# Cable Truths and Myths.



## ford2

People with inquiring minds might find the link below very interesting.
 It might be old hat to some of the established members but VERY worthwhile reading for those interested in cables and there effects,and even those that just want a good read.
 The only ones who consider this not a good read will be those who have invested (wasted) heaps on cables.

 However I have an open mind,and if these pages are read with an open mind then you can make up your mind.

 Linky::Cables, Interconnects and Other Stuff - The Truth


----------



## markmaxx

This most likely will get ugly.


----------



## my.self

this will not end well.


----------



## Currawong

More time wasting. Maybe it's what you choose to believe.


----------



## IPodPJ

The article is full of contradictions.


----------



## BIG POPPA

This guy does not use anything but the cheap stuff to prove his point on cables. Nothing with Silver, Rhodium, Gold, Palladium, Silver plated copper, cryo, ETC..... All Copper and Brass. Doesn't help me a bit.


----------



## LingLing1337

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This guy does not use anything but the cheap stuff to prove his point on cables. Nothing with Silver, Rhodium, Gold, Palladium, Silver plated copper, cryo, ETC..... All Copper and Brass. Doesn't help me a bit._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* 
_recable with Silver plated copper, Custom power cables,Custom IC's and Audio grade fuses_

 

Really? Audio grade fuses? If only biases in the media were this transparent.


----------



## Happy Camper

Never tried a fuse so I won't discount their ability. I was taught otherwise with ICs and power cords.


----------



## PhilS

Quite a few errors I saw from just skimming the article, even about things that don't have anything to do with cables. In any event, since the article also relies to a great extent on DBT's, this is probably more appropriate for the Sound Science forum.


----------



## Uncle Erik

That was a good read. Thanks for posting it.

 It is interesting to note that the article says this dbate has raged since the late 1970s.

 Since, there have been tens of thousands of cables produced and many millions in revenue generated by them. Yet no manufacturer has ever presented evidence that their products work as advertised. Curiously, even cable advertising carefully stays a step back from anything that could be construed as a legal guarantee.

 Another curious point is that if the "benefits" of cables truly existed, then they would certainly have industrial applications, as well. You'd think these magical properties would show effects on microprocessors and, well, anything that uses electricity. If the benefits existed, then it would be highly likely that these benefits would be thoroughly researched and used in solar cells, batteries, electric motors, and much else.

 Which would make it likely that there would be extensive research by corporations, research universities and military contractors.

 Oh, and there's usually a strong amateur level of research into science. Just look a the achievements in amateur astronomy and amateur radio. Each has a strong following with lots of scholarly - and useful - work done by hobbyists.

 So, where is all of this for cables? How come it isn't there?

 It is very, very curious that the only ones who bang the drum for cables are those who make them. And make massive profits from selling cables. Being able to take $50 of materials and sell them for a few thousand... few industries can achieve that.

 Which leads to another amazing coincidence. Usually, when a good is sold for a
 amazing profits, it gets reverse engineered and produced less expensively, so people can have the benefit at a fair price. Yet that doesn't happen. Funny thing, too, because the only IP on cables are the brand logos and trademarks. But those don't do anything for the sound, do they?

 There is another industry that makes massive profits from assembling inexpensive parts, incorporating a logo and trademark, then selling them at very high prices. That industry doesn't have much IP, either.

 That's the fashion industry. Which seems eerily similar to the cable industry. Throwing together $20 of material can make a jacket that sells for $1,000. Which might not be technically better than a $40 coat at Wal-Mart. However, some will pay $960 more for that amazing logo.

 I'd say that the cable/tweak market is almost exactly the same as the fashion market. People buy fashion for prestige and status. Which is likely the same reason people pay big bucks for a cable. A $500 cashmere sweater won't keep you any warmer than a $20 sweatshirt, but the $500 sweater _says something_ about the status of its wearer.

 Which is why people buy cables. The evidence against them is insurmountable. There is nothing there. If there is, it would have been adopted for industrial use and people would be earning Ph.D.s studying their material science. Hobbyists would be tweaking and publishing their research. Other companies would have come in with cables that offer all the benefits without the markup. And no one has ever heard a difference without seeing the logo. Ever.

 So if the believers want to drop a few thousand on their audio wardrobe and sniff at the less fashionable, fine. I have some expensive clothes that I enjoy. But I'd never think them superior to what's offered at Target. If I want to stay warm and be protected from the elements, a $10 shirt works as well as a $500 one. But I don't think a cable fashionista would ever concede that point.


----------



## oatmeal769

That article is pretty old, and many would say outdated. I remember seeing it when I worked in a studio years ago. It reaches correct conclusions nevertheless.


----------



## ford2

I must admit that after reading it ALL I tend to believe a lot of what he says.He offers a lot of facts in a very creditable way.
 Its quite interesting looking around the rest of the site as well,he comes across as a man that knows what he is talking about.
 What is more he has nothing to gain from it.
 If you have a look around the rest of the site it is very interesting.


----------



## Sherwood

So, Erik, in keeping with your fashion analogy, when you a need to be taken seriously, you wear the good clothes, no? Job interviews, public speaking engagements, etc. warrant the expensive stuff.

 Is it unreasonable, then, for those who wish to have their reviews taken seriously to also "wear the good stuff"?


----------



## crapback

I posted this link in an audiophoolery thread here as well. NW Cryo Master Price List for Cryogenic processing, Cryogenic Tempering, Deep Cryogenic Treatment 
 Again I have to ask, how much does an LOD cable weigh?


----------



## kool bubba ice

If a cable is just a cable why replace the cheap crap you get with your dvd player.. Why not just get the cheapest cable from radio shack. They all work the same. Cables are not all equal. I bought 6.00 PS3 component cables then I got the rainbow effect on my screen. I would get green, red, then blue... So, I bought the official Sony PS3 component cables for 20.00. Guess what. Beautiful picture. No rainbow crap, so please don't tell me all cables are the same. Sorry. Quality matters. I do love my 13.00 Belkin RCA though.. But might get the OXY fuel or side winders for 60% off. I enjoy my BOK/Mother MK PC. Would never pay retail for them, but feel they improve my system. Hell, I even prefer my cheaper Belkins to my 80.00 Cardas silver RCA, which shocked me. I guess Plecebo is hit or miss. I'm a cable believer to a point. I'm more of the, they will influence the sound then better the sound.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sherwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, Erik, in keeping with your fashion analogy, when you a need to be taken seriously, you wear the good clothes, no? Job interviews, public speaking engagements, etc. warrant the expensive stuff.

 Is it unreasonable, then, for those who wish to have their reviews taken seriously to also "wear the good stuff"?_

 

But of course! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Though I _am_ something of a cheapskate. When I go "serious" these days, it's usually in a gray pinstriped Hickey Freeman single-breasted suit I found on eBay for $60. Its previous owner must have been something of a doppelgänger, since I didn't need to alter it.

 Of course, wearing a suit is necessary in this line of work. When hiring people to work on the apartments, I don't give a rip what they're wearing.

 Also, I like to think that the quality of my work - whether drafting a pleading or tearing out old carpet - is the same whether I'm wearing the suit or am in my usual uniform of t-shirt, shorts and sandals.


----------



## ford2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kool bubba ice* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a cable is just a cable why replace the cheap crap you get with your dvd player.. Why not just get the cheapest cable from radio shack. They all work the same. Cables are not all equal. I bought 6.00 PS3 component cables then I got the rainbow effect on my screen. I would get green, red, then blue... So, I bought the official Sony PS3 component cables for 20.00. Guess what. Beautiful picture. No rainbow crap, so please don't tell me all cables are the same. Sorry. Quality matters. I do love my 13.00 Belkin RCA though.. But might get the OXY fuel or side winders for 60% off. I enjoy my BOK/Mother MK PC. Would never pay retail for them, but feel they improve my system. Hell, I even prefer my cheaper Belkins to my 80.00 Cardas silver RCA, which shocked me. I guess Plecebo is hit or miss. I'm a cable believer to a point. I'm more of the, they will influence the sound then better the sound._

 

You are talking about Video cables that need bandwidth,it matters not with Audio.


----------



## Currawong

I have cables that demonstrably cause _tonal_ changes in the audio signal. I'll bring them to Canjam so people can listen for themselves.


----------



## logwed

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have cables that demonstrably cause tonal changes in the audio signal. I'll bring them to Canjam so people can listen for themselves. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You're saying that they are intended to show that tonal differences occur? Like, they are built for demonstrative purposes?


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have cables that demonstrably cause tonal changes in the audio signal. I'll bring them to Canjam so people can listen for themselves. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

please please please send those over to me! i'd love to do a spectral analysis 

 how did you do it?


----------



## oatmeal769

I'm sure anyone who listens can hear what they like and may agree with you. You cannot prove that you can tell a difference by listening alone though.


----------



## Sherwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You cannot prove that you can tell a difference by listening alone though._

 

Of course you can, you just cannot prove that there _is_ a difference.


----------



## 883dave

Here is a conclussion from someone who actually did testing.

 "Who am I to dispute the feelings of audiophiles who, evaluating any
 cable in the context of program source, amplifier, speaker, and listening
 room, decide they can hear the difference? A few guidelines have
 emerged here, but the final judgment belongs to the user. All the special
 cables mentioned worked well on the test bench and, given the
 assumption that series impedance should be minimized, all of them
 work better than 16 gauge wire. If, like many audiophiles, you have
 spent a small (or large) fortune on your hi-fi system, money spent for
 high quality cables and connectors is a reasonable investment."

 I will post the full article shortly, in the mean time anyone want to guess who said this?


----------



## JadeEast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will post the full article shortly, in the mean time anyone want to guess who said this?_

 

Nelson Pass.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JadeEast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nelson Pass._

 

http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/articles/spkrcabl.pdf


----------



## PhilS

I don't understand why anyone has to "prove" that certain cables sound better to them in their system.

 I also don't understand the OP's point about waste. If I buy an interconnect, and try it out in my system, and I think it sounds better, and it is worth the money to me to obtain the improvement that I perceive, how is that a "waste" of money.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also don't understand the OP's point about waste. If I buy an interconnect, and try it out in my system, and I think it sounds better, and it is worth the money to me to obtain the improvement that I perceive, how is that a "waste" of money._

 

Because they know for certain that you can not actually hear what you hear, and if you are not actually hearing differences it is a waste of money


----------



## cujobob

There are a variety of differences in cables, but more expensive does not always equal better. The differences are so slight, that spending a large amount of money is foolish IMHO unless the connection was terrible with the stock cable (or its picking up interference of some kind).

 In Home Audio, many people will spend a small fortune on cables, but spend very little on their room treatments or don't fully treat their rooms...which will give a much bigger improvement.

 As long as a stock cable is good enough, I'd spend the money useable for improved cables on modifying my electronics, headphones/IEMs, or something that will make a bigger improvement.

 Design of the speaker/headphone/IEM is what matters most. In home audio, I use Gedlee Abbeys which sound better (to me) than speakers I've listened to costing multiples more. For head-fi listening (unsure what to call it), I'm looking for that clear jump in technology/design that separates itself from the me-too designs we're seeing all over.

 I guess my point is, decide for yourself where your money is best spent and instead of looking for that small difference a cable makes, consider other options.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because they know for certain that you can not actually hear what you hear, and if you are not actually hearing differences it is a waste of money._

 

Yes, this is one of the most disturbing trends of modern times -- the assumption that everybody else knows what's best for you and you're not free to make your own judgment.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't understand why anyone has to "prove" that certain cables sound better to them in their system._

 

They don't, but when they then tell others in a public forum that improvement will be gained by spending a vast premium on a functionally identical item which in fact improves nothing, they are generally going to be questioned by others who know better. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_" ...it is worth the money to me to obtain the improvement that I perceive, how is that a "waste" of money._

 

It isn't at all, people spend extra all the time just because they believe something looks nicer, sounds better or just makes them feel good, when in fact the item actually does nothing of the sort. They are also completely entitled to do so. When they publicly tell others to do the same however, they should expect to be challenged.


----------



## cujobob

We live in societies that re-brand everything and just mark it up. We pay extra all the time for name-brand pills that are no different from generic.

 Cables CAN in-fact make a difference, just not a huge improvement in most cases. There are numerous studies online you can find that detail the science behind it. Same thing with the burn-in debate, which has plenty of evidence to support it. I do love it when sites claim things to be 'truths' without sufficient evidence. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, claiming them as fact is just ignorant.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They don't, but when they then tell others in a public forum that improvement will be gained by spending a vast premium on a functionally identical item which in fact improves nothing, they are generally going to be questioned by others who know better._

 

First, you're making an assumption that "others know better" and that there is no basis for a reasonable dispute on this issue, and I disagree with that. 

 Second, if someone says they tried an upgraded cable and they thought it sounded better in their system, I suppose it is fine for someone to "question" that in a polite manner. However, the proponent does not have to "prove" anything. This is a hobbyists forum; not a science journal. And most people are here to enjoy the audio hobby and share their experiences with various equipment --- and have fun. Furthermore, virtually everybody knows about the debate and the arguments on both sides. How many times do folks need to say "high end cables are snake oil," blah, blah, blah? What is this deep seated psychological need some folks have to repeatedly trumpet this point of view?


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It isn't at all, people spend extra all the time just because they believe something looks nicer, sounds better or just makes them feel good, w*hen in fact the item actually does nothing of the sort*. They are also completely entitled to do so._

 

I still don't understand how you can tell whether something sounds better to my brain.


----------



## Audio18

Another post about this.

 Why? Audio is such a subjective experience and here people go back and forth and try to break down things into small and neat little categories of "truths and myths". Just enjoy the sound, if it sounds better to you, then go for it.


----------



## scootermafia

I am 100% sure that I can hear a difference between recabled HD800s and not recabled HD800s. If he wants to dispute that one, have at it. Bad gear, bad ears, bad cable --> not going to hear a difference.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cujobob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cables CAN in-fact make a difference, just not a huge improvement in most cases. There are numerous studies online you can find that detail the science behind it. Same thing with the burn-in debate, which has plenty of evidence to support it. I do love it when sites claim things to be 'truths' without sufficient evidence. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, claiming them as fact is just ignorant._

 

Let me clarify. Differences can be found using machinery, computers, whatever certainly. It is provable as fact that NO ONE can tell an audible difference beyond random chance by listening alone. If you are unable to demonstrate that you can hear a difference beyond guessing, you are going to be questioned by others who know you cannot hear a difference other than by guessing.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First, you're making an assumption that "others know better" and that there is no basis for a reasonable dispute on this issue..."_

 

Of course there is. Scientific Method Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How many times do folks need to say "high end cables are snake oil,"_

 

I suppose as many times as other folks need to claim they're not. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still don't understand how you can tell whether something sounds better to my brain._

 

I have no doubt that it sounds better in your mind. That you can demonstrate an actual audible difference exists by listening alone though, is easily provable as false.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ It is provable as fact that NO ONE can tell an audible difference beyond random chance by listening alone._

 

I think I know what you are referring to, and this is NOT an issue that is not without reasonable differences of opinion. You can say something is a fact all you want, or that something cannot be debated; that doesn't make it absolute truth.

 And I'll say again that your point is best made in the Sound Science forum. That's were discussions of the scientific method and scientific testing belong -- not here.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suppose as many times as other folks need to claim they're not._

 

Why? If someone says that they like cable X and it improved their system, why is it so important to you tell them that they're wrong? Perhaps you should engage in some introspection and figure out why it makes you feel good.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have no doubt that it sounds better in your mind. That you can demonstrate an actual audible difference exists by listening alone though, is easily provable as false._

 

No, it is not easily provable as false. I don't know anything about you, but you remind me of people -- including myself at one stage of my life -- who think they know everything. 

 In any event, if it sounds better in my mind, isn't that the point? We listen to music for enjoyment, don't we? Do you listen to music with pages of scientific data and tell yourself that what you _see_ on the page _sounds_ really good?


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I know what you are referring to, and this is NOT an issue that is not without reasonable differences of opinion._

 

 That this is a discussion forum and that statements of opinion are respected is beyond doubt. When someone states an opinion as fact though, it can and should be clarified. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can say something is a fact all you want, or that something cannot be debated; that doesn't make it absolute truth._

 

I'll agree that the absolute definition of truth can be somewhat vague depending on context. The definition of scientific fact however is crystal clear. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...your point is best made in the Sound Science forum. That's were discussions of the scientific method and scientific testing belong -- not here._

 

Although a bit semantic, I'm not discussing those items. I'm simply saying that statements of audible differences between interconnect cables must be regarded as opinion and not scientific fact.


----------



## BIG POPPA

To me I would rather spend the money and find out if the cables sound the same or not than just read another persons opinion. Thread Ninja's just make me giggle. You know the guy's who read everything online and become experts over night?


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They don't, but when they then tell others in a public forum that improvement will be gained by spending a vast premium on a functionally identical item which in fact improves nothing, they are generally going to be questioned by others who know better.It isn't at all, people spend extra all the time just because they believe something looks nicer, sounds better or just makes them feel good, when in fact the item actually does nothing of the sort. They are also completely entitled to do so. When they publicly tell others to do the same however, they should expect to be challenged._

 

I followed three links in your signature...the first was to Blue Jean cable, the second to Zu which proclaimed the Gede cable is $229.00, the third to Cardas for a V2 Headphone Cable, which I assume is for the HD600.

 You seem to be sending conflicting signals. After what you have written why would you spend excessive money on at least two cables when you know it to be a fact that they can't make a difference?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Therefore, my entitled opinion is that spending money on imagination is not the best course of action in achieving better sound._


----------



## Happy Camper

Who claims science is the monolith of truth? How many times have "facts" changed what "science" claimed as fact over history?


----------



## ParadigmPenguin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although a bit semantic, I'm not discussing those items. I'm simply saying that statements of audible differences between interconnect cables must be regarded as opinion and not scientific fact._

 

While what you say is logical, it should be noted that opinions can be based on fact. If I make note of an "audible difference" between two different scenarios, it is one based on my perceptions, not fact. However, the vast majority of the discussions in this thread are not purely formed by such means.

 Notably, enjoyment is the most important piece of this hobby, in my opinion. If higher quality cables enhance my listening experience (be it even through atheistic or placebo effect) it could still well be worth the purchase.

 Making choices based entirely on factual evidence would create for a cold listening experience.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why? If someone says that they like cable X and it improved their system, why is it so important to you tell them that they're wrong?_

 

I don't think they are wrong. What is wrong is when someone makes those statements as fact, and someone else seeking knowledge goes out and spends a lot of money for improvements that do not factually exist. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ -- who think they know everything._

 

I know that thus far that no factual data exists to prove these claims. That is the great thing about scientific fact, it is never regarded as final truth. Right now though, there is zero data which proves otherwise. Therefore, my entitled opinion is that spending money on imagination is not the best course of action in achieving better sound. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In any event, if it sounds better in my mind, isn't that the point? We listen to music for enjoyment, don't we?_

 

Of course. But we come to forums for many reasons, one of which is advice. As long as alternative views exist, I have just as much right to refute what you say in absence of fact, just as you have right to make those statements as factual.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Right now though, there is zero data which proves otherwise._

 

That is not correct. If you do a search on these forums and others, you will find data supporting audible differences between cables. You might not find the data persuasive, or you might have concerns about the methodologies, or you might believe the data is overwhelmed by contrary data, but it is not correct to say there is "zero data." 

