# Is copper warmer because of signal loss?



## flargosa

I was browsing around head-fi last night and read somewhere that Copper is warmer than silver because more information is lost on transit compared to silver. This information loss smoothens out the naturally harsh digital audio. No one seemed to disagree, is this a fact?


----------



## sugarinthegourd

The premise is not even generally accepted as fact. (That copper conductors yield a "warmer" sound than silver conductors.)


----------



## dura

I once made two sets of braided cables, one copper, the other silver. 
 The similarities because of the braided design compared to co-ax was quite clear, braided sounded more open.
 The differences were smaller but still clearly noticable:
 the copper one sounded more pleasant, to my ears because the treble was less smooth but also very slightly rolled of, and the bass was warmer, to my ears due to less definition. 
 The silver cables missed bass warmth but the bass was better defined and seemd to go deeper, the treble was equally more extended and detailed.
 But despite these criticisms, the copper one actually sounded more pleasant, less analytical, more midranged-biased, perhaps covered up inperfections elsewhere in the system.
 So yes, it seems copper seems to add a slight euphonic distortion, warmth if you like.
 But keep in mind the usual caveats; cables are systemdependent, the wire was not exactly the same and other configurations can give other results, there are different kinds of copper etc.

 Differences between cables might be characterized as small, but the difference between pleasant and unpleasant, or between ugly and beautiful can be small too, seen quantitativaly.


 For what it's worth: Ray Kimber once in an interview in Hifi News a decade ago explained the dfifferences because of the material differences; he compared copper to a candybar, brittle and slightly irregular, and silver with a wax candle, very homogenous.


----------



## vcoheda

copper overall gives a fuller sound. silver is leaner in sound but generally with more detail. that has been my experience with the two cables.


----------



## flargosa

I guess, we can say that silver sounds truer to your source than copper. If you want to listen to your source's true sound, use silver, for a slightly different sound use copper.


----------



## philodox

They sound different, not better or worse. As for why, no idea, but having heard the difference I am not going to second guess my own experience.

 That said, I think that cable construction, geometry, and shielding or lack thereof makes a bigger difference than the metal used in the cable. Also, the quality of the jacks and connectors used have a large impact.

 Last weekend I cleaned all of the connectors on my interconnects and power cables and there was a pretty surprising positive change. Now, I'm sure there are a few in this thread who are rolling their eyes at me right now, but I really don't care... I know what I heard, and that is enough for me. If you feel the need to prove me wrong with logic, be my guest.


----------



## flargosa

Any evidence that one is less transparent than another?


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That said, I think that cable construction, geometry, and shielding or lack thereof makes a bigger difference than the metal used in the cable. Also, the quality of the jacks and connectors used have a large impact._

 

that's a very good point and not often discussed. zu, equinox, black dragon, and cardas are all copper cables, but surely do not sound exactly the same.


----------



## LawnGnome

Wow, its amazing to think eh.

 Copper can't even faithfully transmit data upto 20khz.

 It must be magic how we have systems working over 5Ghz.


 To everyone with their claims, either prove it or drop it. Because you have no evidence for your claims, facing mountains of evidence against it.


----------



## tin ears

Dura is 100% correct.

 I am sure those of you who cannot hear these differences either have inferior hearing or inferior equipment. I am also sure the differences in sound are not measureable by any current testing equipment. Some day, a clever fellow will figure out how to measure it.

 Do yourselves a favor and compare a 1 meter pair of Kimber KCAG to any other copper interconnect, on a good system. There is a good reason this cable has been around, unchanged, for 20 years and has been imitated by many other manufacturers and DIYers.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For what it's worth: Ray Kimber once in an interview in Hifi News a decade ago explained the dfifferences because of the material differences; he compared copper to a candybar, brittle and slightly irregular, and silver with a wax candle, very homogenous._

 

if true, then he seems to be saying that silver cables will sound more similar to one another than copper ones. that's interesting as well.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 I am sure those of you who cannot hear these differences either have inferior hearing or inferior equipment. I am also sure the differences in sound are not measureable by any current testing equipment. Some day, a clever fellow will figure out how to measure it. 
 

2 can play this game. 

 I am sure those who can hear differences are just getting duped by placebo, because it has not been proven that there are audible differences between different materials.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tin ears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dura is 100% correct.

 I am sure those of you who cannot hear these differences either have inferior hearing or inferior equipment. I am also sure the differences in sound are not measureable by any current testing equipment. Some day, a clever fellow will figure out how to measure it.

 Do yourselves a favor and compare a 1 meter pair of Kimber KCAG to any other copper interconnect, on a good system. There is a good reason this cable has been around, unchanged, for 20 years and has been imitated by many other manufacturers and DIYers._

 

Once again, prove it.

 You have no evidence to support your claims.

 It would be VERY easy to test the cable theory. Yet the supporters do not do it.

 In fact, some of the only blind testing done has shown people can NOT tell the difference between high end cable and lamp cord.

 Sorry, but your unproven claims are baseless and worthless.


----------



## pageman99

Sigh...

 If you don't believe there is a difference between cables, then you have nothing to add to this thread.

 You can leave now.

