting size of the pins, and so on and so forth..). BUT if you want a cable that is the "best" and looks nice and have extremely high quality gear then it might be worth the cost.

 I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about concerning whether the cable really is better than a cheaper one but I do know ALO's various prices set off my bullsh*t detector, as they should any sane-minded person ($100 for a freaking 7" cable? Come on...). So no, in my opinion as a small-pocketed, highly critical person, the Cryo is not worth the cost.


----------



## chroot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am never biased!_

 

I think this is really my cue to leave this discussion.

  Quote:


 As i said before, a foremost audio critic measured cables and couldn't explain why they sounded as he heard. Even the measurements he got didn't indicate the performance of that cable. It performed much better then he would expect! 
 

You can believe whoever you'd like to believe... and I'm sure your complete lack of bias will lead you to trust the right people. I think I'll just get back to designing my latest and greatest HDTV reconstruction filter, and see you guys later.

 - Warren


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bluey_02* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_($100 for a freaking 7" cable? Come on...)._

 

I agree with everything you said. Just that I think the $100 price for an ALO cable is justified considering the amount of work that is involved. Soldering those pins is a pain in the ass. The construction of a connector must be at least 2-3 hours. It took me about 3.5 for mine. You can check this link to see how I made mine: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=232093 Huge pain in the *** and requires a steady soldering hand.

 Considering the workmanship is top notch, I think it is fair for him to ask for that much. I'm sure he does other things for a living and for making line outs to be worth it for him, the prices need to be the way they are. Completely reasonable in my book, although I won't be buying one as I can make my own. Now paying for Cryo treatment, on the other hand, is not worth it nor is paying for something purely based upon false claims backed by shady science.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chroot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think this is really my cue to leave this discussion.



 You can believe whoever you'd like to believe... and I'm sure your complete lack of bias will lead you to trust the right people. I think I'll just get back to designing my latest and greatest HDTV reconstruction filter, and see you guys later.

 - Warren_

 

Good luck with it, i only trust MY ears. So no matter what somebody sais about a cable, i listen before i judge the cable in question, cheap or expensive!

 Most of the people commenting here never even heard real high end cables.

 Even in the electronics community things aren't settled, there are engeneers stating that they also hear differences in cables, and some of your colleges don't.

 So, because everything is still so contraversial, i still believe my ears and perception of sound. Since i am paying for what i get.


----------



## naamanf

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good luck with it, i only trust MY ears. So no matter what somebody sais about a cable, i listen before i judge the cable in question.

 Most of the people commenting here never even heard real high end cables.

 Even in the electronics community things aren't settled, there are engeneers stating that they also hear differences in cables, and some of your colleges don't.

 So, because everything is still so contraversial, i still believe my ears and perception of sound. Since i am paying for what i get.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Then say you think they sound better and leave it at that. It you don't know why, you don't know why. Don't try to spread information that your really don't understand or can reasonably back up.

 I know why I don't think I can hear a difference in cables. And it's not my hearing. I know the science behind it and can back it up with a strong working knowledge.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bluey_02* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Firstly, Warren, you're the man. Secondly, has tourmaline realised his posts have taken up nearly half this thread? Thirdly, tourmaline, give up already, after reading your posts all you seem to be saying is that a more expensive cable sounds better to you, and after reading Warren's comments, a guy who knows his stuff, I believe perception and bias has warped your opinion and reasoning. Plus, all the evidence you seem to be providing is your opinion.

 Yeah ok this has been said before in this thread, but, the cryo is not worth the cost when you consider the various cons it has against it (relatively cheap to make, not an amazing difference between that and a cheaper non-cryo copper wire, the dock connector's pins, considering the 'higher-quality' jumbo is only a thicker wire this is made null by the limiting size of the pins, and so on and so forth..). BUT if you want a cable that is the "best" and looks nice and have extremely high quality gear then it might be worth the cost.

 I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about concerning whether the cable really is better than a cheaper one but I do know ALO's various prices set off my bullsh*t detector, as they should any sane-minded person ($100 for a freaking 7" cable? Come on...). So no, in my opinion as a small-pocketed, highly critical person, the Cryo is not worth the cost._

 

I started with cheap cables as well and ended with high end cables because in my system they simply sound best! period.