 Look, those who say that cables don't make an audible difference, or that in most cases they don't make an audible difference, have a legitimate point of view. But you are making absolute statements, and overstating the case against cables, and in doing so, you are misleading people to the same extent as you say people mislead by stating "as a fact" that they heard a difference with their cables.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Therefore, my entitled opinion is that spending money on imagination is not the best course of action in achieving better sound._

 

 You're perfectly entitled to come to that opinion in making _your_ decisions. But you really don't have any basis to opine what others should do (especially others you know nothing about), unless they ask you.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I make note of an "audible difference" between two different scenarios, it is one based on my perceptions, not fact. However, the vast majority of the discussions in this thread are not purely formed by such means._

 

Agreed. And as long as those opinions are clearly noted as such, no one ought to bother you. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_" ... enjoyment is the most important piece of this hobby, in my opinion. If higher quality cables enhance my listening experience (be it even through atheistic or placebo effect) it could still well be worth the purchase._

 

I completely agree again. It's likely true that those cables enhanced your listening experience. Stating as fact that they make an audible difference as an absolute is what I have a problem with. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Making choices based entirely on factual evidence would create for a cold listening experience._

 

perhaps emotionally to the listener, but not as far as equipment performance. Gear doesn't care whether you think it's good or not. Imparting emotional characteristics on inanimate objects won't change reality. It might make someone feel better though.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Stating as fact that they make an audible difference as an absolute is what I have a problem with._

 

And the problem I have is that you seem to think that you are the arbiter of what can be pronounced as "fact."


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is not correct. If you do a search on these forums and others, you will find data supporting audible differences between cables. You might not find the data persuasive, or you might have concerns about the methodologies, or you might believe the data is overwhelmed by contrary data, but it is not correct to say there is "zero data." _

 

it is quite correct to say there is zero data, afaik. those most recent "scientific discoveries" about cables offer imprecise and inappropriate graphs, but the raw data from which they were derived has never been released. 

 if there is data, i'd love to see it! why not provide us all with a link?


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is not correct. ... it is not correct to say there is "zero data."_

 

 I should have said zero _factual_ data. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ ... you are misleading people to the same extent as you say people mislead by stating "as a fact" that they heard a difference with their cables._

 

I'm not refuting that you heard it, I'm refuting that it factually exists. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're perfectly entitled to come to that opinion in making your decisions. But you really don't have any basis to opine what others should do (especially others you know nothing about), unless they ask you._

 

I think that by coming into a public Hi-Fi forum and showing a link to an article that refutes opinions that cables make a difference, and then stating that boutique level cables are a waste of money, is generally understood to be an invitation for discussion and debate. I'm merely taking the side of agreement.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And the problem I have is that you seem to think that you are the arbiter of what can be pronounced as "fact."_

 

No more so than someone who seems to think they should have their statement of opinion arbitrarily regarded as fact. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if there is data, i'd love to see it! why not provide us all with a link?_

 

Those conversations and links are not permitted here I don't think. A quick Google will find reams of work on the subject however - even within Head-Fi on another forum.


----------



## oatmeal769

Guys, I think we're starting in circles, let's agree to disagree, and not clutter the forum with essentially the same points over and over.
 As a novelty, if we do so, it might go down in history as the first cable debate to ever end without a flame war, and mods banning and closing, etc!


----------



## ParadigmPenguin

Here's a question. The vast majority of the cost of cables stems from it's being labor intensive, yes? Surely, headphone companies such as AKG, Sennheiser, and Sony have the capital to create cables quickly and cost effectively. Therefore, the cost to these companies of "upgrading" their cables to what "high-end" aftermarket manufacturers use would be negligible. If that's the case, why haven't they done so?

 If better cables could provide even a 10% improvement to sound quality, I'm sure most manufacturers would implement them OEM.

 I still admire aftermarket cables for their quality and aesthetic. Whether or not this lends or detracts from one's listening experience is subjective.

 Good input, all.


----------



## ford2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a question. The vast majority of the cost of cables stems from it's being labor intensive, yes? Surely, headphone companies such as AKG, Sennheiser, and Sony have the capital to create cables quickly and cost effectively. Therefore, the cost to these companies of "upgrading" their cables to what "high-end" aftermarket manufacturers use would be negligible. If that's the case, why haven't they done so?

 If better cables could provide even a 10% improvement to sound quality, I'm sure most manufacturers would implement them OEM.

 I still admire aftermarket cables for their quality and aesthetic. Whether or not this lends or detracts from one's listening experience is subjective.

 Good input, all._

 

Well said,I am sure Senn with the HD800 would not have released it without testing cables for it.
 What material do Senn use on there cables and plugs,is it exotic,I doubt it.
 Its a wonder that cables with refrigeration jackets have not come into vogue.
 I will give after market cables one thing some of them are visually stunning,so I guess a couple hundred for eye candy is fine,if you work out how long you will have them and look at them for the enjoyment it gives then the cost is negligible.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys, I think we're starting in circles, let's agree to disagree . . . ._

 

I think we found something we agree on.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 If better cables could provide even a 10% improvement to sound quality, I'm sure most manufacturers would implement them OEM._

 

I don't think that necessarily follows. Manufacturers consider lots of factors when deciding how to construct their products and what price point they want to achieve, etc. Furthermore, achieving a 10% improvement (whatever that means
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) might add more than 10% to the cost of the product, or a lot more, and that may have a substantial impact on the target market for a product.

 Furthermore, it is well-established that Sennheiser improved the cable on their HD-800 as compared to the HD-600 or HD-650. Is this proof that Sennheiser determined that better quality cables sound better?

 There are some good arguments on why cables might not make a difference, but suggesting that Sennheiser, et al. would make their phones with high-end cables if they made an audible difference is not one of them, IMHO.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *883dave* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I followed three links in your signature...the first was to Blue Jean cable, the second to Zu which proclaimed the Gede cable is $229.00, the third to Cardas for a V2 Headphone Cable, which I assume is for the HD600. You seem to be sending conflicting signals. After what you have written why would you spend excessive money on at least two cables when you know it to be a fact that they can't make a difference?_

 

Hey, now wait a minute. The fact that I wrote in this thread long after I obtained them is irrelevant. These cables are completely different. They are MAGIC cables with which I can in pure fact hear an improvement in my recorded music vs the cables I had prior. There's a difference, you should buy some. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who claims science is the monolith of truth? How many times have "facts" changed what "science" claimed as fact over history?_

 

If you query the definition of 'scientific fact' you will find it says exactly what you have just said. As soon as it is a scientific fact that really expensive interconnects sound better than the generic ones found at Best Buy, I'll be the first to buy a set. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thread Ninja's just make me giggle._

 

Flat Earth-ers make me giggle too.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ As soon as it is a scientific fact that really expensive interconnects sound better than the generic ones found at Best Buy, I'll be the first to buy a set._

 

 I notice you own a PS Audio DL-III DAC with Cullen stage 3 mod. Is it a "scientific fact" that this DAC, as modded, sounds better than a cheapo CD player? Or stated more generally, is there scientific proof that DAC's or CD players over a certain price point (let's say, $200) sound different?


----------



## ParadigmPenguin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think that necessarily follows. Manufacturers consider lots of factors when deciding how to construct their products and what price point they want to achieve, etc. Furthermore, achieving a 10% improvement (whatever that means
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) might add more than 10% to the cost of the product, or a lot more, and that may have a substantial impact on the target market for a product._

 

As said above, the construction of cables is very expensive, due mostly to time consuming labor. Major companies would not have this problem, thanks to heavy machinery and established factories. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Furthermore, it is well-established that Sennheiser improved the cable on their HD-800 as compared to the HD-600 or HD-650. Is this proof that Sennheiser determined that better quality cables sound better?_

 

That's a fair point, the cable on the HD-800 is superb. However, none of us can say why it was implemented to such high standards. Did Sennheiser truly believe that it would increase sound quality? Or, could it be that at that price point ($1400) it would be foolish not to upgrade the cable to something of a higher quality? Obviously, the HD-800s are the best of the best, and cost cutting would be frowned upon, regardless of whether or not it made an audible difference.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are some good arguments on why cables might not make a difference, but suggesting that Sennheiser, et al. would make their phones with high-end cables if they made an audible difference is not one of them, IMHO._

 

I can't see why not. Cables would be extremely cheap to manufacture, especially with major companies' infrastructures and capital. Headphone companies spend large amounts of money on R&D trying to improve their equipment. Why they wouldn't take a 10th of that and put it to better cables (if there was some improvement) is not something I can answer.

 That 10% was just an arbitrary figure, by the way.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, now wait a minute. The fact that I wrote in this thread long after I obtained them is irrelevant. These cables are completely different. They are MAGIC cables with which I can in pure fact hear an improvement in my recorded music vs the cables I had prior. There's a difference, you should buy some._

 

So this exercise has been a platform for you to extrol the value of the cables in your signature?


----------



## oatmeal769

But seriously, I bought those before I knew better, based on recommendations here on the forum. I wish I'd seen a few more differing viewpoints before I bought them, or at least been shown that there is no scientific / mathematical proof. 
 I LOVE the fit and finish of the Zu's, and I LOVE the way the Cardas lays, and doesn't get tangled. It also is not very micro-phonic. I even KNEW that I could hear that they sounded better. Until I educated myself and became aware of how persuasive placebo can be. I've done that of which we shall not speak many times and know that I cannot perceive a difference.
 Do they in fact SOUND better? No. Do I LIKE them better than stock, and does it enrich my experience? Of course.


----------



## oatmeal769

Oh yeah, the Blue Jeans cable -I can't even say it's a pricey alternative, I got a 17 foot custom length expertly made quality Belden cable with excellent terminations for less than what I could have bought an ultra cheapie 25 foot one off the rack. In can't miss it orange no less! I'll recommend them highly based on that, but it doesn't sound better than any other properly made coax cable.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why they wouldn't take a 10th of that and put it to better cables (if there was some improvement) is not something I can answer.
_

 

It's not something anyone can answer (except maybe certain folks at the manufacturers), due to the large number of possible variables and marketing parameters involved. All one can due is speculate, and make assumptions (e.g., about how cheap it would be for a manufacturer such as Sennheiser to reduce the labor costs typically associated with high-end cables) that may or may not be valid. That's why it's not a good argument, IMO.

 I mean, if we're going to insist on solid, scientific data that cables make a difference, shouldn't we insist on solid, scientific data (at least of the economic type) that manufacturers could add high end cables to their phones with little added cost and without materially affecting their price points and target market?


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ParadigmPenguin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... cable on the HD-800 is superb. However, none of us can say why it was implemented to such high standards. Did Sennheiser truly believe that it would increase sound quality? ..._

 

Speaker cable can be a different animal because it deals mostly with current. (headphones being speakers) Without knowing much, my uninformed guess might be that Sennheiser found that the conductor they were using was not of sufficient size to ensure desired damping performance... 
 That is NOT to say that a triaxial braided cryo copper silver phase aligned directional signal transmitter would be better! just that a lower gauge of copper wire (ANY copper wire) can increase damping performance in a speaker.
 ...Then again they might just have changed the cable to increase the perceived value.


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *logwed* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're saying that they are intended to show that tonal differences occur? Like, they are built for demonstrative purposes?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_please please please send those over to me! i'd love to do a spectral analysis 

 how did you do it?_

 

They are, specifically, the Nordost Heimdall, which, very clearly, causes the mids to come more "forward" and the Van Den Hul The Orchid which doesn't. I'd really need to both RMAA these (hard to do with XLR cables and I don't want to add a lot of crap between them and the computer that will interfere with the results) and play back a live recording which I'd been present at to determine what is going on. However, with the Buena Vista Social Club, the piano seems to more overwhelm the music with the Heimdalls plugged in. When I had about $5k of DACs and amps here to test, I found with the Heimdalls it was impossible to evaluate them as they were causing tonal changes in the sound, whereas with the Orchids no tonal changes were apparent.

 What I've come to realise about all these arguments about whether gear, such as DACs, amps and cables sound different or not is, that there are, essentially two types of "different": There is _tonally_ different, and there is _more or less detail_ different. It's easy to impress people with tonal differences, such as the usual "mid-bass hump" or "more treble". It's much harder to impress people who are already into hi-fi in some way with detail differences. So if someone feels that a bunch of DACs sound the same, then they probably do, if they all RMAA flat exactly the same way. Getting out a high-end electrostat rig, one then might be able to determine what is more detailed than what. However, it is a quagmire, as, say, if one component in the chain is killing detail (and we're probably talking tiny, _supposedly_ inaudible differences in the signal) then no differences will be heard. If anything, this shows what a crazy quest getting the most detail from music is -- you end up spending a lot of money on the tiniest of differences.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sure anyone who listens can hear what they like and may agree with you. You cannot prove that you can tell a difference by listening alone though._

 

You can't prove their is not a difference by reading stuff off the web either. If people can't be trusted to evaluate sound on their own, then they can be no more trusted to evaluate the writings of others on their own either.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't understand why anyone has to "prove" that certain cables sound better to them in their system.

 I also don't understand the OP's point about waste. If I buy an interconnect, and try it out in my system, and I think it sounds better, and it is worth the money to me to obtain the improvement that I perceive, how is that a "waste" of money._

 

Some people don't like people having personal opinion, but believe that everyone should follow their beliefs or religion. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course there is. Scientific MethodI suppose as many times as other folks need to claim they're not.I have no doubt that it sounds better in your mind. That you can demonstrate an actual audible difference exists by listening alone though, is easily provable as false._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who claims science is the monolith of truth? How many times have "facts" changed what "science" claimed as fact over history?_

 

I find the religious nature of people quoting science no different to religious people quoting scripture. It's more about human nature than it is about what is true or not. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The ultimate cable truth is: It's a waste of time arguing over them.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can't prove their is not a difference by reading stuff off the web either._

 

Nor would I attempt to do so. I can not prove that your cables do not sound better to you. What I can prove is that you - on your own equipment, taking as long as you like, cannot show beyond random chance that you can tell a difference between your cables and a set from Fry's by listening alone. Before you suggest I fly over and do so, I'd be happy to show how you can prove it to yourself. But we will need to switch forums for that. < Edit: > If indeed you are able to do so, please post your methods so that anyone can replicate the conditions and make their own observations. < / edit > If you will ignore scientific method however, and trust only your own senses instead, I really can't even prove to you that the world is not flat. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The ultimate cable truth is: It's a waste of time arguing over them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

But it is NOT a waste of time to represent both sides for someone new to the hobby with questions. - Before they go out and drop $400 (or much more) on snake oil based on a recommendation made here.


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What I can prove is that you - on your own equipment, taking as long as you like, cannot show beyond random chance that you can tell a difference between your cables and a set from Fry's by listening alone. Before you suggest I fly over and do so, I'd be happy to show how you can prove it to yourself. But we will need to switch forums for that._

 

PM me the method. I can guess what it would involve.

 I will see, sometime when I can be bothered, if I can measure the differences between the two cables with which I can hear a clear tonal difference.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will see, sometime when I can be bothered, if I can measure the differences between the two cables with which I can hear a clear tonal difference._

 

I'd like to think one could measure differences between most any two cables, regardless of whether or not one can hear any differences. Or has someone claimed that all cables measure the same?

 se


----------



## SethSil




----------



## Sherwood

Aw heck no. This thread demands courage wolf.


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I notice you own a PS Audio DL-III DAC with Cullen stage 3 mod. Is it a "scientific fact" that this DAC, as modded, sounds better than a cheapo CD player?_

 

that's an unfair question - "better" is highly subjective! but yes, those mods do affect the output in a way that can be measured on something as simple as a frequency response

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or stated more generally, is there scientific proof that DAC's or CD players over a certain price point (let's say, $200) sound different?_

 

gallons of proof! beyond graphs, many people are successful at distinguishing gear in DBT's. it's really not that hard, either


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd like to think one could measure differences between most any two cables, regardless of whether or not one can hear any differences. Or has someone claimed that all cables measure the same?_

 

Sure, anyone can measure a difference. Probably even by using a simple multimeter, and almost certainly by using software like RMAA. That doesn't mean anyone can demonstrate that they hear a difference however.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_gallons of proof! beyond graphs, many people are successful at distinguishing gear in DBT's. it's really not that hard, either_

 

Well, there are a quite a few folks on this forum who insist that (1) all CDP's or DAC's above a certain threshold all sound the same, and (2) there are no reliable DBT's establishing differences. So my question was more or less based on what others have said in the past, but maybe sometimes when people report on what's been validated or not in scientific tests, they are not reporting accurately.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I notice you own a PS Audio DL-III DAC with Cullen stage 3 mod. Is it a "scientific fact" that this DAC, as modded, sounds better than a cheapo CD player? Or stated more generally, is there scientific proof that DAC's or CD players over a certain price point (let's say, $200) sound different?_

 

Phil - Sorry, Apparently I missed this post earlier...

 Specifically, I have addressed this very question over the past 2 weeks (I have a lot of free time at the moment...) Please check out my review / shootout. In a way, it directly pertains to what we are speaking of here. I'd be pleased to have any and all input / feedback. There is no 'agenda' (aside from learning more about this silly hobby we all have) with it, I tried to make it as transparent and unbiased as I could.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Specifically, I have addressed this very question over the past 2 weeks (I have a lot of free time at the moment...) Please check out my review / shootout. In a way, it directly pertains to what we are speaking of here. I'd be pleased to have any and all input / feedback._

 

Is it possible you could give us the Reader's Digest version, so people don't have to go to the other post (which is somewhat lengthy) and so that the discussion that is relevant to the present topic can be found on this thread? That way, it will make it easier for everyone to understand what we're talking about.


----------



## HotHead

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kool bubba ice* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry. Quality matters. I do love my 13.00 Belkin RCA though.. But might get the OXY fuel or side winders for 60% off. I enjoy my BOK/Mother MK PC. Would never pay retail for them, but feel they improve my system._

 

Would like to try these but where can I obtain the discounts he speaks of? OXY fuel or side winders for 60% off? BOK/Mother MK PC less than retail, where?


----------



## Gilmai

I thought the article was an interesting read, but my issue with it is along the lines of what Currawong alluded to. It is hard for me to appreciate the presented data as proof because I have verified neither the data nor the principals of science applied to obtain it. I must take both on faith. Unless I personally validate every principle applied with instruments I personally validate using principles and instruments I personally validate etc. and then personally apply those principles in the given test to obtain the data, I must take his word for it. The problem with science then is that it is far too complex for any given person to personally verify it all; consequently, science relies greatly on faith. This is especially true for those like me who study literature and such rather than physics and chemistry. This doesn't make science useless, but it does make it hard to use, and virtually impossibly so in regard to verifying truth claims. 

 Perhaps it’s just my existential bent, but this is why I more readily trust my experience. After all, subjective as it may be, it is no more so than the faith I might place in data on a graph or the reading of an instrument. In other words, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and tastes like a duck, I am likely to call it a duck even if Dr. Genius Scientist publishes a study of its DNA that claims otherwise. It makes me think of Cypher's steak in _The Matrix._

 My practical application of this in the context of audiophile gear is meets. I am extremely new to this game and have been overwhelmed by the variety of claims made about all kinds of gear. I have absolutely no idea who is right. Therefore, I have determined to make every effort to attend some local meets in order to experience or not experiences the differences or lack thereof between gear for myself before I invest my money. Since for me this is a hedonistic hobby more than a cerebral one, if I enjoy what I hear, then the reasons or absolute lack of them be damned!


----------



## Audio-Omega

I buy cables because I can.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gilmai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is hard for me to appreciate the presented data as proof because I have verified neither the data nor the principals of science applied to obtain it. I must take both on faith. Unless I personally validate every principle applied with instruments I personally validate using principles and instruments I personally validate etc. and then personally apply those principles in the given test to obtain the data, I must take his word for it._

 

Precisely why the methods and results are posted publicly - so that others may replicate the test and confirm or refute one opinion. 1 person showing he can or can not hear a difference means nothing. Many people who reach a consensus of the same result is how a 'theory' is 'proven'. All you need is a decent sound card, foobar2000 and freely available audio editing software. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gilmai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Therefore, I have determined to make every effort to attend some local meets in order to experience or not experiences the differences or lack thereof between gear for myself before I invest my money._

 

The whole point is that you will hear exactly what you want (or are told) to hear with much of the gear at these shows. If it were a couple bucks, I wouldn't even care, but before I bust out a couple grand, I want to know for sure, and not just take the advice of the converted.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gilmai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps it’s just my existential bent, but this is why I more readily trust my experience. After all, subjective as it may be, it is no more so than the faith I might place in data on a graph or the reading of an instrument._

 

Look at it this way. Before you bought a car, who would you rather have check it over for you; A qualified mechanic, even if he were an amateur, or a holistic psychic car healer who will light some candles and place some magic stones on the hood and call it good.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Before you bought a car, who would you rather have check it over for you; A qualified mechanic, even if he were an amateur, or a holistic psychic car healer who will light some candles and place some magic stones on the hood and call it good._

 

That's a good analogy. No, really.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





*EDIT:* Actually, a better analogy would be, if you saw some guy at the dealership who you didn't know but he was wearing a mechanic's uniform and he said that the car you were looking at had a really bumpy ride, but then you test drove it, and you felt that the ride was smooth, would you go by what the unknown guy wearing the mechanic's uniform said, or what you felt when you test drove the car.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it possible you could give us the Reader's Digest version, so people don't have to go to the other post (which is somewhat lengthy) and so that the discussion that is relevant to the present topic can be found on this thread? That way, it will make it easier for everyone to understand what we're talking about. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sure!