 And yes I can prove it, but believe me the math of quantum mechanics is way beyond you. And no I'm not blathering. My background is in physics.

 And just because you can't hear the difference, doesn't mean someone else can't. You can't hit a golf ball 300 yards. Does that mean it can't be done?

 Now, go away and let those with some experience in the differences between what they hear, add their valuable experience to the knowledgebase here.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Sigh...

 If you can't prove there is a difference between cables, then you have nothing to add to this thread.

 You can leave now. 
 

Fixed that for you


----------



## pageman99

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fixed that for you_

 

Sure I can, just show up at any of the big meets and compare cables in the better systems. Been there done that.

 It's no accident that those with better systems, also use better cable.

 And BTW, keep your keyboard to yourself. If you were here in front of me you'd not be so pleased with yourself.

 AND now I'm leaving. This board is too good for this nonsense, and I'm a bit ashamed of myself for even getting into this fray.


----------



## sejarzo

If copper is so awful, why are PCB's all made with copper?

 Why do the hundreds of feet of mic cabling and interconnects in the recording/mixing/mastering chain made from copper not wipe out all high end detail?

 And if it's lost, it's lost........so how does silver "correct" that problem?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pageman99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And just because you can't hear the difference, doesn't mean someone else can't. You can't hit a golf ball 300 yards. Does that mean it can't be done?_

 

Your analogy is flawed.

 No, I can't hit a golf ball 300 yards. But I can watch Tiger Woods do it and therefore conclude that it is possible. 

 But let's say that someone--we'll call him John--came along and claimed that he could hit a golf ball 1,000 yards. Would you not then say to John, "Prove it"? 

 John could respond in one of two ways. First, he could go out to the golf course with you, tee up a ball, and hit it 1,000 yards. By doing so, he would prove to you both that it is possible to hit a ball 1,000 yards, and also that he himself was capable of doing so.

 On the other hand, John could say to you, "I know that I can hit a ball 1,000 yards. You cannot prove otherwise. Moreover, you cannot hit a ball 1,000 yards yourself. Therefore, I have nothing to prove to you." In this case, John has proven nothing. That doesn't mean that John *can't* hit a ball 1,000 yards. Perhaps he can, perhaps he cannot. But the fact that John has pointed out your inability to do so does nothing whatsoever to make John's claim either more or less likely to be true.


----------



## vcoheda

another potentially interesting cable discussion ruined yet again.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If copper is so awful, why are PCB's all made with copper?

 Why do the hundreds of feet of mic cabling and interconnects in the recording/mixing/mastering chain made from copper not wipe out all high end detail?

 And if it's lost, it's lost........so how does silver "correct" that problem?_

 

That stuff is nothing compared to processors running at 5Ghz or higher! the audio range is nothing compared to that. Don't tell the believers then.

 And Pageman,

 If you can prove it, DO IT. Otherwise it is just another guy who has all this big talk, but can't prove a damn thing.

 The only nonsense in this thread is your claims with NO PROOF.

 I might as well claim that cheddar cheese will improve my sound quality. Since I have just as much evidence to support that, as you have to support your claims.


----------



## rsaavedra

I will contribute with a link to a recent cable comparison I made. This involves my Zu Mobius for my HD650s, and a silver plated copper wire based cable I made myself using a bunch of a good Belden wire I had lying around.

 Both cables are made of copper and silver (I understand the Zu has both metals, not totally sure though). I could hear some difference. Whether placebo or not can't say, obviously I couldn't instant A/B them. In any case, to my ears they do seem to sound different, given the exposure I had with them. Go figure. Here's the link:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258354


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will contribute with a link to arecent cable comparison I made. This involves my Zu and a silver plated copper wire based cable I made myself. Both cables are made of copper and silver (I understand the Zu has both metals, not totally sure though). I could hear some difference. Whether placebo or not can't say, obviously I couldn't instant A/B them. In any case, to my ears they do seem to sound different, given the exposure I had with them. Go figure. Here's the link:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258354_

 

That shows nothing. Do it blind, and then it will be at least partially useful.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That shows nothing. Do it blind, and then it will be at least partially useful._

 

I know, will try to make a blind test of this at some point, want to see myself if I can identify both cables. I think I can actually, but until trying it won't be completely sure.

 I don't claim that copper and silver sound different. From this experience alone (and other previous ones), if anything I would claim that apparently some headphone cables do cause some perceivable sound differences. Whether it's the metal, the geometry, insulation, R, L, and C differences, the connectors, dead chicken shaken in the surroundings of the cable, or a combination of all of the above, no idea.


----------



## htbyron

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That shows nothing. Do it blind, and then it will be at least partially useful._

 

Post Reported to the mods.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 That shows nothing. Do it blind, and then it will be at least partially useful. 
 

That was his experience and he is welcome to post it. He did not claim it to be gospel or fact. To his ears, with his equipment, there is a difference in headphone cables. 

 We are not allowed to do blind testing here.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *htbyron* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Post Reported to the mods._

 

I personally don't feel in any way insulted or challenged by his post on suggesting a blind test, in fact I find it very opportune.