 Not really my opinion, since i didn't make the sites i quoted, so there are more people thinking like me. Your post IS quite biased.

 Really think warren is the ony guy that knows his stuff. prof. ohno is compared to him an idiot, with years of study and experimenting to perfect the ohno single crystal structure. measurements do prove it is simply better!

 25 years of listening experience brought me to the cables i am using now.
 If you read the thread carefully, there are more people that don't agree with warren and trust their ears, instead of instruments.

 measuring cables don't give you the synergy needed for a rig to shine.

 In the end, ears cast the final judgement, not measuring instruments, this is true for filters in speakers and alot more electronical devices.

 We all agree three components set for the sound, we don't agree however how those three components alter the sound or IF they alter the sound.

 I guess millions of people are just complete ignorant idiots because they report hearing differences in cables.

 What's more idiot to me are people who never heard the cable(s) in question or high end cables in general but think they can judge them.
 Also bear in mind that people who cannot afford expensive high end cables are also biased because they simply can't afford it and therefor state it's not worth the money. This IS also bias and perception.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Furthermore, i don't say that you HAVE to buy expensive cables. You can buy whatever you like. I simply say that i hear big differences in cables in my rig! And that's just what i report(and alot of others too). If it doesn't concur with your opinion, that's not my problem.

 Having a different opinion is a nice thing in a democracy.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *naamanf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then say you think they sound better and leave it at that. It you don't know why, you don't know why. Don't try to spread information that your really don't understand or can reasonably back up.

 I know why I don't think I can hear a difference in cables. And it's not my hearing. I know the science behind it and can back it up with a strong working knowledge._

 

I have quite the opposite feeling about you. Some other people who posted in this thread don't concur with you and have my experiences!

 You just simply dismiss every proof i (we) come up with as too small to be audible. Period. Speaking of biased.

 No you can't you never heard that cable.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So, please don't even try to convince me with your so called knowledge.
 You think you know it better then prof. ohno, wich studied and experimented for years to perfect the single crystal structure.

 Bold statement that you think you know it better then he does!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And think it IS not any better.
 Also Jazz and some others commenting about your strong working knowledge and all you did was some evasive manouvres.


----------



## naamanf

I have listened to some of the best systems int he world. Best cables. Don't make a difference.


 Your right.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


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




 I have listened to some of the best systems int he world. Best cables. Don't make a difference.


 Your right._

 

me too, sound systems going up to 125.000 dollars and switching cables made a huge difference, and the people around me could hear it too.

 you're right.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 By the way, the best system is very personal and at least very suggestive.

 Some report sound engeneers/recording specialists develop their own cables(some even exotic expensive) because THEY think they make a difference.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


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




 I have listened to some of the best systems int he world. Best cables. Don't make a difference.


 Your right._

 

me too, sound systems going up to 125.000 dollars and switching cables made a huge difference, and the people around me could hear it too. Even recabling an amp made huge differences.

 you're right.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 By the way, the best system is very personal and at least very suggestive.

 Some report sound engeneers/recording specialists develop their own cables(some even exotic expensive) because THEY think they make a difference.

 Perception kicks in:

 i think i there can't be a difference between cables, then i won't hear a difference between cables. The psychological law you're talking about also goes for you!


 In the end, i think it's better to agree to disagree.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That's why there are soooo many cables on the market for every wallet and taste.

 I take it that you use a 10 dollar cable in your rig. Every cable that is more expensive isn't worth the money and don't make a difference, if you do have a more expensive cable then 10 dollars in your rig then you completely fell through!