 First I tested each DAC with RMAA software, where I saw clear and large differences - I thought to myself, "Well duh, it's because the PSA is better... " 

 Caveat: _This next paragraph describes that of which we may not speak. I think it's relative, without endorsing or condemning, so I hope Mods will overlook it in this case._

 Then I made six recordings of three songs. The one and only variable was the DAC. (I even used the exact same cables, in the same positions, LOL) I set them so that they were exactly time synched with each other, and that they were *exactly* the same in volume. Then I play them so that I could easily listen and compare two samples against two others, all of the same song. I then try to identify two that are the same. It's like a game basically, and kind of fun. I record my results, and take an average of my score. that's it. 

 The review is a long winded way of saying "I've done all the hard work of recording and setting the files to be identical in all ways except sound, please have a listen and tell me what you think" Because my results in isolation prove nothing, only by having several people compare the same things can I possibly reach a consensus. 
 Using that consensus, I can better answer my initial question: Based on sound alone, is the PSA worth the extra cost?

 I'm not going to post my results just yet, I will in a couple days.
 It is relevant here because I know I could hear a difference between a cheapie Chinese DAC, and a PS Audio DL-III with Cullen Mods, and I set out to prove it. I posted song samples for others to download and listen on their own gear as well.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure!

 First I tested each DAC with RMAA software, where I saw clear and large differences - I thought to myself, "Well duh, it's because the PSA is better... " 
 Caveat: This next paragraph describes that of which we may not speak. I think it's relative, without endorsing or condemning, so I hope Mods will overlook it in this case.

 Then I made six recordings of three songs. The one and only variable was the DAC. (I even used the exact same cables, in the same positions, LOL) I set them so that they were exactly time synched with each other, and that they were *exactly* the same in volume. Then I play them so that I could easily listen and compare two samples against two others, all of the same song. I then try to identify two that are the same. It's like a game basically, and kind of fun. I record my results, and take an average of my score. that's it. 

 The review is a long winded way of saying "I've done all the hard work of recording and setting the files to be identical in all ways except sound, please have a listen and tell me what you think" Because my results in isolation prove nothing, only by having several people compare the same things can I possibly reach a consensus. 
 Using that consensus, I can better answer my initial question: Based on sound alone, is the PSA worth the extra cost?

 I'm not going to post my results just yet, I will in a couple days.
 It is relevant here because I know I could hear a difference between a cheapie Chinese DAC, and a PS Audio DL-III with Cullen Mods, and I set out to prove it. I posted song samples for others to download and listen on their own gear as well._

 

Sorry if I'm being slow, but did the DAC's sound different to you or not?


----------



## oatmeal769

I could do exactly the same type of "Shoot-Out' with cables, only this time I know with far more certainty what the result will be, because thousands of comparisons have already been done. 
 However, I'm like Fox Mulder - 
 I WANT TO BELIEVE!
 If someone wants to lend me their expensive boutique cables, I will run the same test and post the samples. Frankly I hope I'm wrong about all this, because I love all the gear! I don't mind spending righteous bucks if there's a difference beyond eye candy. But if it's just eye candy, I can make it far more inexpensively. I know no one knows me, but I promise to be impartial and fair.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry if I'm being slow, but did the DAC's sound different to you or not? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

 I wasn't going to post my results yet, but It's not getting a lot of traffic, so why not.
 Yes, I could reliably tell a difference.
 AND There are a couple VERY interesting oddities and observations also, which I will post later.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I could reliably tell a difference._

 

Interesting. Well, I would assume you think that your test is valid, in terms of drawing conclusions that are meaningful to you. I wonder if those who are skeptical about DAC's sounding different would question your methodology or conclusions, or suggest that the test is of no significant value to others because it wasn't published, peer-reviewed, or even observed by others. I don't know.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a good analogy. No, really.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I laughed because I pictured some shaman dude in a lotus position on top of a car saying (in sharp Hindu accent) 'Hey buddy, wanna buy a ride'?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you saw some guy at the dealership who you didn't know but he was wearing a mechanic's uniform and he said that the car you were looking at had a really bumpy ride, but then you test drove it, and you felt that the ride was smooth, would you go by what the unknown guy wearing the mechanic's uniform said, or what you felt when you test drove the car. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Heck no, because it would be PLAINLY obvious that the mechanic must be on some good drugs. All of these arguments exist well within the realm of diminished returns. We are talking about barely perceptible differences. Many Audiophiles think they have 'golden ears' and have trained themselves to hear what ordinary people cannot.

 I think it would be the mechanic saying, "Nice looking car, in great shape! But it has the same engine and transmission as that '72 Dodge over there, which is also in fine shape. Both will get you where you're going equally well. But the one you want to buy costs 20 times more. It sure looks nice though."
 If the nice looking car cost a bit more, I'd totally spring for it. But if it cost 20 times more than the Dodge, well I think I'd be driving a perfectly good Dodge, and buying a TV, a Stereo, some furniture, and a vacation to Fiji.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting. Well, I would assume you think that your test is valid, in terms of drawing conclusions that are meaningful to you. I wonder if those who are skeptical about DAC's sounding different would question your methodology or conclusions, or suggest that the test is of no significant value to others because it wasn't published, peer-reviewed, or even observed by others. I don't know._

 

I think you're missing the point - and getting the point all at the same time.
 It is precisely BECAUSE my test by itself means nothing. I WANT people to question it, replicate it, try it themselves and either confirm it, or say it's wrong. It is only by vast consensus that a scientific theory is proven or not - and that proof is always open to more testing.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you're missing the point - and getting the point all at the same time.
 It is precisely BECAUSE my test by itself means nothing. I WANT people to question it, replicate it, try it themselves and either confirm it, or say it's wrong. It is only by vast consensus that a scientific theory is proven or not - and that proof is always open to more testing._

 

I don't get this. If you confirmed for yourself, by a method you consider valid, that the DAC's sound different, why do you care what anybody else thinks? That's somewhat of a rhetorical question, of course, as you can do whatever floats your boat.

 I guess, to put it another way, I would say that it's fine for you to be interested in the scientific theory and whether it can be proven conclusively that the two DAC's sound different. Many of us on this forum are not interested in taking the matter that far. We are interested in what sounds better to our ears, because we are pursuing musical enjoyment in its own right (the "hedonistic" pursuit that someone referenced above). And if we conduct a test that is valid for us that convinces us that there is a difference in terms of our enjoyment, that's where our inquiry ends.

 To each his own, I guess. I won't criticize your pursuit of science and say you're a nut case because you want to establish a scientific proposition for the sake of science, if you won't criticize me and others and say we're nut cases for pursuing our enjoyment of this hobby and sharing our experiences (subjective though they may be) with others.


----------



## Gilmai

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ 1 person showing he can or can not hear a difference means nothing. Many people who reach a consensus of the same result is how a 'theory' is 'proven'. 
 Look at it this way. Before you bought a car, who would you rather have check it over for you; A qualified mechanic, even if he were an amateur, or a holistic psychic car healer who will light some candles and place some magic stones on the hood and call it good._

 

That is a fair point except for two things: if I were a mechanic, I would test it myself and not being a mechanic it is a question of who do I trust more, who do I have more faith in. A qualified mechanic can misdiagnose a car (as I have been unfortunate enough to experience).

 A better analogy would be before buying car A over car B I test drive them both and conclude that I much prefer the way that car A shifts. However, our qualified mechanic friend insists that is impossible because both cars have exactly the same parts and many other qualified mechanics have tested and found this to be true and during consumer testing no one could tell the difference. Clearly any difference I feel must be in my head, not the car. Now it is a question of which I trust more, my senses or my mechanic friend and his mechanic buddies' studies. In this case, since it is my senses that I am trying to please, I would still buy car A. *Looks like Phils beat me to the point.*

 Also, your argument about consensus smacks of Ad Populum. How is it any different from 100 headfiers coming to the consensus that their is an audible difference between cables? Although, clearly no such consensus exists. 

 I haven't heard or tested enough cables to have an opinion on this specific issue but to disregard one's subjective experience in favor of presumably objective evidence (I contend that no such thing exists) when the subjective experience of music enjoyment is the point just seems foolish to me on principle.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gilmai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A better analogy would be before buying car A over car B I test drive them both and conclude that I much prefer the way that car A shifts. However, our qualified mechanic friend insists that is impossible because both cars have exactly the same parts and many other qualified mechanics have tested and found this to be true and during consumer testing no one could tell the difference. Clearly any difference I feel must be in my head, not the car. Now it is a question of which I trust more, my senses or my mechanic friend and his mechanic buddies' studies. In this case, since it is my senses that I am trying to please, I would still buy car A._

 

If the car which you perceive to shift slightly better, even though no one else can feel that it shifts slightly better, also cost 20 times more than an identical car, without a barely perceived shifting difference, would you still buy it?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gilmai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How is it any different from 100 headfiers coming to the consensus that their is an audible difference between cables? Although, clearly no such consensus exists._

 

If a bunch of H.F. folks come to that consensus subjectively, that's great, and what we're here for. If some of those people however recommend that I go out and spend $2500 on a set of cables over my $25 off the rack ones, because I will also hear a difference, I will say not only can I prove to myself that there is no difference, but I defy you to prove to me that you can hear any difference at all - let alone which is better - before I take your word and spend 20 times the difference on snake oil. The difference does not in fact exist. Spending a couple extra dollars because you 'like' it is fine and great. Telling someone else they should go broke for a lie is unethical and wrong. Those people need to be called out to prove their claims, the same as someone selling a miracle cure for cancer at $50K a pop would need to be called out.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gilmai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't heard or tested enough cables to have an opinion on this specific issue but to disregard one's subjective experience in favor of presumably objective evidence (I contend that no such thing exists) when the subjective experience of music enjoyment is the point just seems foolish to me on principle._

 

Spend your money however you want. I'm calling these shams out, because maybe some new guy with a budget is reading this and might say to himself, "Maybe I don't need that $600 cable to hear more 'shimmer, clarity and air' on my 'soundstage'. Maybe I can just imagine it, and in fact hear exactly the same thing." 
 I wish I knew what I now know and had all the facts before I wasted my money. If it had been a couple bucks, no worries, but to spend upwards of 200 on interconnects that are no better other than looking than some from Radio Shack was kinda lame. I love how my Zu Gede's look and feel, but I can make equals to them - even in looks - for $20.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 If some of those people however recommend that I go out and spend $2500 on a set of cables over my $25 off the rack ones, because I will also hear a difference, I will say not only can I prove to myself that there is no difference, but I defy you to prove to me that you can hear any difference at all - let alone which is better - before I take your word and spend 20 times the difference on snake oil. The difference does not in fact exist. Spending a couple extra dollars because you 'like' it is fine and great. Telling someone else they should go broke for a lie is unethical and wrong. Those people need to be called out to prove their claims, the same as someone selling a miracle cure for cancer at $50K a pop would need to be called out.

 Spend your money however you want. I'm calling these shams out, because maybe some new guy with a budget is reading this and might say to himself, "Maybe I don't need that $600 cable to hear more 'shimmer, clarity and air' on my 'soundstage'. Maybe I can just imagine it, and in fact hear exactly the same thing." _

 

I think, once again, you're exaggerating and overstating the problem to a substantial extent. People are not telling newbies or uneducated members to go out and spend $2500 on cables. Most of the discussions involving very expensive cables are few and far between, and involve knowledgeable people with sophisticated systems discussing upgrades that many other users are not in a position to even consider. (Some people I know routinely discuss some of the attributes of very, very expensive wine. None of the unsophisticated wine drinkers in such discussions are duped by such discussions into going out and buying a $2000 bottle of wine just because someone else with a very sophisticated palate and lots of money makes such a purchase from time to time.) 

 In fact, most of the cable discussions on this site involve fairly reasonably-priced cables, i.e., they are in the range of $100 to $300. (Not that $100 to $300 is an insignificant amount of money to some, but compared to $1400 headphones and $3,000 CD players, it can be relatively inconsequential.) And almost every one of these cables can be bought *on 30- to 60-day return *so people can try them for themselves.

 In addition to all this, nobody is going to be duped by lack of knowledge, as the "skeptics" position on this is as readily available on this forum as the air we breathe. It is everywhere. You can't miss it (or get away from it).

 So, I don't think it is at all fair to suggest this is a scenario where you and few others are saving ignorant newbies who are about to spend $2,500 on a cable and get ripped off as a result of a "sham." I think this is a scenario where most people consider upgrading cables only after they have constructed the basic components of their system. And people can read the arguments pro and con. In this context, I don't think it's the end of the world if someone reads a subjective (i.e., unscientific) review of a cable on this forum, and decides to spend $200 on the cable to try it out in his or her system on a 30- to 60-day return, so that they can determine whether it makes a beneficial audible difference in their system (and can send it back and be out $10 shipping if it's not worth it to them).


----------



## TheAttorney

PhilS, that was a particularly well written and articulate post. It really is that simple - and a real shame that sceptics keep exaggerating and overstating the "problem".


----------



## oatmeal769

I think I need to get into the cable making business.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I need to get into the cable making business._

 

Not if you're looking to make a lot of money. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 se


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think this is a scenario where most people consider upgrading cables only after they have constructed the basic components of their system._

 

And in these cases, where people are indeed testing out upgrades to their own high-class, nearly completed systems, this is a fine path to take. In fact, this probably is the case 90% of the time. 

 However, there was recently a "rate my system" thread in which a guy had a $250 DAC, but a $1000+ USB cable for it. These people really need to be helped, regardless of whether or not the tweak causes an audible difference. Every single cable "believer" (except for Patrick, of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) should hopefully agree that this guy's purchase was a poor choice


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not if you're looking to make a lot of money. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

website template: $25
 website registration: $10
 webspace: $15

 digital camera: $50

 furutech xlr's: $220
 techflex: $10
 heatshrink: $3
 rubber hose: $10
 mogami cable: $15

 solder: $3
 soldering iron: $7

 total cost for cables, website with checkout cart, and picture of your high-end cable: $368


 so long as you can sell the pair for $500, you can legally pay your sales tax, and still turn a profit from starting up a cable company, by selling a single pair of interconnects!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_website template: $25
 website registration: $10
 webspace: $15

 digital camera: $50

 furutech xlr's: $220
 techflex: $10
 heatshrink: $3
 rubber hose: $10
 mogami cable: $15

 solder: $3
 soldering iron: $7

 total cost for cables, website with checkout cart, and picture of your high-end cable: $368


 so long as you can sell the pair for $500, you can legally pay your sales tax, and still turn a profit from starting up a cable company, by selling a single pair of interconnects!_

 

What about the labor cost?


----------



## BIG POPPA

PhilS I am one of your fans!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PhilS I am one of your fans!_

 

Thanks. That makes a total of two -- assuming I can count my wife.


----------



## BIG POPPA

Count my wife and Little Poppa that makes 4! No worries!


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_website template: $25 website registration: $10
 webspace: $15 digital camera: $50 furutech xlr's: $220 techflex: $10
 heatshrink: $3 rubber hose: $10 mogami cable: $15 solder: $3 soldering iron: $7
 total cost for cables, website with checkout cart, and picture of your high-end cable: $368
 so long as you can sell the pair for $500, you can legally pay your sales tax, and still turn a profit from starting up a cable company, by selling a single pair of interconnects!_

 

Hmmmm... HMMMM..... 
 Man, I already have half that stuff. What we need now is a marketing scheme. With words like 'transcendental phase alignment' and 'load sensitive induction windings.' Oh, and slick packaging, like a wooden box with a felt liquor pouch...
 I'm telling you guys, we could make a mint!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmmmm... HMMMM..... 
 Man, I already have half that stuff. What we need now is a marketing scheme. With words like 'transcendental phase alignment' and 'load sensitive induction windings.' Oh, and slick packaging, like a wooden box with a felt liquor pouch...
 I'm telling you guys, we could make a mint!_

 

Implicit in your post and in El_Doug's above is that the barriers to entry for the cable market are almost non-existent, which would suggest that the market is likely to be very competitive, if not "atomistic," as they used to say in Economics 101. This, in turn, suggests that one is not likely to make exorbitant, or even "above market," profits for any meaningful length of time. 

 I would also note that folks on this forum quite often suggest that one can make big money by buying the parts, making some cables, and selling them for big money. Yet nobody ever really seems to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. I suppose most of the comments are tongue in cheek, as my comment was in another thread wherein I offered to be the financier behind someone who suggested there were huge profits to be made. 

 All in good fun.


----------



## Seamaster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kool bubba ice* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If a cable is just a cable why replace the cheap crap you get with your dvd player.. Why not just get the cheapest cable from radio shack. They all work the same. Cables are not all equal. I bought 6.00 PS3 component cables then I got the rainbow effect on my screen. I would get green, red, then blue... So, I bought the official Sony PS3 component cables for 20.00. Guess what. Beautiful picture. No rainbow crap, so please don't tell me all cables are the same. Sorry. Quality matters. I do love my 13.00 Belkin RCA though.. But might get the OXY fuel or side winders for 60% off. I enjoy my BOK/Mother MK PC. Would never pay retail for them, but feel they improve my system. Hell, I even prefer my cheaper Belkins to my 80.00 Cardas silver RCA, which shocked me. I guess Plecebo is hit or miss. I'm a cable believer to a point. I'm more of the, they will influence the sound then better the sound._

 

Same happend to my HDTV. I was playing round so I replaced with stock TV cable Cardas Golden Reference Power cable. The most noticeble difference is the color, more vivied, deeper. Well, use cardas is wast of money for half the TV price. So I ordered botton of line PS audio cable, which have 2 shields, removeble ground pin (a must for PS3 in my house),and well made for $40/m + shipping. It worked from day one without run-in. It did same job as Cardas. Please take note: I am NOT talking about sound quality here. same cable for my PS3 and DVD player, all worked, better picture, $45 x3 pair well spent.


----------



## Seamaster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_website template: $25
 website registration: $10
 webspace: $15

 digital camera: $50

 furutech xlr's: $220
 techflex: $10
 heatshrink: $3
 rubber hose: $10
 mogami cable: $15

 solder: $3
 soldering iron: $7

 total cost for cables, website with checkout cart, and picture of your high-end cable: $368


 so long as you can sell the pair for $500, you can legally pay your sales tax, and still turn a profit from starting up a cable company, by selling a single pair of interconnects!_

 

Cables are system dependent. Not more expensive cables are sound better. But you do need high end system to tell the difference, as they are more sensitive. In my system I just bought VH Audio flaver 4 cable used for $125 to replace Cardas GF. They sound better than Cardas. Fuller sound, more bass, richer mid, while the high are the same. Clear this $125 beat $500 Cardas in this case. Just forget Scientific Method, let your ears tell the truth!


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Seamaster* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... you do need high end system to tell the difference, as they are more sensitive._

 

I like to think I have a fairly decent 'high end system.' Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Seamaster* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In my system I just bought VH Audio flaver 4 cable used for $125 to replace Cardas GF. They sound better than Cardas. Fuller sound, more bass, richer mid, while the high are the same. Clear this $125 beat $500 Cardas in this case. Just forget Scientific Method, let your ears tell the truth!_

 

If ever I implied that there were NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, then I mis-spoke. There are easily detectable differences by using electronic and / or software analysis. Please don't mis-understand, I know there are BIG differences between all sorts of cable. 
 My contention though is that NO ONE ever has or can identify a difference by listening alone. No one. Anywhere. Ever. Maybe there's a giant conspiracy of audiophiles who can hear the difference, but purposely answer incorrectly, but I doubt it. If you think you can, please show me. I WANT TO BELIEVE.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Seamaster* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...It worked from day one without run-in. It did same job as Cardas. Please take note: I am NOT talking about sound quality here. same cable for my PS3 and DVD player, all worked, better picture..._

 

There are differences that anyone can PLAINLY see without a 'test' in video cable, because with video, there is MUCH more information in the signal stream, and humans are capable of resolving far FAR greater detail and clarity than with audio. 

 Oh, and my tongue was planted firmly in cheek at my suggestion of opening a cable manufacturing venture... All someone would have to do is resurrect this thread, and I'd be finished before cable one!


----------



## oatmeal769

An instance where an interconnect can and does make a difference would be between PASSIVE guitar pickups, and an amplifier. The string vibrates across the magnet, and creates a tiny electrical impulse in the coil, just like a mini-generator. The capacitance of the guitar cable works against this tiny generator and can indeed play an audible role at the other end. It is well documented and audible to many. I have a 'favorite' instrument cable that I think sounds a bit more 'sparkly' As long as passive pickups are used, I'll demonstrate it for anyone. Again though, I think it's a different animal.

 I'd never say it's impossible for interconnects to sound different, I have nothing against others who want to drop a 'G' on eye candy (in spite of my earlier rant... Sorry) But I like the conversation, that's what forums are for.


----------



## oatmeal769

I posted the answers to my testing on DAC's today as well.


 THE GREAT "PSA DL-III DAC vs. TIANYUN ZERO DAC" SHOOT-OUT

 .


----------



## Happy Camper

oatmeal,

 Did the Cardas cable make a difference in your HD600s?

 Go to one of many member's mini meets or host it yourself. There's a lot of Head Fiers in the basin. It's always best to hear things in your rig.


----------



## oatmeal769

Can't say for sure. I certainly thought it did - before I'd done my homework. About the only way it could though is if the original cable was too thin to allow for proper damping, I really doubt it though... I have the charts to find out, maybe I'll look tomorrow...

 One thing certainly, it coils and lays very nicely, although I think a good Mogami Microphone cable would do that as well. I ended up soldering on a better Neutrik connector than what came with it, just for look and feel. The cable certainly is well shielded.


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about the labor cost?_

 

you typically do not account for labor costs in a 1-man operation. 100% of the time worked is your own, and you can thus simply price according to desired earnings. 


 edit: since my highest ever paying job was $10/hour (pastry cook), I suppose that means I should add $1.67 for my 10 minutes of time


----------



## tamahome77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Happy Camper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_oatmeal,

 Did the Cardas cable make a difference in your HD600s?

 Go to one of many member's mini meets or host it yourself. There's a lot of Head Fiers in the basin. It's always best to hear things in your rig._

 

From experience, I can testify that the cardas cable made a noticeable improvement over the stock cable in the sound of the HD600 that I used to own. It was a worthwhile investment and the sound improvement would be more convincing if one were to experience it first hand. 

 On the other hand, I couldn't differentiate the differences between no name power cords and brand name ones.


----------



## Donald North

For those curious about the audibility (or lack thereof) of interconnect cable differences, a good comparison would be between a higher capacitance, shielded copper cable (like the Cardas Quadlink) and a lower capacitance, unshielded silver cable (like the Kimber KCAG).


----------



## fishski13

a good read:
http://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/media/704hansen.pdf


----------



## Seamaster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tamahome77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From experience, I can testify that the cardas cable made a noticeable improvement over the stock cable in the sound of the HD600 that I used to own. It was a worthwhile investment and the sound improvement would be more convincing if one were to experience it first hand. 

 On the other hand, I couldn't differentiate the differences between no name power cords and brand name ones. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

With annalog system like mine, difference between power cord very noticable


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you typically do not account for labor costs in a 1-man operation. 100% of the time worked is your own, and you can thus simply price according to desired earnings. 

 edit: since my highest ever paying job was $10/hour (pastry cook), I suppose that means I should add $1.67 for my 10 minutes of time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Your response on the previous page containing an itemization (albeit incomplete) of costs was in response to someone else who suggested that one could not make "a lot of money" in the cable business. If you think "making a lot of money" means making $100 or so on one cable, or making $100 on an investment of $300 to $400 every time you make a cable (not counting labor costs), then maybe you should try the business. But it wouldn't be worth it to a lot of folks..

 P.S. One does need to account for labor costs in a 1-man operation. It's called "opportunity cost." And you can't just price "according to desired earnings" in a competitive market. You can only charge what the market will bear. And, finally, I think it's quite an exaggeration to suggest total labor time associated with a cable enterprise would work out to 10 minutes of time per cable. You have to include time involved in fabrication, marketing, the purchase and sale process, communicating with the purchaser, shipping the product, resolving complaints, etc., etc. It's bound to add up pretty quick.


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One does need to account for labor costs in a 1-man operation. It's called "opportunity cost." And you can't just price "according to desired earnings" in a competitive market. You can only charge what the market will bear. And, finally, I think it's quite an exaggeration to suggest total labor time associated with a cable enterprise would work out to 10 minutes of time per cable. You have to include time involved in fabrication, marketing, the purchase and sale process, communicating with the purchaser, shipping the product, resolving complaints, etc., etc. It's bound to add up pretty quick. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

opportunity cost is an economic tool - it is not a real cost that is accounted for, and I guarantee you'll never see it on any financial statement or management accounting documents 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 you're right that in a normal market, of which one parameter is having reasonable consumers, pure competition would dictate price. in audio, especially with regard to cables, what you are selling is prestige and ego-boosts, and the consumers are very far from reasonable. take a look at Virtual Dynamics' garden hose, home depot wire, and sand blasting particles, for example - if those who heard this cable swear by a sonic improvement, I would estimate that it does not take much to create a world-class audio cable. the market certainly will bear quite a bit, as can be seen all around us! heck, if I took the time to mill some brass, I could probably sell a single $500 cable for $8000. 

 btw - if you think a 25% return on investment is "not worth it," PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me the name of your broker 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 i do not think it was hard to figure out that the 10 minutes of time allotted was for only the cable construction - but play dumb if you wish 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i'll add more time, to satisfy your requirements: 

 - copy/paste key words from stereophile reviews, to create a b.s. jargon blurb about the cable: 5 minutes
 - answer an email making outrageous claims, beating around the bush or flat out ignoring real questions : 2 minutes
 - click "print shipping label" from the paypal order form: 1 minute
 - stuff cable into cardboard box, affix shipping label, and tape shut: 3 minutes
 - drive to post office: 15 minutes (round trip)

 26 more minutes of my time = $5. 

 factor in $1 for gasoline, $10 for the box and peanuts (being very liberal), and $1 for a twinkie snack to eat on the way


 keep in mind that mine are "boutique" cables, and I don't run a huge production line. why? because everyone knows that the true high-end of audio cables must be "painstakingly" put together by hand, in order to pay attention to every detail 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 such few orders means I get to keep my full time job. by the end of the year, after creating enough fake extra accounts on several hi-fi forums, I will become FOTM in no time, with a backlog of orders pre-paid so that once word gets out that the cables do not live up to the hype, it is too late to do anything about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I will of course be very careful with my words under these aliases, even offering slight criticisms about the product. of course, these will be along the lines of "poor WAF" and "unfortunately not as analytical as others may prefer," so that no one thinks the cons are worth their consideration. 



 I really may try this out sometime


----------



## Happy Camper

Sounds suspiciously like an amp maker or dozen.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_opportunity cost is an economic tool - it is not a real cost that is accounted for, and I guarantee you'll never see it on any financial statement or management accounting documents 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 you're right that in a normal market, of which one parameter is having reasonable consumers, pure competition would dictate price. in audio, especially with regard to cables, what you are selling is prestige and ego-boosts, and the consumers are very far from reasonable. take a look at Virtual Dynamics' garden hose, home depot wire, and sand blasting particles, for example - if those who heard this cable swear by a sonic improvement, I would estimate that it does not take much to create a world-class audio cable. the market certainly will bear quite a bit, as can be seen all around us! heck, if I took the time to mill some brass, I could probably sell a single $500 cable for $8000. 

 btw - if you think a 25% return on investment is "not worth it," PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me the name of your broker 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 i do not think it was hard to figure out that the 10 minutes of time allotted was for only the cable construction - but play dumb if you wish 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i'll add more time, to satisfy your requirements: 

 - copy/paste key words from stereophile reviews, to create a b.s. jargon blurb about the cable: 5 minutes
 - answer an email making outrageous claims, beating around the bush or flat out ignoring real questions : 2 minutes
 - click "print shipping label" from the paypal order form: 1 minute
 - stuff cable into cardboard box, affix shipping label, and tape shut: 3 minutes
 - drive to post office: 15 minutes (round trip)

 26 more minutes of my time = $5. 

 factor in $1 for gasoline, $10 for the box and peanuts (being very liberal), and $1 for a twinkie snack to eat on the way


 keep in mind that mine are "boutique" cables, and I don't run a huge production line. why? because everyone knows that the true high-end of audio cables must be "painstakingly" put together by hand, in order to pay attention to every detail 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 such few orders means I get to keep my full time job. by the end of the year, after creating enough fake extra accounts on several hi-fi forums, I will become FOTM in no time, with a backlog of orders pre-paid so that once word gets out that the cables do not live up to the hype, it is too late to do anything about it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I will of course be very careful with my words under these aliases, even offering slight criticisms about the product. of course, these will be along the lines of "poor WAF" and "unfortunately not as analytical as others may prefer," so that no one thinks the cons are worth their consideration. 


 I really may try this out sometime_

 

Wow. I disagree with virtually everything you say and imply in your post, and every one of your conclusions. Frankly, I think that some of things you say are downright ridiculous, with all due respect (perhaps several are tongue in cheek, though). In any event, I guess there's little point in discussing it further.

 P.S. Maybe you really _should_ try it out.


----------



## ford2

Gizmodo had this article from march 2008.Still makes me laugh.

 Quote::

 Whether or not Monster Cables are worth it is a war that has raged since home theater immemorial. A poster at Audioholics was put in a room with five fellow audiophiles, and a Martin Logan SL-3 speaker set at 75Db at 1000KHz playing a mix of "smooth, trio, easy listening jazz" that no one had heard before. In one corner, Monster 1000 speaker cables. In the other, four coat hangers twisted and soldered into a speaker cable.

 Seven songs were played while the group was blindfolded and the cables swapped back and forth. Not only "after 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire," but no one knew a coat hanger was used in the first place.

 Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use.


----------



## tvrboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 That's the fashion industry. Which seems eerily similar to the cable industry. Throwing together $20 of material can make a jacket that sells for $1,000. Which might not be technically better than a $40 coat at Wal-Mart. However, some will pay $960 more for that amazing logo.

 I'd say that the cable/tweak market is almost exactly the same as the fashion market. People buy fashion for prestige and status. Which is likely the same reason people pay big bucks for a cable. A $500 cashmere sweater won't keep you any warmer than a $20 sweatshirt, but the $500 sweater says something about the status of its wearer.
_

 

Wrong.

 Garments have an infinite variation of quality levels and construction techniques. I once spent a whole semester studying these in an apparel analysis class, and many engineers, scientists, and technicians devote their lives to developing high-quality garments. To use your example, there are a lot of differences between a $20 sweater and $500 sweater. The stiches per inch, strength of thread used, grade of wool, seam allowances, stitching, carding/combing and other finishing techniques, etc. You can even tell the difference on T-shirts. A high quality T-shirt will have very different seams and construction than a low-quality T-shirt.

 Of course, quality in garments is often unrelated to price. You're right that most fasion labels slap their logo on a T-shirt and sell it for ridiculous prices. In fact most of these T-shirts are made by the same companies who also sell no-label $20 shirts. But quality clothes will always cost more. You're paying for better fabric, more thread (more stiches per inch), finishing techniques, labor time (more complicated stitching requires more time), and extra fabric for big seam allowances. Sorry, but you can't sell a very high-quality sweater that will last for years for $20 unless you use slave labor. Sure a cheap sweater will keep you warm, but it will itch, pill, unravel, and fall apart in a year.

 On a side note, when you buy from a fashion label, a lot of what you are paying for is a nice fit. High-fashion clothes do tend to fit much better than low-end stuff, which is designed to fit as wide a range of body types (read: fat people) as possible. Like, I could buy dress pants for 50RMB, but I buy pants that cost 400RMB because they fit my body perfectly. I am active all day (I'm a teacher) and it's worth it to have something that is very comfortable for me. You can also get clothes tailored to fit better, it's cheap and I do it all the time.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ford2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Gizmodo had this article from march 2008.Still makes me laugh._

 

As pointed out previously, discussions of DBT's are prohibited on this forum and are confined to the Sound Science forum.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As pointed out previously, discussions of DBT's are prohibited on this forum and are confined to the Sound Science forum._

 

Then threads titled "Cable Truths and Myths" shouldn't be allowed here either.

 se


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then threads titled "Cable Truths and Myths" shouldn't be allowed here either.
_

 

I agree, at least with respect to this thread and in light of the OP's initial intent. See post #9 above.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tvrboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong.

 Garments have an infinite variation of quality levels and construction techniques. I once spent a whole semester studying these in an apparel analysis class, and many engineers, scientists, and technicians devote their lives to developing high-quality garments. To use your example, there are a lot of differences between a $20 sweater and $500 sweater. The stiches per inch, strength of thread used, grade of wool, seam allowances, stitching, carding/combing and other finishing techniques, etc. You can even tell the difference on T-shirts. A high quality T-shirt will have very different seams and construction than a low-quality T-shirt.

 Of course, quality in garments is often unrelated to price. You're right that most fasion labels slap their logo on a T-shirt and sell it for ridiculous prices. In fact most of these T-shirts are made by the same companies who also sell no-label $20 shirts. But quality clothes will always cost more. You're paying for better fabric, more thread (more stiches per inch), finishing techniques, labor time (more complicated stitching requires more time), and extra fabric for big seam allowances. Sorry, but you can't sell a very high-quality sweater that will last for years for $20 unless you use slave labor. Sure a cheap sweater will keep you warm, but it will itch, pill, unravel, and fall apart in a year.

 On a side note, when you buy from a fashion label, a lot of what you are paying for is a nice fit. High-fashion clothes do tend to fit much better than low-end stuff, which is designed to fit as wide a range of body types (read: fat people) as possible. Like, I could buy dress pants for 50RMB, but I buy pants that cost 400RMB because they fit my body perfectly. I am active all day (I'm a teacher) and it's worth it to have something that is very comfortable for me. You can also get clothes tailored to fit better, it's cheap and I do it all the time._

 

What I'm getting at are the basics. If you want warmth and protection from the elements, then very inexpensive clothing will work fine. If your car broke down in the middle of a blizzard, a cheaply made coat will keep you warm every bit as well as a stylish $2,000 one with impeccably stitched lining.

 It is the same with cables. Electrons do not give a whit about style. They're going from A to B and that's about it.

 A cheap cable might corrode or otherwise fail, but until that happens, it will conduct electricity as well as a stylish cable.

 I've always advocated the use of well-made cables that will hold up over the years. But it's silly to buy the _haute couture_ cable because the electrons don't care.

 Fashion is a human construct and does not change the laws of physics. If you want to play dress up with your cables to impress others, that's fine. But don't tell me that a parka from Wal-Mart is useless in a snow storm.

 All the detail about construction, fit, et al. is precisely like cables. There's endless marketing over helical wound this, silver plated that, and all of that nonsense. If you're just trying to keep the sun off your head, a $5 cap does the same thing as a $4,000 hat. The $5 might come apart at the seams after a few weeks, but until it does, it will protect you from the sun.


----------



## ford2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree, at least with respect to this thread and in light of the OP's initial intent. See post #9 above._

 

Initial Intentlease Explain.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ford2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Initial Intentlease Explain._

 

 I wasn't accusing you of anything sinister or anything. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 What I meant was that your initial intent was to have people read an article, and that article basically sets forth some of the types of arguments (some of which are inflammatory), and references to DBT-type tests, that basically have been relegated to the Sound Science forum.

 So basically, I was suggesting that, while theoretically, one could have a thread on this forum regarding cable "truths and myths" that didn't delve into controversial areas, a thread referencing the article at issue does, IMO.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is the same with cables. Electrons do not give a whit about style. They're going from A to B and that's about it.
 A cheap cable might corrode or otherwise fail, but until that happens, it will conduct electricity as well as a stylish cable._

 

It's laughable that so many otherwise intelligent people fall for the hype. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've always advocated the use of well-made cables that will hold up over the years. But it's silly to buy the haute couture cable because the electrons don't care._

 

Why do so many think the laws of physics and electricity somehow don't apply to audio? There is science that is far from settled, but this is not it. Mankind hasn't found out anything new about the flow of electrons in generations.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fashion is a human construct and does not change the laws of physics. If you want to play dress up with your cables to impress others, that's fine._

 

LOL! Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All the detail about construction, fit, et al. is precisely like cables. There's endless marketing over helical wound this, silver plated that, and all of that nonsense._

 

Some seem to think there's some mystical yet undiscovered force which can cause some interconnects to sound better. *Fools and money are soon parted.*


----------



## ford2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wasn't accusing you of anything sinister or anything. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What I meant was that your initial intent was to have people read an article, and that article basically sets forth some of the types of arguments (some of which are inflammatory), and references to DBT-type tests, that basically have been relegated to the Sound Science forum.

 So basically, I was suggesting that, while theoretically, one could have a thread on this forum regarding cable "truths and myths" that didn't delve into controversial areas, a thread referencing the article at issue does, IMO._

 

Fair Enough:By the way if a mod wants to move it then move it.It makes no difference to the thread if its here or somewhere else.
 The original posting was as mentioned for people with open minds,to read the articles if they so wished,and to decide if it had merit.
 If people would like to point me to similar articles on how cables do have an impact I would be only to happy to read it.
 If anyone is of the opinion that it was meant to start a flame war then get it LOCKED now.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ford2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If anyone is of the opinion that it was meant to start a flame war then get it LOCKED now._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's laughable that so many otherwise intelligent people fall for the hype.

 * * *
*Fools and money are soon parted.*_

 

'Nuff said. 

 Basically, certain topics are just bound to cause trouble. I could start a post about religion or politics without _intending_ to start a flame war, but a flame war is going to take place anyway. Same thing with these types of discussions. One can start a very polite discussion, or refer people to an article for consideration, but certain people can't resist poking fun at others, when they don't need to do so. But they can't help themselves.

 Personally, I stay out of the Sound Science forum because of what goes on there, and I know quite a few other members do that also. They come to this specific forum to discuss cables without the stuff that infiltrates the discussions about cables in the Sound Science forum.

 I would also say, as far as this thread being moved, that's probably a good idea, although not a big deal to me. I just wish some folks could discuss these things, though, without trying to be insulting. There's no need for it. Indeed, though I am probably somewhat in the "believer" camp, I am quite confident I could construct a very cogent argument that cables do not make an audible difference without suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with me is a moron, a "flat earther," a UFO fanatic, etc.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Mankind hasn't found out anything new about the flow of electrons in generations._

 

Don't tell that to Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer. 

 se


----------



## Lorentz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Uncle Erik* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is the same with cables. Electrons do not give a whit about style. They're going from A to B and that's about it._

 

Electrons do however care about the conductor they're on, as well as other electrons and magnetic fields that's nearby (and maybe not even nearby at all). There'll always be noise and interference from outside, however minute, that just as easily changes the signal cleaniness. That said, even two conductors carrying current next to each other will effect each other. Precisely what happens in common audio cables. And this applies to every conductor, really.