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perception kicks in:

 i think i don't hear a difference, then i won't hear a difference. The psychological law you're talking about also goes for you!_

 

If the objectivist position has measurements and empirical studies to back up their statements and the subjectivist position has a handful of opinions, it must logically follow that psychological factors are affecting the objectivist side most acutely. The logic is strong with you, tourmaline. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's why there are soooo many cables on the market for every wallet and taste._

 

This is mainly so people can self-select how much they want to spend on cables, thus maximizing the manufacturers' revenue. This is basic econmic theory. If you offer one cable at say $1000, then people either buy it or don't buy it. If you offer 2 cables, one at $1000 and one at $500, then people who must have "the best", regardless of whether they can differentiate, will buy the $1000 cable. People who don't want to spend $1000 can still bring you some revenue at the $500 price-point. The $1000 price point also serves to provide framing for the lower pricepoints. If you only offer one cable at $500, it may seem expensive to some people. However, as soon as you offer a second cable at $1000, you provide a frame of reference for the first cable. If $500 gets you something that's almost as good as $1000, it suddenly looks like good value.

 For instance: Nordost realizes that not everyone will pay $2500 for a standard IEC power cable (for good reason 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), so they have ones at various price points below that. Gullible audiogearphiles can then walk into a store and ask themselves "How much do I want to pay today to walk out with the warm & fuzzy feeling that I've upgraded my gear in some way?" and Nordost generates revenue at the optimal level for each individual customer. The array of choices also serves to distract customers from other pesky questions like "Will I need to recable my entire house and neighbourhood with Valhalla as well?"


----------



## TreAdidas

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The array of choices also serves to distract customers from other pesky questions like "Will I need to recable my entire house and neighbourhood with Valhalla as well?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

haha yeah. I was always 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 when I was hearing people wax about power cables. Isn't that just a very small link in a gigantic line of many? Recabling your neighborhood with Valhalla, now that's great! The only reason I would buy into power cables is if I had some sort of super trick line conditioner that I could reasonably explain and hear the benefits. Otherwise that just does not make sense to me. 

 Then again I am the kid that bought into the Transparent thing... but that infatuation is quickly turning into that a past love.


----------



## koob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TreAdidas* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_haha yeah. I was always 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 when I was hearing people wax about power cables. Isn't that just a very small link in a gigantic line of many? Recabling your neighborhood with Valhalla, now that's great! The only reason I would buy into power cables is if I had some sort of super trick line conditioner that I could reasonably explain and hear the benefits. Otherwise that just does not make sense to me. 

 Then again I am the kid that bought into the Transparent thing... but that infatuation is quickly turning into that a past love._

 

Bah, skeptics! Clearly the 3 feet between where your house wiring leaves off and where the components' internal wirings take over is the crucial 3 feet. Just as with interconnects, the 3 feet between components is the crucial 3 feet and the signal path inside the components is irrelevant.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the objectivist position has measurements and empirical studies to back up their statements and the subjectivist position has a handful of opinions, it must logically follow that psychological factors are affecting the objectivist side most acutely. The logic is strong with you, tourmaline. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 This is mainly so people can self-select how much they want to spend on cables, thus maximizing the manufacturers' revenue. This is basic econmic theory. If you offer one cable at say $1000, then people either buy it or don't buy it. If you offer 2 cables, one at $1000 and one at $500, then people who must have "the best", regardless of whether they can differentiate, will buy the $1000 cable. People who don't want to spend $1000 can still bring you some revenue at the $500 price-point. The $1000 price point also serves to provide framing for the lower pricepoints. If you only offer one cable at $500, it may seem expensive to some people. However, as soon as you offer a second cable at $1000, you provide a frame of reference for the first cable. If $500 gets you something that's almost as good as $1000, it suddenly looks like good value.

 For instance: Nordost realizes that not everyone will pay $2500 for a standard IEC power cable (for good reason 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), so they have ones at various price points below that. Gullible audiogearphiles can then walk into a store and ask themselves "How much do I want to pay today to walk out with the warm & fuzzy feeling that I've upgraded my gear in some way?" and Nordost generates revenue at the optimal level for each individual customer. The array of choices also serves to distract customers from other pesky questions like "Will I need to recable my entire house and neighbourhood with Valhalla as well?" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What i CAN confirm is that the differences between the Nordost line are smaller then between Nordost and some other cable brands! So, depending on gear better source, amp speakers, sometimes you can get the same results by using a cheaper cable. As a matter afact i recall a review that clearly stated the the valhalla sounded much worse then the next in line valkyrja, wich cost less then half the valhalla(1800 dollars versus 4000 dollars)

 So, maybe there is some truth in the fact that cables synergize more with certain equipment then others! As the quote states in a post i posted in this thread.