 It's one thing to say that well made cables just have to carry good signal, but the way it's made and the materials it's made from also dictates how well it'll carry the signal. We don't have a hundred different ways to build cables for no reason, afterall.

 I see it as this: ideally, a cable will have no flaws. It's just that there is no absolutely perfectly built cable, and people are simply putting money exponentially into how close they can get to perfection. And only things left to argue is which cable to use for which application, why it applies well enough for that application, and how much it costs to get as close to that ideal cable.

 That said, for my setup and way the source and noise around me and headphones are, there's no good reason for me to invest in anything more than a shielded stranded copper cabling, with smooth plastic outside. Perhaps it's different for someone who lives next to lots of microwave ovens, or have mains power humming issues, or the equipment is sensitive enough to pick up noise from a nearby phone line! So on and so forth.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lorentz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_there's no good reason for me to invest in anything more than a shielded stranded copper cabling, with smooth plastic outside. Perhaps it's different for someone who lives next to lots of microwave ovens, or have mains power humming issues, or the equipment is sensitive enough to pick up noise from a nearby phone line! So on and so forth._

 

The cable is either shielded properly or it isn't. There are Radio Shack cables that will shield as well as any with a couple more digits in the price tag.


----------



## BIG POPPA

oatmeal769;6104559 said:
			
		

> Why restrict it simply to there? I don't think anyone new to the sport is going there first to ask "Hey you guys, are those fancy cables worth it?"
> 
> Um, Some of those cables have connectors that are Gold, Silver, Rhodium, Palladium, and what ever else. Are made with pure Silver wire, silver plated copper or sometimes cryo treated. To some of us it does make a difference. They all sound different to me. hooray for me!


----------



## Lorentz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cable is either shielded properly or it isn't. There are Radio Shack cables that will shield as well as any with a couple more digits in the price tag._

 

Arguable. Thickness of shielding, material of shielding, wieved/braided wires or foil-based, if wieved how well it's wieved, etc. Agreed on fact that "couple more digits" cables aren't very different from radioshack cables, however. As I said before, "how much it costs to get as close to that ideal cable". Ideal cable here being a thin, wieve shielded stranded copper cable.


----------



## Donald North

Here are some of my cable experiences I'd like to share:

 When I was a senior in high school in 1990, I had some 18ga lamp cord connecting a Tandberg receiver to Celestion SL12Si speakers. One day I went to The Good Guys and bought some 12ga name brand speaker cable to replace the lamp cord. I was excited to try it. When I got it home and listened, it didn't sound immediately better to me. In fact, I actually thought it sounded worse.

 I went to college in Pasadena, and one of my pleasures was visiting GNP Audio just up the street. In the spring of 1991 I had some extra money to spend, having earned it in a economics department experiment. I went to GNP with the hidden plan to buy a set of interconnect cables to go between my cd player and amp. The owner then, Alan, played me their mid level system. Then he said he was going to make a change. All the gear was behind me and I couldn't see what he did. He then played the same music again. I commented, "it sounds better, did you change one of the components?" He replied that he changed the cable between the cd player and preamp. It was a MIT cable, one without the filter box. I think the price was $75 so I decided to buy it.

 Fast forward to December 2002. I'm preparing to exhibit at CES for the first time. A dealer friend arranged one of his favorite cable brands to loan me a complete set of cables for the show. At the time I owned Tara Labs RSC Reference. I swapped out all the interconnect cables and replaced them with the new stuff. I powered up the hi-fi and hit play. To my surprise, it sounded different and better. Do note that I didn't change 1 set of cables but 5.

 From my experiences, if there is a difference to be heard, be it a new amp, dac, etc., it will be most obvious to you when you first introduce the change into a system with which you're intimately familiar.


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lorentz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Arguable. Thickness of shielding, material of shielding, wieved/braided wires or foil-based, if wieved how well it's wieved, etc. Agreed on fact that "couple more digits" cables aren't very different from radioshack cables, however. As I said before, "how much it costs to get as close to that ideal cable". Ideal cable here being a thin, wieve shielded stranded copper cable._

 

Inexpensive audio interconnect cables usually use a central wire for the signal and outside braid double duty for ground and shield. Better cables have separate wires for the signal and ground, both contained within a shield that is terminated on one end, usually the downstream end. Many inexpensive braid-only cables are not 100% shield - the braid is not tight weave. For 100% it needs to be very tight and often also includes a foil wrap.


----------



## Lorentz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Inexpensive audio interconnect cables usually use a central wire for the signal and outside braid double duty for ground and shield. Better cables have separate wires for the signal and ground, both contained within a shield that is terminated on one end, usually the downstream end. Many inexpensive braid-only cables are not 100% shield - the braid is not tight weave. For 100% it needs to be very tight and often also includes a foil wrap._

 

That's precisely my point; if shielding alone is what you're looking for in an interconnect cable, and everything else being the same, why are you spending more money for something else when there's an exactly similar build by radioshack?

 As you say, more expensive cables do indeed have a seperate wires for signal and ground (that said, shouldn't there be both live and neutral signal cable as well as a ground for absolute best?), and it's indeed understandable those cables cost more. But to me, it's a whole another cable, not merely "just a better quality cable". It's a cable with an extra signal path.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why restrict it simply to there?_

 

Because the wise folks who run this forum have decided that they don't want every sub-forum on Head-Fi to be inundated with the types of acrimonious discussions that occur when people discuss whether cables make an audible difference. And those discussions don't need to be everywhere to be reasonably available to anyone who has any interest in them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I don't think anyone new to the sport is going there first to ask "Hey you guys, are those fancy cables worth it?_

 

Still think you need to save everyone from making their own decisions, and newbies are too stupid to find threads that set forth the pros and cons, huh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The relevant threads can be found all over the Sound Science forum, and elsewhere on Head-Fi, with even the most basic search. Such discussions can also easily be found on Google. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Religious and political discussions have nothing to do with Headphone Hi-Fi._

 

Fine, but the point is that religious and political discussions end up in fights even if name-calling and flaming is forbidden -- due to the nature of the subject -- and the same problems exists with cable "myths" discussions, as evidenced by some of the posts in this very thread.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I went to college in Pasadena, and one of my pleasures was visiting GNP Audio just up the street. In the spring of 1991 I had some extra money to spend, having earned it in a economics department experiment. I went to GNP with the hidden plan to buy a set of interconnect cables to go between my cd player and amp. The owner then, Alan, played me their mid level system. Then he said he was going to make a change. All the gear was behind me and I couldn't see what he did. He then played the same music again. I commented, "it sounds better, did you change one of the components?" He replied that he changed the cable between the cd player and preamp. It was a MIT cable, one without the filter box. I think the price was $75 so I decided to buy it._

 

And yet, the same effect can be brought about even when nothing is changed at all. 

 I've demonstrated this effect to myself a number of times over the years. Usually at some dealer's showroom. They'd be demoing some system or other and while everyone was nodding in approval, I'd get a quizzical look on my face and say something didn't sound quite right. Something was missing.

 I'd go poking around the system for a bit and then say "Ah! Here's the problem. One of the speakers is wired out of phase!"

 Then I'd pretend to "fix" the problem, after which everyone agreed that it sounded much better. Much more bass, etc.

 This sort of thing is just trivially easy to do. It's like scratching just the right place on a dog's belly that causes their leg to start jerking.

  Quote:


 Fast forward to December 2002. I'm preparing to exhibit at CES for the first time. A dealer friend arranged one of his favorite cable brands to loan me a complete set of cables for the show. At the time I owned Tara Labs RSC Reference. I swapped out all the interconnect cables and replaced them with the new stuff. I powered up the hi-fi and hit play. To my surprise, it sounded different and better. Do note that I didn't change 1 set of cables but 5. 
 

Given what's been known about human behavior for many decades, I don't see that it should have come as any surprise.

 se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lorentz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As you say, more expensive cables do indeed have a seperate wires for signal and ground (that said, shouldn't there be both live and neutral signal cable as well as a ground for absolute best?)..._

 

When you have an unbalanced interface, all you have is "signal" and "ground." There is no third option.

 se


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Given what's been known about human behavior for many decades, I don't see that it should have come as any surprise._

 

Why shouldn't it have been a surprise? I wasn't expecting there to be a difference, let alone improvement. I didn't spend any money and was satisfied with what I owned.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why shouldn't it have been a surprise? I wasn't expecting there to be a difference, let alone improvement._

 

First, you don't have to be consciously expecting any difference. 

 Second, you had just previously described an experience where you said you did perceive a difference when cables were changed. So given that experience, why _wouldn't_ you have expected a difference with a subsequent change of cables? Did you somehow think that there could only have been a change in that one instance but in no other instance?

 Third, what's your explanation for those who purport changes/improvements in the sound of their systems when they place photographs of themselves in their freezers?

 se


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First, you don't have to be consciously expecting any difference. 

 Second, you had just previously described an experience where you said you did perceive a difference when cables were changed. So given that experience, why wouldn't you have expected a difference with a subsequent change of cables? Did you somehow think that there could only have been a change in that one instance but in no other instance?_

 

Just because a change is made doesn't mean a difference will be heard. For example, this past weekend a friend brought over some power conditioner products to try in my big system. He's very enthusiastic about them and wanted me to give them a try. I listened with and without and commented that I did not hear a noticeable difference at that time, let alone improvement.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Third, what's your explanation for those who purport changes/improvements in the sound of their systems when they place photographs of themselves in their freezers?_

 

Why are you mentioning this? I have never heard of this practice before and don't see how this will affect the sound of one's hi-fi since no changes were made to the hi-fi or listening environment.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just because a change is made doesn't mean a difference will be heard._

 

No, but that wasn't my point.

 You said you weren't expecting a difference. I was simply pointing out that you did have an experience where you did perceive a difference. So you already had it in your mind, even if it weren't at the conscious level, that you had once perceived a difference when cables were changed.

  Quote:


 Why are you mentioning this? 
 

Because I think it's instructive.

  Quote:


 I have never heard of this practice before and don't see how this will affect the sound of one's hi-fi since no changes were made to the hi-fi or listening environment. 
 

Exactly.

 And yet, people have purported perceiving differences just the same.

 It illustrates that our perceptions aren't the unerring reflection of objective reality that we would like to believe they are. And that differences may be perceived even in the absence of any actual audible differences.

 In other words, it illustrates that we are simply human.

 se


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lorentz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"how much it costs to get as close to that ideal cable". Ideal cable here being a thin, wieve shielded stranded copper cable._

 

I should have added - Quality shielding can be had inexpensively.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, Some of those cables have connectors that are Gold, Silver, Rhodium, Palladium, and what ever else. Are made with pure Silver wire, silver plated copper or sometimes cryo treated._

 

Eye candy, certainly. Sound influencing? No way.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From my experiences, if there is a difference to be heard, be it a new amp, dac, etc., it will be most obvious to you when you first introduce the change into a system with which you're intimately familiar._

 

I think the first event is always the most likely time for the strongest placebo reaction as well. Subsequent samples are more about justifying the initial imagined response.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Inexpensive audio interconnect cables usually use a central wire for the signal and outside braid double duty for ground and shield. Better cables have separate wires for the signal and ground, both contained within a shield that is terminated on one end, usually the downstream end. Many inexpensive braid-only cables are not 100% shield - the braid is not tight weave. For 100% it needs to be very tight and often also includes a foil wrap._

 

This sounds like the 'poor man's balanced' cable. It isn't effective, and by terminating the shield only on one end, the shield becomes a sort of antenna, exacerbating noise rather than eliminating. Twisting two leads inside a cable is ineffective for unbalanced connections, it is the shield only which provides protection. Both wires need the same signal, opposite polarity in order to make common mode rejection, i.o.w. balancing, work.
 Twin opposite polarity signal twisted leads, surrounded by grounded shielding in a balanced system is much more optimal than any unbalanced system for preventing noise, again regardless of how much the cable costs.

 For unbalanced connections, a single lead, completely surrounded by the grounded shield is most effective. using foil, as well as a braided supposedly does indeed provide better shielding than either alone. One is good for EMI, and one is better for RF. I believe as long as the braid is fairly consistent, the shielding is effective... Same principle as a Faraday cage - it doesn't need to be solid, only consistent. It only degrades if the cable is bent or twisted so as to move or damage the braiding.
 None of these things need be expensive, and as long as noise is not a problem, I.E. a properly shielded cable, none affects the sound.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lorentz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's precisely my point; if shielding alone is what you're looking for in an interconnect cable, and everything else being the same, why are you spending more money for something else when there's an exactly similar build by radioshack?
 As you say, more expensive cables do indeed have a seperate wires for signal and ground (that said, shouldn't there be both live and neutral signal cable as well as a ground for absolute best?), and it's indeed understandable those cables cost more. But to me, it's a whole another cable, not merely "just a better quality cable". It's a cable with an extra signal path._

 

This kind of refers to a balanced connection. - Different animal than single conductor coaxial. Shielding methods and 'sound differences' (or lack thereof) are two different things entirely.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because the wise folks who run this forum have decided that they don't want every sub-forum on Head-Fi to be inundated with the types of acrimonious discussions that occur when people discuss whether cables make an audible difference. And those discussions don't need to be everywhere to be reasonably available to anyone who has any interest in them._

 

 Fair enough. But if one camp is allowed to cite any and all reasons and beliefs, the other shouldn't be hamstrung. The most contentious topics will always be heated, but no advancement will be made if vital components to the debate are forbidden. Mods just have a little more work to do in keeping hotheads like me from spewing vitriol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Still think you need to save everyone from making their own decisions, and newbies are too stupid to find threads that set forth the pros and cons, huh?_

 

Not at all, but the spread of disinformation or half truths does no one any good.


----------



## BIG POPPA

So oatmeal you are say it is all eyecandy?
 I have a set of RCA IC's one pair made with Rhodium connectors with 16AWG silver plated copper and a Set of stock Tartan IC's made by Blue jeans cable. They sound the same? Not even close my friend.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So oatmeal you are say it is all eyecandy?
 I have a set of RCA IC's one pair made with Rhodium connectors with 16AWG silver plated copper and a Set of stock Tartan IC's made by Blue jeans cable. They sound the same? Not even close my friend._

 

How something "sounds" is subjective and involves a lot of psychology. Which is why frozen photographs can cause one's system to "sound" different.

 What he's saying is that there's no reason on earth that there should be any actual audible difference between the two.

 se


----------



## PhilS

It seems like the difference between the two basic camps of "skeptics" and "believers" could be summarized as follows:

 Believer: I heard a difference between cables in my system.
 Skeptic: It's all placebo.
 Believer: Is not.
 Skeptic: Is too.
 Believer: Is not.
 Skeptic: Is too. 
 Believer: Is not.
 Skeptic: Is too.
 Skeptic: Well, there's no scientific basis to believe the proposition that cables sound different.
 Believer: But I know what I've heard and the differences are apparent.
 Skeptic: Are not.
 Believer: Are too.
 Skeptic: Are not.
 Believer: Are too.
 Skeptic: Are not.
 Believer: Are too . . . . . .

 Is that a fair summary of the two points of view on this thread? Is that a fair summary of the 3,472,349 threads before this one that involve the same subject?

 Anyway, carry on. I think a bunch of folks in the respective camps are about to switch sides. No really. I can sense it. Any moment now.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyway, carry on. I think a bunch of folks in the respective camps are about to switch sides. No really. I can sense it. Any moment now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That simply can't be allowed to happen.

 My God, man, just think of all the brick walls and dead horses that would suddenly be out of a job.

 Maybe once we're finally out of this recession. But not now.

 se


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My God, man, just think of all the brick walls and dead horses that would suddenly be out of a job._

 

LOL.


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the first event is always the most likely time for the strongest placebo reaction as well. Subsequent samples are more about justifying the initial imagined response._

 

In my experience, the first listen is critical because you have no prior memory of how the system sounds with the change introduced. It is at this point where you will either have the greatest chance of hearing a difference or none at all.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This sounds like the 'poor man's balanced' cable. It isn't effective, and by terminating the shield only on one end, the shield becomes a sort of antenna, exacerbating noise rather than eliminating._

 

First, I'll acknowledge I'm not an expert in RF, but it is my understanding that in this arrangement the shield acts like a drain. It is low impedance and shouldn't act as an antenna.


----------



## oatmeal769

No they aren't. That's placebo too. Are not. Did not.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They sound the same? Not even close my friend._

 

To a dog perhaps. A human being cannot tell the difference by listening alone.


----------



## oatmeal769

DID NOT DID NOT DID NOT!!!

 LOL


----------



## BIG POPPA

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To a dog perhaps. A human being cannot tell the difference by listening alone._

 

Please elaborate why a human can not tell the difference between the 2 cables I used for an example? I would give an answer like the gear used is not good enough to be able to tell the difference. Somebody new to the hobby and not completely familiar with their gear. Stuff like that.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please elaborate why a human can not tell the difference between the 2 cables I used for an example?_

 

You're kidding, right? Have you glanced at the last 8 or so pages of posts?


----------



## BIG POPPA

From your own experience, please elaborate why humans can hear the difference between the 2 cables.


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No they aren't. That's placebo too. Are not. Did not._

 

By your rationale, wouldn't tube rolling also be considered placebo?


----------



## dallan

Everything is placebo, hey if that quantum theory works maybe believing it makes it happen or not happen. So if you believe that better cables help maybe they really do because you believing it creates it. On the other hand if you don't believe it that would make it not work......huh, then you all are both right.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 For me it was changing the headphone cable on my HD650s, after that experience I was sold.

 Okay back to the show.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By your rationale, wouldn't tube rolling also be considered placebo?_

 

Again, have you kept up with the last 9 pages? Either people can show they can hear something independently of other reference, or they can't. Tube rolling produces subtle, but identifiable differences. Anyone can hear it in a DBT. I don't think people even DBT them very often...
 Actually, I'm about halfway through recording the line out from my Zana of a few favorite tubes I've acquired. I will be posting the recordings in the Zana Deux thread at some point.
 Interestingly, my 'least favorite' tubes are the ones which show the best spec's using RMAA - I.E. the lowest THD and flattest response.
 The one's I like best are the ones with a little more distortion, and low end boost. It's very subtle, but it's there. A 55 year old Brimar is my favorite so far.

 Oh, BTW. your clip of my quote wasn't directed at you, I was having fun with Phil's post...


----------



## BIG POPPA

OK I get your point on reading the other 9 pages. You posted "Eye candy, certainly. Sound influencing? No way." Is that from your experience trying cables out on you rig or based on other peoples opinions? My post is from trial and error making my own power cables and IC's.


----------



## Genelex

it's either your cable are substandard and then you get a better one>> you might hear some changes-correction of an obvious flaw>>
 but assuming you have a quality cable regardless of price>>>
 i don't think cable rolling would help.


----------



## JadeEast

Not sure if this fits exactly in this thread but I was wondering if any one who experiences differences in sound could point out a cable that they found sounds really bad. I often hear about cables that make big changes but it seems that for the most part the reports are about positive changes. 

 Are there any cables that absolutely suck?


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JadeEast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not sure if this fits exactly in this thread but I was wondering if any one who experiences differences in sound could point out a cable that they found sounds really bad. I often hear about cables that make big changes but it seems that for the most part the reports are about positive changes. 

 Are there any cables that absolutely suck?_

 

I tried a highly-touted silver interconnect in my system and didn't like it at all. In fact, I thought something was wrong with my system a few days after I switched to it, and went to my rack and started pulling things out, and then I found the silver cable and remembered that I had changed to it. (I had taken a business trip in the interim.) I much preferred the sound of a cheaper all-copper interconnect. I returned the silver interconnect, since I bought it on 30-day return (which is what I always do with cables). 

 Others have reported similar types of experiences. Others have also reported that they didn't like the sound of certain expensive headphone cables in their system, and preferred cheaper cables.

 People don't always prefer the more expensive cable, and they don't always prefer the cable they just bought -- although this is a frequent straw man argument used by the skeptics.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BIG POPPA* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK I get your point on reading the other 9 pages. You posted "Eye candy, certainly. Sound influencing? No way." Is that from your experience trying cables out on you rig or based on other peoples opinions? My post is from trial and error making my own power cables and IC's._

 

Yes. 
 Look, I'm not coming at you guys like I think you're all a bunch of idiots or something, I know what I heard too. I bought the Zu's because I heard a difference. Then somebody said the exact same things I'm saying to you, and I set out to PROVE them wrong - The DAC test I posted is just that. 

 The difference between a cheapie dac and a well regarded '3 figure' DAC with mods, was there, but very nearly indistinguishable, it took me a long time to make the ID's, it was NOT easy. It took me several listening sessions over three or so days to compile a set of results. I proved myself right, but I doubt many listeners could do it. 
 My concession was that the difference wasn't even vaguely close to being as large as I KNEW it was. -Or so I thought.

 But, to answer your question, using that same system, I am not able to tell any difference at all with the Zu Gede cables I have, and the cheapest Radio Shack special bin cables I have. Seriously. Yes, they are the ones molded together, really thin black... - The ones that come in the bottom of the box when you buy a new CD player at Best Buy.

 Needless to say, these tests kinda broke my ego a little bit.

 Here's an idea:
 If someone will send me their interconnects, I will treat them as the very expensive works of technological art that they are. I'll make a recording with them against the Radio Shack ones. (which I still think there must be a difference, I mean, they aren't even shielded...) as well as a set of decent but less than $25 interconnects. I will post my results, and if there's a difference, I will eat crow right here. I will also post the recordings for everyone. If there is a difference with the Radio Shack ones, I guarantee it will be very difficult for ANYONE to hear.

 Now I don't have a $10K Dac, but I do have a 'good' one, and the recording card I have is the same used with Pro-Tools to record major release albums these days. It outperforms even my good DAC in RMAA tests by a good margin. You'll also have to deal with Foobar, I don't have a reference CD Player-or reference CD's. I think a music server is more accurate anyway, it allows no chance for a CD Player to also influence the sound. It's pure unaltered data until it gets to the DAC.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The difference between a cheapie dac and a well regarded '3 figure' DAC with mods, was there, but very nearly indistinguishable, it took me a long time to make the ID's, it was NOT easy._

 

That's _your_ experience. Maybe it's the particular DAC's, maybe it's you. I know that the differences between the DAC's I have heard have been readily apparent.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's your experience. Maybe it's the particular DAC's, maybe it's you. I know that the differences between the DAC's I have heard have been readily apparent._

 

I _completely_ believed that as well. Why else would I buy my current DAC?
 Please download and listen to the files yourself. I would like to know if maybe it's 'just me.' Maybe my ears aren't as good as when I was 20. Like I said, I could tell with two, but not with a third. 

 I'm not even saying A/B/X them, just tell me which is the 'expensive high quality' DAC and which is the Chinese Cheapie DAC.

* DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO FILES HERE *


 .


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. 
 Here's an idea:
 If someone will send me their interconnects, I will treat them as the very expensive works of technological art that they are. I'll make a recording with them against the Radio Shack ones. (which I still think there must be a difference, I mean, they aren't even shielded...) as well as a set of decent but less than $25 interconnects. I will post my results, and if there's a difference, I will eat crow right here. I will also post the recordings for everyone. If there is a difference with the Radio Shack ones, I guarantee it will be very difficult for ANYONE to hear._

 


 Good luck with that one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt !


http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/my...rprise-405217/


----------



## oatmeal769

♠What, you guys don't trust me??? I suppose you think this is a ploy to get all your killer cables! Muah Ahh Ahhhh!! LOL


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I completely believed that as well. Why else would I buy my current DAC?
 Please download and listen to the files yourself. I would like to know if maybe it's 'just me.' Maybe my ears aren't as good as when I was 20. Like I said, I could tell with two, but not with a third. 

 I'm not even saying A/B/X them, just tell me which is the 'expensive high quality' DAC and which is the Chinese Cheapie DAC.

* DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO FILES HERE *


 ._

 

Worth repeating

 The silver standard for significance testing is p < 0.05 or 5%, but to be reliable you really must have at least 10 trials, since a lucky run of 7 or 8 is not impossible. Thus, only your second set approaches a significance that would traditionally be accepted, though not quite making it if we are being really strict, in the first one you did not do 10 trials.

 Nevertheless, your results do strongly suggest that you *may* be able to tell them apart.

 Interestingly there is a 9db difference between red and orange but only at the very highest frequencies, above 20k they part company drastically.

 From 0 - 10k red is louder by a tiny amount ( well under 0.1db) , then from almost exactly 10k (9539 to be exact) onwards orange is louder and consistently so for quite a while, at 15K the difference is 0.1db , at 19K the difference is 0.2db , at 20K the difference is 0.5db, at 21K red is louder again and at 22028 there is a 9db difference in favour of red.

 Though I am dubious as to how much the stuff above 20k influences the detection of differences....


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_♠What, you guys don't trust me??? I suppose you think this is a ploy to get all your killer cables! Muah Ahh Ahhhh!! LOL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Apart from one kind soul I could not persuade anybody to lend me their uber-cables and no manufacturer would lend me a cable either - for a short while Rick Warren was going to lend me a cable , but lets say like the Pear/Randi incident negotiations over protocols broke down !


----------



## El_Doug

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO FILES HERE_

 

Test1: 6/10
 Test2: 4/10
 Test3: 9/10

 test 3 was the only set in which I truly thought I was correct every time. the others, especially test 2, felt like I was guessing at least half the time.

 i'd say green was better than black - i can't wait to find out if this is the expensive or cheap DAC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (please send me a pm!)


 of course, for each test I must have hit "Play A" and "Play B" two dozen times


----------



## Uncle Erik

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_♠What, you guys don't trust me??? I suppose you think this is a ploy to get all your killer cables! Muah Ahh Ahhhh!! LOL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's curious how slippery the cable thing gets when you really try to nail it down. People profess belief but scurry off when you get down to brass tacks.

 Shame I don't have the Cardas or Blue Dragon Sennheiser cables any longer. I would have sent them to you. Though I suspect your tests would have had the same results as my measurements.

 I wonder why tests and measurements are always so difficult to accept for believers. If a piece of test gear can measure differences I cannot hear, why assume I can hear what it cannot measure? It is possible to do the same with other measures of perception. My computer can display subtle differences between colors that I cannot distinguish. There is a difference between the shades, but I cannot see it. Yet I don't insist that I can see colors that aren't there. Likewise, if my 'scope displays differences I cannot hear, why assume that I can hear something the 'scope allegedly cannot resolve?

 Unless cables are in the realm of the paranormal, of course. Curious, because even ghost hunters seemingly pick up changes in magnetic fields, temperature changes, etc.


----------



## Donald North

What I would like to arrange for a future meet is a cable comparison, both coming off the same DAC and into 2 different inputs on an amp. I recommend using 2 technically different cables like the Cardas Quadlink (higher capacitance, shielded, copper) and the Kimber KCAG (lower capacitance, unshielded, silver). Then let everyone listen for themselves. Should be interesting.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The silver standard for significance testing is p < 0.05 or 5%, but to be reliable you really must have at least 10 trials, since a lucky run of 7 or 8 is not impossible. Thus, only your second set approaches a significance that would traditionally be accepted, though not quite making it if we are being really strict, in the first one you did not do 10 trials._

 

Agreed. Ear fatigue was a big factor, I really had to dig to tell what I felt were differences. after 6 or 8, my ears felt shot most times. There are several other results for each set I did not post, which are roughly equal. Each posted result represents my overall 'trend' more or less. The one I did '10' on seemed to me to be the easiest. Still, it was difficult. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interestingly there is a 9db difference between red and orange but only at the very highest frequencies, above 20k they part company drastically.
 From 0 - 10k red is louder by a tiny amount ( well under 0.1db) , then from almost exactly 10k (9539 to be exact) onwards orange is louder and consistently so for quite a while, at 15K the difference is 0.1db , at 19K the difference is 0.2db , at 20K the difference is 0.5db, at 21K red is louder again and at 22028 there is a 9db difference in favour of red._

 

 That there are differences 'on paper' is beyond question. The RMAA results clearly confirm it as well.


----------



## Sovkiller

We have here in this same forum, two different sections, one for the lunatics that believe in cables, and one for the stubborn closed minded middle aged skeptics, why not leaving things the way they are now, and believe what you want. 
 If this is true that there is no single evidence other than anecdotal fairy tales, that I hear this and that, of the differences, there is no evidence of the opposite neither, as we do not know everything in this world yet, and even in the supposed case that you can prove the opposite, the believers will never accept such reality. There is also no single double blind test that have ended, as far as I know, about cables, with someone able to discern the differences in cables and still they argue, and they will till the day they die.
 If I'm not mistaken there was a test conducted once by a manufacturer some time ago about cables, audiophiles were invited, writers of magazines, reviewers, etc...they even wrote (yes, stated in black and white) all the differences they heard while they were told this is this or that cable was used. The truth? Indeed they were all the time listening to a cheap ZIP cord, the technician only went to the back of the speakers to mimic a change that never did...and the last but not the least, there is a million dollars, a million buckaroos!!! Offered by Randy as well, nobody had accepted to be part of that test yet, and he called guys by name, and none of the "golden ears" had showed up yet!!!...so why keep on arguing??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 I truly believe this thread will be better locked down...it serves absolutely no purpose at all....

 BTW here is another interesting reading from the guy behind McIntosh...it seems that he does not believe neither in cables, it seems that mainly all guys that have been able to produce, or are related in the nice sounding audio industry, somewhat differ from what is not very scientifically supported or documented...


----------



## oatmeal769

So far this thread has been remarkably devoid of insults, flames, etc. There have been moments of frustration and side remarks, but it has mostly been very polite. It has also thus far for the most part remained non - circular as well.
 I really think the discussion - as long as it is civil and doesn't become a circular argument or a dog-pile, - is obviously of big value to many, considering the length and viewers of this thread. I would respectfully appeal to the mods, etc. to let it be as long as respect and forward progress is maintained. 

 I would also suggest reviewing in detail the last 10 pages or so, many of your otherwise thoughtful remarks have been covered thoroughly.

 Sharing of knowledge, opinions etc. should never be locked down.


----------



## santacore

Inspired by this thread I did my own little demo today. I connected the output of my dac directly to a cd recorder alternating between the 6 different mid-fi IC's I have laying around. I then recorded a 1 minute clip of 1 particular song with each IC. The levels of course stayed the same because the cable was the only variable. I then loaded those recording into iTunes and played them one after another to see how much difference there really was. Without looking at what was playing I listened to each clip. Well I definitely noticed differences between them. Nothing shocking, but a little more high end here, a little more dynamics there. It was actually a fun experiment and made me re-think which cable I wanted to keep in my system. Fun stuff! Thanks Oatmeal, for inspiring me to do this.


----------



## santacore

Quote:


 So far this thread has been remarkably devoid of insults, flames, etc. 
 

I feel like you're treading the line here with your last post. 

 Regardless, I'll be happy to participate in a test with you. I'm not sure if tomorrow will work out, but I'll try. Shoot me a PM with your info so we can co-ordinate.


----------



## Maxvla

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, this is one of the most disturbing trends of modern times -- the assumption that everybody else knows what's best for you and you're not free to make your own judgment._

 

I say a cab is yellow, you say it's red. Everyone else agrees with me. Who is right?

 You can continue that line of logic as long as you want, but it still doesn't make you right.

 I do agree that you should make your own judgments, but in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise, you have to know when to realize the truth.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I say a cab is yellow, you say it's red. Everyone else agrees with me. Who is right?

 You can continue that line of logic as long as you want, but it still doesn't make you right.

 I do agree that you should make your own judgments, but in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise, you have to know when to realize the truth._

 

What's the evidence that is overwhelming? On the one hand, I have my own listening experiences. On the other hand, I have a bunch of people I don't really know telling me about a bunch of tests conducted by other people I don't know under conditions that I'm not familiar with that are supposed to tell me what I _must_ be hearing in my system. 

 Frankly, I find the former evidence more persuasive. And mind you, it is not the case that, as a former die-hard skeptic, I still don't have some skepticism in me about my experiences. I just don't think it's black and white (or red and yellow, for that matter), like some keep insisting it is. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And, BTW, not _everyone_ agrees with you. That's why these discussions never get anywhere, because there are a whole lot of people who have passionate feelings on both sides of the issue.


----------



## Maxvla

My post had nothing to do with the topic of cables (and neither did yours), merely your jest at society.


----------



## n_maher

A reminder to the participants in this thread (and others for that matter):

 1. Keep it civil.
 2. DBT or other discussions involving blind testing of any phenomena are prohibited in the general forums as explained in a sticky at the head of each forum. 

 This thread is perilously close to being closed.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My post had nothing to do with the topic of cables (and neither did yours), merely your jest at society._

 

Oh, well then I didn't really follow your reasoning with the color of the cabs and knowing when to "realize the truth." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Whatever.


----------



## Maxvla

The point was that even if you know you are right you aren't always and should keep an open mind even about things you know to your core are right. Sometimes society is wrong, sometimes they are right, but when factual evidence shows up you must accept the results.

 I am not for the audible cable argument. I buy cables that are built well for durability or in the case of my headphone cable necessity (no 4 pin xlr HD600 cables, and stock ones are poorly made anyways). That isn't to say I know cables don't affect the sound, I just haven't been able to perceive it. I believe cables don't affect sound, but I won't declare as fact they don't.


----------



## erikzen

I have two thoughts with regard to cables.

 I think of cables like the wheels on a car. Whether you have steel rims or some super light alloy, the basic requirement is that the wheels carry the car. The same holds true for cables, at the very least they have to carry the sound.

 As you go up in price with either, the product starts to look a little nicer. With rims, they get lighter, have more intricate designs, and make the car look really good. There is some benefit to having good rims. A lighter rim should improve gas mileage and handling. And of course, they look great, you have the money, so why not?

 Same thing with cables. A more expensive cable has a nicer looking insulation. The cord gets thicker. The plug gets beefier. The cable looks like a piece of machinery, part of your kit, not just some wire. It feels good in your hand when you connect it. And a nice audiophile rig just looks a bit better with beefy cables with shiny insulation and chunky jacks made of some exotic metal that you used to think was the name of a country.

 Of course these improvements should, and in most cases, allow better operation than cheaper cables. Personally, I'm a sucker for a big plug (no, I'm not getting fresh) so I know I'm getting a good connection. Improvements in electron flow are most certainly welcome, too.

 In both cases, in my simple mind anyway, improvements become more difficult as you go up in price. The price performance ratio eventually completely breaks down and unless you need every last ounce of performance out of your equipment, there is no point. 

 So who needs every last ounce? Race car drivers and audiophiles. I'm not a race car driver, although I do like to drive fast sometimes. If I could afford to I'd probably buy a car that was just a bit more like a race car than the one I have now. And I don't think I'm a true audiophile. I appreciate good sound, but won't invest a large chunk of my resources into it. Of course, expenditure is relative, and for some in this hobby money is no object. (Those people might also have race cars.) That's fine. If you've spent $20,000 on a stereo, then spending a couple of grand on cabling makes a certain amount of sense. 

 Which leads me to my next point. How much someone should spend on cables. 

 I like to keep the price of cables in perspective with the rest of my rig. I keep the price of my cables at 5 to 10% of my equipment. So I wouldn't spend more than $70 for a cable for a $700 DAC. This would hold especially true if you were trying to save towards an expensive upgrade in your system. It has nothing to do with whether I think better cables sound better or not. It has to do with what makes sense to me and my priorities. There's only so much money I can pump into my hobbies.

 I'm not setting any rules on how much to spend on cables. The point is understand what makes sense to you and keep it in perspective.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The point was that even if you know you are right you aren't always and should keep an open mind even about things you know to your core are right. Sometimes society is wrong, sometimes they are right, but when factual evidence shows up you must accept the results.
_

 

And my point was that it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong on certain issues. Even if you're wrong, you should be able to make your own choices, and not have someone else choose for you, based on the arrogant assumption that they know everything and know what's best for everybody else.


----------



## Lorentz

Comparing cables to cars, I think the speakers/headphones are more like wheels and tires, the amp being the car engine and gearing, source being the gas and injection, and cables being the minor but important parts that connect them together. Something something.


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And my point was that it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong on certain issues. Even if you're wrong, you should be able to make your own choices, and not have someone else choose for you, based on the arrogant assumption that they know everything and know what's best for everybody else._

 

Now Phil, you can't be questioning authority. Big Brother knows best. Just read the latest article published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, most likely authored by a middle age+ man whose hearing isn't as acute as a 20 year old and probably has never been an audio enthusiast.


----------



## roadtonowhere08

I am a skeptic of cables. I have always been. As long as the materials are of good quality, skilled people made them to prevent shoddy workmanship, and all the major attributes of a proper cable are met (low inductance, low capacitance, and proper impedance for the cable type), I am happy. Bluejeans Cable is where I go for my cables. I do not need bling, in other words.

 Having said that, this entire site is built around a hobby. A subjective hobby. As silly as I think it is to spend a lot of money on cables (IC or headphone), at the end of the day, enjoyment of music is the name of the game. If people think that an über expensive cable makes their music sound better, that is all that matters. I may think they are nuts, but that is not the point. As long as they can pay the bills and have money to treat their family right, who really cares?

 PhilS is right on this one. Musical enjoyment is not in the same league as a science with peer review. Who cares about who is right and who is wrong? Nothing is riding on this debate. Believers will empty their wallets, and skeptics will buy cheap cables. Both camps enjoy music. End of story.


----------



## boomana

This thread is closed until it can be cleaned up, and if it's too much of a mess due to the disrespectful members violating rules by discussing DBT, or just the amount of general rudeness going on, it will be deleted.


----------



## boomana

I'm opening this thread up one more time. Anyone who chooses to violate head-fi rules by discussing DBT in this forum and in this thread is risking banning. Anyone posting inflammatory posts or personal attacks, calling people liars, etc. is also asking for a vacation.


----------



## oatmeal769

Thanks Mods for recognizing the usefulness of this particular thread.

 I'd also add my two cents, I think the thread remains constructive only if there is 'forward progress'. differences in whether cable differences are or are not audible should be taken as a given.


----------



## oatmeal769

X 2 for the 'bling bling' factor. artistically and 'techie' designs of cables look WAY mo' betta on my rig than basic cables. A nice looking rig is part of the hobby, just as a nice paint job is for a car person.
 BUT - the *same quality* and 'bling bling' can be made by the end listener for a small fraction of what these manufacturers are charging. The cool connectors and wire wrap, etc. can both be improvised and /or found on eBay or an electronics shop.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BUT - the *same quality* and 'bling bling' can be made by the end listener for a small fraction of what these manufacturers are charging. The cool connectors and wire wrap, etc. can both be improvised and /or found on eBay or an electronics shop._

 

There is probably some truth to this, but it is also an extreme oversimplification, and therefore it is also false to some extent.

 In addition, it's hard to talk in generalities, i.e., without reference to a specific cable product. Which brings up an irony that always makes me smile. The "skeptics" always insist on bringing a rigorous scientific approach to the issue of whether cables make an audible difference, demanding specifics and precise data, and rejecting anecdotal evidence. Yet, in the next breath, they will freely dispense anecdotal evidence regarding how "cable vendors make exorbitant profits," and how "the same quality cables can be made for a small fraction of what these manufacturers are charging." Shouldn't the "skeptics" be bound by their own evidentiary standards? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm not just directing this at you, oatmeal769; this discrepancy is found on several threads and in several contexts.

 In any event, I'll say again that I think this issue is more complicated than it appears. For example, I have a $250 interconnect in my system. Could I make that cheaper than $250, with the same quality, given everything that would be involved, and considering my _opportunity cost_ (which people always ignore)? I don't think so.