 Patrick is allready near bankruptcy! Rcabling powerstation or complete block with valhalla could improve sound but i certainly hdon't have the funds to trst this theory in practice. Nordost cables i have at the moment allready cost me an arm and a legg. Luckely i go them second hand, so i have more value for money, if you can speak of that term concerning cables.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 P.s.

 it's not a feeling:

 i clearly heard a huge difference in comparisson to my old IC, otherwise i wouldn't have switched, that simple. maybe it's just good old synergy, nothing fancy in cable thechnology.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bah, skeptics! Clearly the 3 feet between where your house wiring leaves off and where the components' internal wirings take over is the crucial 3 feet. Just as with interconnects, the 3 feet between components is the crucial 3 feet and the signal path inside the components is irrelevant. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

it is; i have heard the difference between two exact the same amps, one being modded with better internal cables and the other just basic, as you buy em. The difference was quite big and audible. What you can discuss is IF you LIKE the differences made by the cable in the modded amp. Taste kicks in here.

 That's why alot of people switch tubes(tuberolling), switch cheap caps for much better ones, resisters and even internal cabling. This goes for amps and sources/dacs as well. Even some report differences in recabeling internals in speakers. Alot of people use wire to bridge the bi-wire strips of metal. Also better sound.

 I am also planning some new mods to bring my gear to a new level. I am done with cabling at the moment. it sounds just fine.

 Strange thing is that differences in amps by switching components is accepted and differences in cables isn't. Alot of people report that both have sonic impact. if two caps measure the same, then according to some people's logic, they must sound the same. In practice however, they don't.

 I don't have a problem with both people, if you don't want to spend much on cables, just don't if you hear a difference and you wan't to go higher end, just do so. IN the end both camps are happy. The sceptics are happy because they think they saved alot of money and the sonics are the same, the believers are happy since they hear a difference and think they optimized the sound.

 To me, it looks like a win-win situation.(that's why a brand offers high end and cheap cables). They still get your hard earned cash!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


 Originally Posted by koob 
 If the objectivist position has measurements and empirical studies to back up their statements and the subjectivist position has a handful of opinions, it must logically follow that psychological factors are affecting the objectivist side most acutely. The logic is strong with you, tourmaline. 
 

IF you THINK the difference in measurements the site gave us i quoted and IF the differences are beyond the hearing threshold...and if Ohno is an idiot... and IF you think teflon is not the best insulator... and IF you think copper and silver sound the same....we(the believers, well, i believe my ears/brain) could be as much affected by psychological factors acutely. Just another perspective.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sarcasm is strong with you, but i can see the humor of it.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 All i do is not keeping people from experimenting, as some other people do by making absolute statements that practice doesn't back up ( hearing tests). As the site clearly shows, there is difference in measurements between cables. What we don't agree upon is if it can be heard or not.

 Go try out cables yourself and make it your decision. Nobody IS forcing you to buy em! You can try them out and return them if you don't like em but then you have at least tried and know for yourself. Either way makes you more satisfied with what you have or got new. Same goes for cryo treatment. No difference, return the cable and save the money. The only harm done is you invested some time. You have to do that to gain experience, either way.


----------



## bluey_02

tourmaline, you have you waaay too much time on your hands.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bluey_02* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_tourmaline, you have you waaay too much time on your hands._

 

Now i found my cables, i have. But i need more time looking for good recordings, this is even harder then finding a really good cable!


----------



## Techno Rocker

Ok. After reading all of that I got a migrane and I couldn't see my screen 'cause it was covered in colorful dots. So I took a long nap and 3 ibuprofen.

 So sound quality aside, which is more durable for traveling use: The vampire dock or the cryo dock? I know silver is out of the question, but what of these two for durability only?

 Thanks guys

 -T.R.


----------



## barqy

^ cryo dock and vampire dock are both from stranded copper

 so durability would be the same?

 i made a line out dock using cryo treated vampire wire and regular vampire wire (both 22 awg)...sounds _slightly_ diff, but it's up to the listener too eh

 cant say if one is better or not :\


----------