 P.S. I got an estimate to paint my house the other day. It was $3,000. This is in line with what it costs to paint a house in our area. Could I buy paint and paint brushes and do it on my own time and spend out of pocket "a small fraction" of the $3,000?. Yes. Is it worth it to me to pay $3,000 to someone else to do it, considering the opportunity cost to me and related factors. Most definitely yes.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *boomana* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone who chooses to violate head-fi rules by discussing DBT in this forum and in this thread is risking banning._

 

Why don't you move it to the Science forum as has been previously requested?

 If the cable forum is to be DBT free, then there simply shouldn't be a thread here titled "Cable Truths and Myths" in the first place.

 se


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"... they will freely dispense anecdotal evidence regarding how "cable vendors make exorbitant profits," and how "the same quality cables can be made for a small fraction of what these manufacturers are charging." Shouldn't the "skeptics" be bound by their own evidentiary standards?_

 

Well, you are correct there, I have not researched the cost of making anything but standard cables (of which I've made hundreds) I suppose if the companies are machining their own connectors, and maybe ordering custom colors from the wire company, or weave wrap folks it might cost them significantly more. Not to mention, I don't think they are able to get guys to solder these things for .85 cents an hour these days, labor must be a huge factor. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a $250 interconnect in my system. Could I make that cheaper than $250, with the same quality, given everything that would be involved, and considering my opportunity cost (which people always ignore)? I don't think so._

 

I'll concede that as well. I think 'DIY Cables' probably have significant value for the hobbyist, but I doubt they are made for much less as one offs. 
 Not only that, HECK YES I'll pay a paint company 15% more than I could 'do it myself.' I'd be receiving a better, more consistent paint job, done in 1/8th the time, and I don't have to stand on a 30-foot ladder in the hot sun all day...
 BUT - Depending on the sales volume of a given company, wouldn't you think that efficiency and economy of scale might play huge factors? Making the first cable of a new design might cost them $2,200, but the other 2,499 cables in that run would be for $36.72 for example...
 I don't think I can argue _realistically_ that boutique cable companies are out there making vast profit, if they were, others would do the same for a bit less, etc. It is capitalism after all, and everyone has the right to make money. 

 What I do say though is that the _*value*_ of said cables is questionable at best, a sham at worst if it is considered from the standpoint of audible improvement only. The cables certainly look nice, for which a significant premium is paid. There is no sonic improvement over a decent off the rack cable.


----------



## koven

Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koven* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?_

 

I electrically tested a Zu cable it offered no substantive differences in FR or noise above a $2.49 monoprice cable - I could not tell them apart in blind testing either


----------



## erikzen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lorentz* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Comparing cables to cars, I think the speakers/headphones are more like wheels and tires, the amp being the car engine and gearing, source being the gas and injection, and cables being the minor but important parts that connect them together. Something something._

 

Your analogy works also, but my point wasn't to compare cables to cars. What I mean to say is that there is some benefit to better construction, but that benefit can only go so far. At some point measurable improvement is so small as to be insignificant. That benefit may also be more than just improved sound. Durability and looks are reasonable criteria as well.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could not tell them apart in blind testing either_

 

Try taking your mittens off first. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 se


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Try taking your mittens off first. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 se_

 

Well, the Zu was indeed incredibly inflexible but audibly no different from stocky, post #227 in "my cable test enterprise" thread has samples recorded via Zu and stock cables to date nobody has been able to reliably tell them apart. since 93% of the time the difference is < 0.01db and 96% of the time it is < 0.1db that is hardly surprising


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the Zu was indeed incredibly inflexible but audibly no different from stocky, post #227 in "my cable test enterprise" thread has samples recorded via Zu and stock cables to date nobody has been able to reliably tell them apart. since 93% of the time the difference is < 0.01db and 96% of the time it is < 0.1db that is hardly surprising 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

And of course any cable differences due to simple resistance, capacitance and inductance wouldn't be of any surprise anyway.

 se


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koven* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?_

 

I used to think I heard a difference, but later confirmed there is none over common off the rack ones. Boy they sure look nice, and snug down onto the jacks tightly though. I'll keep 'em just for that.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *koven* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone have comments on Zu cables? Snakeoil or what?_

 

Are you asking about their headphone cables, interconnects, or power cables? There are quite a few posts on Head-Fi about the headphone cables, which a lot of people seem to think quite highly of. There are fewer posts, I think, regarding the interconnects and power cables.

 It's a little tricky searching for posts on Zu cables, because the Head-Fi search function will not let you search for a term with only two letters, like "Zu." And that's really the keyword you need to use. As an alternative, you can do a Google search, and limit the results to the Head-Fi.org domain. That will yield a lot of "for sale" posts for the sale forums, but also quite a few posts with substantive comments on Zu cables.

 Also, there's little point in asking if they are "snakeoil." A "skeptic" will tell you that _any _cable that costs more than $25 (or whatever) is "snakeoil" (i.e., in terms of whether it makes an audible difference). A "believer" would never use the term "snakeoil" even if they thought the Zu cable or another cable sounded like krap.


----------



## colonelkernel8

In my honest opinion, cables are a myth.

 I will provide one argument:

 If cable manufacturers actually knew what they were doing, why is research needed to reveal the supposed effects of their cables after they have been on the market? Shouldn't they already know this information?

 As an example, does Texas Instruments release products off the cuff and then have specs released after the fact? No, they evaluate needs based on existing technical specifications prior to even beginning design of a product.

 I hope that the tone of this post does not offend anyone.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In my honest opinion, cables are a myth.

 I will provide one argument:

 If cable manufacturers actually knew what they were doing, why is research needed to reveal the supposed effects of their cables after they have been on the market? Shouldn't they already know this information?

 As an example, does Texas Instruments release products off the cuff and then have specs released after the fact? No, they evaluate needs based on existing technical specifications prior to even beginning design of a product.

 I hope that the tone of this post does not offend anyone._

 

I don't agree with your argument, but your post doesn't offend me. Thanks for contributing to the argument in a tactful way.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Furthermore, if there are no specifications used as benchmarks, how are "better" products designed? When a company releases a "new and improved" cable, what about it makes it better? That it's thicker and uses a pretty cable sleeve?


----------



## Donald North

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In my honest opinion, cables are a myth.

 I will provide one argument:

 If cable manufacturers actually knew what they were doing, why is research needed to reveal the supposed effects of their cables after they have been on the market? Shouldn't they already know this information?

 As an example, does Texas Instruments release products off the cuff and then have specs released after the fact? No, they evaluate needs based on existing technical specifications prior to even beginning design of a product.

 I hope that the tone of this post does not offend anyone._

 

Some cable companies, for example, design and develop their cables to be low capacitance. They don't discover after the fact that they are low capacitance.

 I personally feel there are much better ways for the same out-of-pocket money to improve one's hi-fi than with cables. However I do know some instances where specific cables will provide measurable differences and benefits. Example: Tube preamp with high output impedance driving long interconnect cables to monoblock amplifiers. Let's say the preamp's output impedance is 7Kohm - it doesn't have a low impedance output buffer or follower. Interconnect cables are 20 feet long with 100pF/foot capacitance (common for generic low cost interconnect cables). This combination forms a low pass filter at -3dB at 11,370Hz! This WILL be audible. To improve, change to lower capacitance cables or different preamp with lower output impedance.


----------



## Donald North

Here's another example: You don't use an active preamp and instead use a passive preamp like a potentiometer in a box. The pot's impedance is 50K - common amplifier input impedance. The output impedance of the pot will vary from near 0 to 12.5Kohm, depending on setting (worst case is -6dB from max). This pot feeds the same long 20 feet, 100pF/ft cables. Depending on volume setting, the high frequency low pass filter will vary in corner frequency from infinity (theoretically) to 6366Hz! To improve, use a lower capacitance cable or passive preamp with lower input impedance. If the latter, then this can start challenging the drive capability of the source components' analog outputs.


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some cable companies, for example, design and develop their cables to be low capacitance. They don't discover after the fact that they are low capacitance.

 I personally feel there are much better ways for the same out-of-pocket money to improve one's hi-fi than with cables. However I do know some instances where specific cables will provide measurable differences and benefits. Example: Tube preamp with high output impedance driving long interconnect cables to monoblock amplifiers. Let's say the preamp's output impedance is 7Kohm - it doesn't have a low impedance output buffer or follower. Interconnect cables are 20 feet long with 100pF/foot capacitance (common for generic low cost interconnect cables). This combination forms a low pass filter at -3dB at 11,370Hz! This WILL be audible. To improve, change to lower capacitance cables or different preamp with lower output impedance._

 

My gripe isn't with honest companies building high performance cables for situations such as this. My gripe is with companies that sell 1 meter lengths of cable boasting such things as "mass dampening" and "EMI absorbing sand" and "speed of light technology" for $1000+. Capacitance is a measurable specification that can be minimized through engineering. Adding weights to a cable because you think it will make it sounds better is not engineering, I am certain that you understand this.

 Moreover, such things as speaker cable and headphone cable, the signal on this path is post amplification and cannot reasonably affect sound.

 Also, power cables, digital cables, and garbage such as that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_However I do know some instances where specific cables will provide measurable differences and benefits. Example: Tube preamp with high output impedance driving long interconnect cables to monoblock amplifiers. Let's say the preamp's output impedance is 7Kohm - it doesn't have a low impedance output buffer or follower. Interconnect cables are 20 feet long with 100pF/foot capacitance (common for generic low cost interconnect cables). This combination forms a low pass filter at -3dB at 11,370Hz! This WILL be audible._

 

Sure. But I'm not aware of anyone who would argue otherwise.

 The Great Cable Debate has never been about issues of simple resistance, inductance and capacitance. It has always been about other aspects. PVC versus Teflon. ETP versus OFC versus OCC. 99.95% versus 99.999% versus 99.999999%, etc.

 se


----------



## anetode

Don't forget the looks, I'm willing to pay extra to make my headphone cable resemble a fluorescent shoelace


----------



## Donald North

I understand what you are saying. You forgot to mention silver 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Back to my point: Very few people understand that there are some instances where cables will sound different with legitimate technical explanations.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *anetode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't forget the looks, I'm willing to pay extra to make my headphone cable resemble a fluorescent shoelace 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That can be arranged. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand what you are saying. You forgot to mention silver 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No I didn't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 Back to my point: Very few people understand that there are some instances where cables will sound different with legitimate technical explanations. 
 

Sure. But generally those aren't the people arguing against cables.

 se


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Back to my point: Very few people understand that there are some instances where cables will sound different with legitimate technical explanations._

 

I have a question: is there any case where one would *not* want the lowest inductance/capacitance cable available? 

 Your two examples benefit from both attributes being as low as possible. I buy cables with low inductance/capacitance to prevent the possibility of the high frequency low pass filter you mentioned.


----------



## Donald North

Often with cables, efforts to reduce capacitance increase inductance and vice versa. Generally speaker, you want lower capacitance interconnect cables and lower inductance loudspeaker cables.

 In efforts to reduce interconnect capacitance, some companies will make unshielded cables. These then can pick up RF/EMI and inject it into your system. If you have a low output impedance preamp/source then this is less of a problem than if you have high output impedance (as in my example). 

 The lower capacitance & shielded cables I've seen are often large in diameter and not as flexible.


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Often with cables, efforts to reduce capacitance increase inductance and vice versa. Generally speaker, you want lower capacitance interconnect cables and lower inductance loudspeaker cables.

 In efforts to reduce interconnect capacitance, some companies will make unshielded cables. These then can pick up RF/EMI and inject it into your system. If you have a low output impedance preamp/source then this is less of a problem than if you have high output impedance (as in my example)._

 

Gotcha, thank you.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The lower capacitance & shielded cables I've seen are often large in diameter and not as flexible._

 

Yep, those are the kind I have: Blue Jeans Cable LC-1 Low Capacitance Audio Cable. Not all that flexible, but based on the published specs, I am perfectly happy.


----------



## anetode

A discussion of the technical merits of cable design misses the point. The essence of the fancy cable market is the exploitation of consumer psychology. It's the soda pop sold in movie theaters - seemingly a minor component but one with the greatest profit margin and therefore the major source of net earnings. Take some sugar water, a disposable paper cup and license to take advantage of Coke/Pepsi marketing and you have a greater cost ratio than even cables.

 Then again, the taste difference between water and pepsi is real and verifiable


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *anetode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A discussion of the technical merits of cable design misses the point. The essence of the fancy cable market is the exploitation of consumer psychology._

 

I agree on the last sentence, but not all do. To delve further down this topic would necessitate a move to a different sub-forum (wink, wink, mods).

 Having said this, for those who will not be swayed to either camp, what else is there to talk about? Instead of bicker about beliefs, I would rather learn about the science behind cables. Nothing will change, so why not learn a bit, eh?


----------



## anetode

I suppose so. Forums aren't great places to study the science behind anything other than human interaction 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That said, the geek inside me does enjoy all the minutiae of electrical engineering and metallurgy, factual or otherwise.


----------



## Lead Ears

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a question: is there any case where one would *not* want the lowest inductance/capacitance cable available?_

 

Well yeah, if they want a cable that yields audible differences. The first challenge to the pro-cabler is that the audible difference exists, however let's not forget that different ≠ better (at least, not necessarily).

 Point being, if maintaining the purity of the audio signal is the goal, then a "good" cable can only harm the signal less than a "bad" cable....a cable cannot add anything to the signal.

 On a side note, in relation to Uncle Erik's post at the beginning of this thread, I routinely use a highly sensitive HPLC system in my research (it's an Eicom HTEC-500, for those who are curious). I use it to detect physiological levels of the brain neurotransmitter acetylcholine. My detection limit is down to about 4 femtomoles, which is essentially a 4 picoamp signal. Any lower than that, and the signal-to-noise ratio is unacceptable. Point being, this is a $40k system and it uses regular stranded copper hook-up wire on the inside. It uses a generic IEC power cord, with its own internally regulated power supply (like a best-buy ht receiver). The guy who sold it to us is also one of the designing engineers...if he could sell us a lower detection limit by bundling in a $500 power cord, he would in a heartbeat.

 Some of my colleagues do intracellular electrophysiological recordings (in single neurons). They're looking at even smaller signal amplitudes....just regular hook-up wire to the amplifier. The whole electrophys rig is probably over $100k....no expense spared for bleeding edge research, yet regular hook-up wire is good enough....just don't make it any longer than necessary 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 I realize that the "it doesn't show up on the oscilloscope" argument is getting old to a lot of folks, but maybe someone knows what a 4 picoamp signal equals in terms of decibels in a typical high-end listening rig.

 Hope this isn't too inflammatory.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lead Ears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_....a cable cannot add anything to the signal._

 

Sure it can. Harmonic Technology figured out a way to do that with their CyberLight cables. 

 se


----------



## Lead Ears

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure it can. Harmonic Technology figured out a way to do that with their CyberLight cables. 

 se




_

 

Yeah, but that's not really a cable, it's a "Light Analog Module (LAM) Photon Transducer Light Signal".


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure it can. Harmonic Technology figured out a way to do that with their CyberLight cables. 

 se




_

 

Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Digital

 Wow, over $3,000 to be lied to. How can the music _"never be digitized"_ on a digital cable? It enters the cable as binary data, so right there, they are lying. In addition, they say that there is _"absolutely no analog-to-digital conversion"._ So how does the S/PDIF receiving RCA jack read the data? It can only accept digital data as sent by the source RCA jack. It makes no sense.

 I like this sentence: _"Musical information is preserved to a greater degree due to complete lack of digitization"._ The product is called "Harmonic Technology Photon *Digital Data* Link".

 In addition, they contradict themselves with two consecutive bullets:
_- Light transmission through the fiber is uni-directional
 - Since back reflection is extremely low (< -55dB), optical isolators are unnecessary_

 More contradictions:
_
 With the signal (pulse) path completely isolated from the ground, the Photon Digital ensures that there is no possibility of the cables passing noise between components, nor acting as an antenna for RFI or EMI induced distortions—keeping the noise floor extremely low and reducing smearing.

 Please note: Because there are no physical wires built within the Photon Digital, an extra ground wire may be needed in order to ensure components are on the same ground level._

 Finally: True component impedance match for either 75 OHM "RCA"... 
 No such thing as a true 75 OHM RCA. They would have to use BNC for that... oh wait, they do not offer that


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lead Ears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, but that's not really a cable, it's a "Light Analog Module (LAM) Photon Transducer Light Signal"._

 

But of course! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, over $3,000 to be lied to. How can the music "never be digitized" on a digital cable? It enters the cable as binary data, so right there, they are lying._

 

No, it's NOT a digital cable. It's all analogue. The analogue signal is simply converted to light and it's the light intensity that's modulated to transmit the signal. That's why they produce so much distortion.

 When John Atkinson did the measurements in the Stereophile review of the cables, he wrote:

_If this review were of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken._

 However Michael Fremer, who reviewed the cables, praised them as the best cables he's ever heard.

 se


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, it's NOT a digital cable. It's all analogue. The analogue signal is simply converted to light and it's the light intensity that's modulated to transmit the signal. That's why they produce so much distortion._

 

The cable may be, but the signal entering it is not analog. It is coming from a digital RCA from the source. It will then be converted back to digital before entering the DAC. Why would anyone want to go D-A-D when you can leave it as digital right until the DAC? I agree with you about the distortion (the extra conversion surely adds to it), but they are still contradicting their own claims at every turn. That, to me, is lying.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure it can. Harmonic Technology figured out a way to do that with their CyberLight cables. 

 se




_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lead Ears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, but that's not really a cable, it's a "Light Analog Module (LAM) Photon Transducer Light Signal"._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Digital
_

 


 More to the point you should see Stereophile's measurements on said quote cable unquote - it aint pretty !


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cable may be, but the signal entering it is not analog. It is coming from a digital RCA from the source. It will then be converted back to digital before entering the DAC. Why would anyone want to go D-A-D when you can leave it as digital right until the DAC? I agree with you about the distortion (the extra conversion surely adds to it), but they are still contradicting their own claims at every turn. That, to me, is lying._

 

No, the cables I'm referring are NOT digital in ANY respect. 

 I'm referring to what were previously called their CyberLight cables, which are now called "Photon." Their Photon Amp interconnect and their Photon Link interconnect are both WHOLLY ANALOGUE cables.

 se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_More to the point you should see Stereophile's measurements on said quote cable unquote - it aint pretty !_

 

Here's the review:

Harmonic Technology CyberLight Wave & P2A interconnects

 se


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, the cables I'm referring are NOT digital in ANY respect. 

 I'm referring to what were previously called their CyberLight cables, which are now called "Photon." Their Photon Amp interconnect and their Photon Link interconnect are both WHOLLY ANALOGUE cables._

 

I understand that, but the signal will still be converted back to digital once it reaches the other RCA jack before it hits the DAC as it cannot read analog information. Thus, the entire basis for the cable is pure silliness. Why convert to analog, when the source and the data before the DAC is digital. It's needless, and all of the claims I outlined other than the nature of the cable (digital vs. analog) still stand. Pure marketing garbage.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand that, but the signal will still be converted back to digital once it reaches the other RCA jack before it hits the DAC as it cannot read analog information._

 

NO IT WON'T!

 IT'S NOT FOR A DAC!

 IT'S AN *[size=large]ANALOGUE[/size]* CABLE!

 THERE IS NO A TO D OR D TO A GOING ON! IT'S ENTIRELY *[size=large]ANALOGUE[/size]*!

 se


----------



## Lead Ears

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand that, but the signal will still be converted back to digital once it reaches the other RCA jack before it hits the DAC as it cannot read analog information. Thus, the entire basis for the cable is pure silliness. Why convert to analog, when the source and the data before the DAC is digital. It's needless, and all of the claims I outlined other than the nature of the cable (digital vs. analog) still stand. Pure marketing garbage._

 

I think they're implying that the electrical analogue signal is converted to an analogue light signal, presumably with different wavelengths and intensities, rather than bits of 1s and 0s. In this form, it travels the length of the cable, where at the other end it is transduced back into an electrical analogue signal. While there might not be any AD-DA conversion, it still sounds pretty silly to me.


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_NO IT WON'T!

 IT'S NOT FOR A DAC!

 IT'S AN *[size=large]ANALOGUE[/size]* CABLE!

 THERE IS NO A TO D OR D TO A GOING ON! IT'S ENTIRELY *[size=large]ANALOGUE[/size]*!

 se




_

 

Where am I wrong?

 "Harmonic Technology Photon Digital Data Link

 The second generation of the CyberLight Digital Data Link cable that is optimized for *Transport-to-DAC connections.* The Photon Digital is a true *75 OHM RCA Photon Digital cable or 110 OHM AES-EBU Photon Digital (XLR) cable*."

 From: Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Digital


----------



## immtbiker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, there's little point in asking if they are "snakeoil." A "skeptic" will tell you that any cable that costs more than $25 (or whatever) is "snakeoil" (i.e., in terms of whether it makes an audible difference)._

 

Just interested, why do you draw a line in the sand at $25, not more or less?
 I would think that terminations, RFI protection and durability would account for a lot, plus the purity of the wire. I don't need a garden hose, or triple mesh braiding, but I do need something that is not going to allow my other lanes of traffic cross into my HOV lane.

 I still notice a large difference in the speed of copper vs. silver. That accounts for something which cannot be taken lightly. 
 And my Cardas Neutral Refs sound considerably better than my Time Warner Cable OEMS, when it comes to veil, extension, and durability. How can that be explained, except for taking purity into account. If you have electrons banging into impure metal alloys incorporated into the wire, it's going to make a difference.


----------



## Lead Ears

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where am I wrong?

 "Harmonic Technology Photon Digital Data Link

 The second generation of the CyberLight Digital Data Link cable that is optimized for *Transport-to-DAC connections.* The Photon Digital is a true *75 OHM RCA Photon Digital cable or 110 OHM AES-EBU Photon Digital (XLR) cable*."

 From: Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Digital_

 

you're looking at a different url, although their pitch seems to be the same. look here: Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Amp


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where am I wrong?

 "Harmonic Technology Photon Digital Data Link_

 

You're wrong in that THAT'S NOT THE CABLE I'M TALKING ABOUT.

 I'm talking about their ANALOGUE optical cables!

 Previously the CyberLight, now the Photon Amp and Photon Link.

Photon Amp

Photon Link

 These are both WHOLLY ANALOGUE CABLES.

 se


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lead Ears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you're looking at a different url, although their pitch seems to be the same. look here: Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Amp_

 

I saw that as well. I did not object to that, because it is not claiming to be an analog cable for digital connections. It still has many of the same contradictions though.


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're wrong in that THAT'S NOT THE CABLE I'M TALKING ABOUT.

 I'm talking about their ANALOGUE optical cables!

 Previously the CyberLight, now the Photon Amp and Photon Link.

Photon Amp

Photon Link

 These are both WHOLLY ANALOGUE CABLES.

 se




_

 

Again, I understand that. Perhaps you can relax and look at what I am saying? My first post regarding this links to the different (digital) cable. I can understand your point and make my own, no?


----------



## anetode

They offer both interconnects and digital transmission cables. If bullcrap works for one type of product, why not try it out on the others?


----------



## Lead Ears

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *anetode* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They offer both interconnects and digital transmission cables. If bullcrap works for one type of product, why not try it out on the others? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

On that insightful note, I'm going to bow out for the night.

 Cheers.


----------



## immtbiker

The earth will be a better place to live, when we can actually have a thread about cables, without it getting mean-spirited or aggressive.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I saw that as well. I did not object to that, because it is not claiming to be an analog cable for digital connections._

 

But THOSE are the cables I was talking about when you replied to me saying that the cable WASN'T analogue.

  Quote:


 It still has many of the same contradictions though. 
 

What contradictions? 

 se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Again, I understand that. Perhaps you can relax and look at what I am saying? My first post regarding this links to the different (digital) cable. I can understand your point and make my own, no?_

 

When you respond to my referring to a particular cable, saying it's entirely analogue, by telling me that it's not analogue, you're not making your own point. You're telling me that what I said was incorrect.

 se


----------



## colonelkernel8

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The earth will be a better place to live, when we can actually have a thread about cables, without it getting mean-spirited or aggressive._

 

The world would be a better place to live if pseudo-science cable peddlers didn't exist.


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What contradictions? _

 

(sigh) These (DIGITAL):
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Harmonic Technology | Products | Photon Cables | Photon Digital

 Wow, over $3,000 to be lied to. How can the music "never be digitized" on a digital cable? It enters the cable as binary data, so right there, they are lying. In addition, they say that there is "absolutely no analog-to-digital conversion". So how does the S/PDIF receiving RCA jack read the data? It can only accept digital data as sent by the source RCA jack. It makes no sense.

 I like this sentence: "Musical information is preserved to a greater degree due to complete lack of digitization". The product is called "Harmonic Technology Photon *Digital Data* Link"._

 

These (COMBINED DIGITAL AND ANALOG):
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In addition, they contradict themselves with two consecutive bullets:
- Light transmission through the fiber is uni-directional
 - Since back reflection is extremely low (< -55dB), optical isolators are unnecessary

 More contradictions:

 With the signal (pulse) path completely isolated from the ground, the Photon Digital ensures that there is no possibility of the cables passing noise between components, nor acting as an antenna for RFI or EMI induced distortions—keeping the noise floor extremely low and reducing smearing.

 Please note: Because there are no physical wires built within the Photon Digital, an extra ground wire may be needed in order to ensure components are on the same ground level.

 Finally: True component impedance match for either 75 OHM "RCA"... 
 No such thing as a true 75 OHM RCA. They would have to use BNC for that... oh wait, they do not offer that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But THOSE are the cables I was talking about when you replied to me saying that the cable WASN'T analogue._

 

I ceded that point. The cable itself might be analog, but it HAS to convert the signal back to a format that the DAC can read. I'm guessing the digital kind, but that may just be me.

 Proof of my ceding your point:
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cable may be, but the signal entering it is not analog. It is coming from a digital RCA from the source. It will then be converted back to digital before entering the DAC. Why would anyone want to go D-A-D when you can leave it as digital right until the DAC? I agree with you about the distortion (the extra conversion surely adds to it), but they are still contradicting their own claims at every turn. That, to me, is lying._

 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When you respond to my referring to a particular cable, saying it's entirely analogue, by telling me that it's not analogue, you're not making your own point. You're telling me that what I said was incorrect._

 

See above...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The earth will be a better place to live, when we can actually have a thread about cables, without it getting mean-spirited or aggressive._

 

Agreed

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The world would be a better place to live if pseudo-science cable peddlers didn't exist._

 

Agreed


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The world would be a better place to live if pseudo-science cable peddlers didn't exist._

 

Yeah, that's the biggest problem we have alright. I'd put it about 138,848,383,800,477 places down on the list of things that we need to worry about. Geez. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Actually, the world would _not_ be a better place to live, because it would eliminate a choice, and freedom of choice for many. It's unfortunate that some people on this thread, and in our society in general, actually think they know better than every one else what people should want and be able to have. They want to eliminate choices and only allow what _they_ think is best for everyone. God help us. 

 P.S. Maybe we should all wear the same color clothes. Red perhaps?


----------



## crapback

We spend all this time fussing about cables and yet no one stops to consider the feelings of the electrons. They're the ones doing all the work and yet no one gives them any recognition. It's always virgin stroked silver this or penultimate TLA copper that. Nobody ever asks the electrons which metal feels better. It's just like giving the little worker bees lung cancer just so you can hork their honey.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(sigh) These (DIGITAL):_

 

Just so you know, HeadFi doesn't allow the nesting of quotes when quoting a reply so all the stuff you quoted is removed. It's better to put it in italics or something other than the quote tags. 

  Quote:


 How can the music "never be digitized" on a digital cable? It enters the cable as binary data, so right there, they are lying. 
 

The cables contain active electronics. Therefore it would be possible to re-sample the digital data if that were something they chose to do. What they're saying is that they don't. That's not a contradiction.

  Quote:


 In addition, they say that there is "absolutely no analog-to-digital conversion". 
 

They say that for all the Photon cables. And what they're saying is that there's no analog-to-digital conversion taking place in the cables. And there's not. So I don't see that it's a contradiction.

  Quote:


 I like this sentence: "Musical information is preserved to a greater degree due to complete lack of digitization". The product is called "Harmonic Technology Photon Digital Data Link". 
 

There is a complete lack of digitization in the cables.

  Quote:


 In addition, they contradict themselves with two consecutive bullets:
 - Light transmission through the fiber is uni-directional
 - Since back reflection is extremely low (< -55dB), optical isolators are unnecessary 
 

The key word here being "transmission." And from a transmission point of view, they are uni-directional. There's only a laser transmitter at one end of the cable. 

 Again, I see no contradiction.

  Quote:


 With the signal (pulse) path completely isolated from the ground, the Photon Digital ensures that there is no possibility of the cables passing noise between components, nor acting as an antenna for RFI or EMI induced distortions—keeping the noise floor extremely low and reducing smearing.

 Please note: Because there are no physical wires built within the Photon Digital, an extra ground wire may be needed in order to ensure components are on the same ground level. 
 

Well, they do say "may," and I'm not sure what sort of scenario they are referring to here so I'll reserve judgment on calling it a contradiction.

  Quote:


 Finally: True component impedance match for either 75 OHM "RCA"...
 No such thing as a true 75 OHM RCA. They would have to use BNC for that... oh wait, they do not offer that 
 

No, there isn't a true 75 ohm RCA, but it's RCA's that are commonly used for S/PDIF inputs and outputs, and S/PDIF is a 75 ohm standard.

  Quote:


 I ceded that point. 
 

No you didn't.

  Quote:


 The cable itself might be analog, but it HAS to convert the signal back to a format that the DAC can read. 
 

Again, *the cables I was referring to* were NOT INTENDED to be used on a DAC. They receive an ANALOGUE input and have an ANALOGUE output and everything in between is ANALOGUE.

  Quote:


 Proof of my ceding your point:

 The cable may be, but the signal entering it is not analog. 
 

You weren't conceding my point. You were telling me I was incorrect, when I was not.

 The cables I was referring to DO have an ANALOGUE signal ENTERING them.

  Quote:


 It is coming from a digital RCA from the source. 
 

NOT IN THE CABLES I WAS REFERRING TO!

 THE CABLES I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THE PHOTON AMP AND THE PHOTON LINK CABLES! NOT THE PHOTON DIGITAL DATA LINK!

 *sigh*

 se


----------



## immtbiker

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *colonelkernel8* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The world would be a better place to live if pseudo-science cable peddlers didn't exist._

 

"no aspirin takes away the pain better than "****". Just tricky advertising. They all use the same ingredients in the same strengths. So, even though what they are saying is true, it is a deception.

 Also, I think that this thread would be better suited if we got off the "Cyber Light " cable discussion. It's starting to get nasty in here, and it doesn't really matter. You both made your point and I think that you are agreeing to disagree.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I personally feel there are much better ways for the same out-of-pocket money to improve one's hi-fi than with cables. However I do know some instances where specific cables will provide measurable differences and benefits._

 

by virtue of better or worse engineering for the application at hand, absolutely. But assuming one cable is similar in measurements (like capacitance and resistance) to another, there will be no audible difference beyond pure imagination.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Example: Tube preamp with high output impedance driving long interconnect cables to monoblock amplifiers. Let's say the preamp's output impedance is 7Kohm - it doesn't have a low impedance output buffer or follower. Interconnect cables are 20 feet long with 100pF/foot capacitance (common for generic low cost interconnect cables). This combination forms a low pass filter at -3dB at 11,370Hz! This WILL be audible. To improve, change to lower capacitance cables or different preamp with lower output impedance._

 

No argument but again, it's a matter of engineering, not majick cables. If you use 20' interconnects to Drive a small Hi Z output signal to a Hi Z input which then is going to be made much larger,, it's gonna sound like crud. Vanadimium connectors and holographically aligned phasing cables or not. Using a lower capacitance cable might polish the turd, but the better way to do it would be to drive the signal down the line better, (using a transformer balanced system) or use shorter interconnect. To put it another way. We could use a Screeching Valkye red shift copper, irradiated lepton, quasi hemispheric interconnect RCA cable to run a subwoofer off a high power amp. We could also use my favorite Radio Shack RCA cable. Both will probably melt, or pop the amp first, It's not what they were designed to do.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Donald North* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's another example: You don't use an active preamp and instead use a passive preamp like a potentiometer in a box. The pot's impedance is 50K - common amplifier input impedance. The output impedance of the pot will vary from near 0 to 12.5Kohm, depending on setting (worst case is -6dB from max). This pot feeds the same long 20 feet, 100pF/ft cables. Depending on volume setting, the high frequency low pass filter will vary in corner frequency from infinity (theoretically) to 6366Hz! To improve, use a lower capacitance cable or passive preamp with lower input impedance. If the latter, then this can start challenging the drive capability of the source components' analog outputs._

 

Certainly, but this is also application and engineering. 
 Two cables of approximately equal measurements will not be discernible by listening alone - A fancy Hi-cap cable and one from the pawn shop will both sound equally bad here. -And equally good when used in an application for which they were made. Any 'subtle differences' heard are the imagination of the listener.


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a little tricky searching for posts on Zu cables, because the Head-Fi search function will not let you search for a term with only two letters, like "Zu."_

 

 Au contraire mon frere! here's a nifty trick I learned a while back - put a '*' (wildcard) after 'Zu' and you're golden. Example: Zu*


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Au contraire mon frere! here's a nifty trick I learned a while back - put a '*' (wildcard) after 'Zu' and you're golden. Example: Zu*_

 

Excellent! I've been stymied by the three letter minimum quite a few times. Thanks.


----------



## roadtonowhere08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just so you know, HeadFi doesn't allow the nesting of quotes when quoting a reply so all the stuff you quoted is removed. It's better to put it in italics or something other than the quote tags._

 

Nope, all I wanted to say is all there.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cables contain active electronics. Therefore it would be possible to re-sample the digital data if that were something they chose to do. What they're saying is that they don't. That's not a contradiction._

 

They do not have to. The music starts as a digital signal, so it already has been "digitized". It's really a false claim. How does the DAC read a signal that has been turned into analog already? You cannot have it both ways: it's not digital but it is still able to be decoded by a DAC.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They say that for all the Photon cables. And what they're saying is that there's no analog-to-digital conversion taking place in the cables. And there's not. So I don't see that it's a contradiction._

 

How is the *D*AC able to read the output of the cable if there is no analog-to-digital conversion then? It starts out digital on the source, it gets turned into "laser analog", and then what? 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is a complete lack of digitization in the cables._

 

See above.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The key word here being "transmission." And from a transmission point of view, they are uni-directional. There's only a laser transmitter at one end of the cable. 

 Again, I see no contradiction._

 

That's just being pedantic. Of course it is "transmitted" one way, how else would it work? This is needless information, because it is obvious, and to put right after that bullet there are reflections going back, it can be taken as being contradictory.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, they do say "may," and I'm not sure what sort of scenario they are referring to here so I'll reserve judgment on calling it a contradiction._

 

Well, when they claim this,
 "_With the signal path being unidirectional, the signal ground loop is completely isolated, creating a much darker background_"
 I am inclined to call BS on all of that claim.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, there isn't a true 75 ohm RCA, but it's RCA's that are commonly used for S/PDIF inputs and outputs, and S/PDIF is a 75 ohm standard._

 

Sorry, to claim that they are using "true" 75Ohm RCA connectors is just flat lying. There is no other way around that.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No you didn't._

 

Believe what you want.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Again, *the cables I was referring to* were NOT INTENDED to be used on a DAC. They receive an ANALOGUE input and have an ANALOGUE output and everything in between is ANALOGUE._

 

Well, if you are going to refute me, you will have to refute *my point*. I brought up the digital cable and only the digital cable. You thought I was talking about the analog cable (same thing really). Please read post #225 more carefully.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You weren't conceding my point. You were telling me I was incorrect, when I was not._

 

Again, believe what you want.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Koyaan I. Sqatsi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cables I was referring to DO have an ANALOGUE signal ENTERING them.



 NOT IN THE CABLES I WAS REFERRING TO!

 THE CABLES I WAS REFERRING TO WAS THE PHOTON AMP AND THE PHOTON LINK CABLES! NOT THE PHOTON DIGITAL DATA LINK!

 *sigh*_

 

I. Understand. That.

 It's always about *your* cables. 

 I understand the point about your cables. Analog all around. I can hang with that. I am picking up what you are laying down. I am totally down with your vibe. I am grooving to your tunes...





 Are you picking up what I am laying down? Can you get past the point you are trying to make and see mine? I think if you got a bit less defensive, you would find that we agree on a lot more than you think...


----------



## n3rdling

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Au contraire mon frere! here's a nifty trick I learned a while back - put a '*' (wildcard) after 'Zu' and you're golden. Example: Zu*_

 

wow thank you for this tip 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Now I can finally use O2 as a search term


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadtonowhere08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, all I wanted to say is all there._

 

But it's NOT there when I reply via "Quote." 

 It only includes what you say outside of the quote tags and strips out everything that you included in the quote tags.

  Quote:


 They do not have to. 
 

No, they don't have to re-sample, but they could. They're simply saying that they don't.

  Quote:


 The music starts as a digital signal, so it already has been "digitized". It's really a false claim. 
 

No, it's not a false claim as a digital signal may be re-sampled.

  Quote:


 How does the DAC read a signal that has been turned into analog already? 
 

Who says the signal's been converted into analogue? 

  Quote:


 You cannot have it both ways: it's not digital but it is still able to be decoded by a DAC. 
 

You're conflating the signal with the cable. 

  Quote:


 How is the *D*AC able to read the output of the cable if there is no analog-to-digital conversion then? It starts out digital on the source, it gets turned into "laser analog", and then what? 
 

It doesn't "get turned into 'laser analog.'" Again, you're conflating the signal with the cable. The signal may be digital or analogue, but in either case, the cable is analogue. 

  Quote:


 That's just being pedantic. Of course it is "transmitted" one way, how else would it work? This is needless information, because it is obvious, and to put right after that bullet there are reflections going back, it can be taken as being contradictory. 
 

Since I don't consider reflections to be "transmission," I don't consider it contradictory.

  Quote:


 Well, when they claim this,
 "_With the signal path being unidirectional, the signal ground loop is completely isolated, creating a much darker background_"
 I am inclined to call BS on all of that claim. 
 

And I'll agree with you on the BS call. The unidirectionality has nothing to do with ground isolation. Ground isolation is due to it being an optical medium.

  Quote:


 Sorry, to claim that they are using "true" 75Ohm RCA connectors is just flat lying. There is no other way around that. 
 

They don't claim to be using "true" 75 ohm RCA's. They're simply saying that the load inside the cable is 75 ohms and 110 ohms depending on whether it's S/PDIF or AES/EBU. Neither the RCA nor the XLR are the load.

  Quote:


 Well, if you are going to refute me, you will have to refute *my point*. I brought up the digital cable and only the digital cable. You thought I was talking about the analog cable (same thing really). Please read post #225 more carefully. 
 

Fair 'nuff.

 se


----------



## oatmeal769

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PhilS* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Excellent! I've been stymied by the three letter minimum quite a few times. Thanks._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *n3rdling* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow thank you for this tip 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now I can finally use O2 as a search term 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You are most welcome, I just about jumped out of my chair when I found it. I work on my vehicle myself, and belong to a Toyota group forum using the same software. Searching for two digits, or two letter part stuff and abbreviations was killing me! One of the mods there turned me on to it.

 Oh, just to stay on topic... Snake oil! Does not! Same capacitance! Wasting money! Blah blah!


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oatmeal769* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Oh, just to stay on topic... Snake oil! Does not! Same capacitance! Wasting money! Blah blah! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, back to the topic. Does too! Tin ears! Crappy system! I know what I hear! Blah blah! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Man, we are too funny aren't we.


----------



## oatmeal769

Yeah, We're pretty cool! LOL


----------



## Lead Ears

I think I posted the first Photon link. Sorry.


----------