 Besides the fact that most blind testing related arguments here on Head-Fi end up in closed threads, I don't see why mentioning blind testing is such a blasphemy here.


----------



## LawnGnome

Some tests for people to read.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...threadid=12752
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-1.html
http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showt...threadid=18815
http://www.auricles.com/new_page_41.htm
http://www.auricles.com/new_page_35.htm FULL RESULTS
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm

 EDIT:

 I think my previous post was taken too harshly. I did not intend to attack rsaavedra. I was only trying to say that unless the testing is blind, it is not very conclusive. I think rsaavedra already knows this. As he appears to be more agnostic, you could say, in his views of cables.

 But yes, my post could and should have been worded more neutrally.


----------



## htbyron

read the first thread (sticky)


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think rsaavedra already knows this._

 

Yes I do, I'm quite fond of the subject of Critical Thinking and scientific reasoning myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm also aware of the fact that a blind testing can only be a realization for one person, but it won't prove anything about the statement in discussion: whether cables might sound different.

*The fact that some people can't* differentiate cables (or amps for that matter) under blind test conditions *doesn't imply that* *absolutely no one can* differentiate cables or amps under blind test conditions.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *htbyron* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_read the first thread (sticky)_

 

Maybe you should as well.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Since it clearly says double blind testing. And says nothing about single blind testing.


----------



## accumbens

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once again, prove it.

 You have no evidence to support your claims.

 It would be VERY easy to test the cable theory. Yet the supporters do not do it.

 In fact, some of the only blind testing done has shown people can NOT tell the difference between high end cable and lamp cord.

 Sorry, but your unproven claims are baseless and worthless._

 

It is beyond me how much reading time is wasted/lost by such troll posts .. I for one was interested in the topic .. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I propose a "troll warning / please delete immediately" button


----------



## htbyron

A fine distinction, perhaps? I am not an expert in this area, so I'll leave it to the mods to discern what was intended. It does seem to me that this thread has devolved from its original purpose.


----------



## ziplock

These kind of posts are entertaining as they are informative. Best value here on Head-Fi.


----------



## Ice Nine

Quote:


 That said, I think that cable construction, geometry, and shielding or lack thereof makes a bigger difference than the metal used in the cable. Also, the quality of the jacks and connectors used have a large impact. 
 

X2


----------



## 003

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pageman99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And yes I can prove it, but believe me the math of quantum mechanics is way beyond you. And no I'm not blathering. My background is in physics._

 

Please, do post your mathematical reasoning. It would be the first I've ever seen in SUPPORT of cables and I for one would be very interested to see it. What is also baffling to me is how a silver cable connecting two devices that both use copper PCBs, with all kinds of capacitors, resistors, diodes and such in the signal path can in fact make an audible difference. I'm not being sarcastic, btw, I would really like to see math supporting cables making an AUDIBLE difference (like if your math proves there is a difference at 10GHz for example than don't even bother posting).


----------



## philodox

LawnGnome - Congratulations, you are the first person I've added to my ignore list. If at some point you decide to drop your huge ego and talk to people with respect, send me a PM and I'll remove you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, I can't hit a golf ball 300 yards. But I can watch Tiger Woods do it and therefore conclude that it is possible._

 

So if you see something happen, that is fact, but if you hear it happening you're making it up? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sovkiller -


----------



## kwkarth

Guys,
 There's no reason on earth that you cannot have an informative discussion without directly attacking each other. So, try to show some mutual respect for each other even though you may disagree.

 I, myself, as an engineer do not believe intellectually, nor was I taught, that there could be any appreciable audible difference between well constructed cables.

 Well, guess what? When I finally got some good headphones and a half way descent but humble amp, I started hearing differences between interconnects.
 As my headphones, amp, and source improved over the years, the detectable differences between cables increased.

 Many years passed, Ipods emerged on the scene...I bought an RSA SR-71 for my Ipod listening. Along came Ken from ALO. Sitting at a Starbuck's one day, armed with my K701's and SR-71, Ken pulls out a bunch of short Line Out Docs. I kid you not, I could hear real, repeatable differences between three inch long pieces of wire. This is totally crazy! There's no possible way, scientifically, a three inch piece of wire can make any difference. For that matter, there's no way a three inch length of insulator, be it teflon, PVC, or cotton could make a difference in the sound either.....but I can hear differences. Whenever I encounter a non believer I sit them down with my RSA, K701's and a bunch of LOD's. I have yet to find a person who does not hear repeatable differences between the cables.

 Go figure! I can't explain it, and I feel really foolish to admit I can hear the differences, but there it is! So that's my story and I'm sticking to it!


----------



## zachary80

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And if it's lost, it's lost........so how does silver "correct" that problem?_

 

I'd be careful with that arguement - that is assuming that whatever is lost to copper, is lost completely. I can take the fact that the signal is degraded as it passes through all the equipment in a studio, from musician to CD. But that does not mean I will accept additional low quality cable in my system, using the argument that whatever can be lost already has been. I have yet to hear that silver (or any cable) can be more faithful than what is fed to it. We may only be able to control the last 5% of the sound, but you can bet some people spend a lot of money to do so.

 That said, I have not spent more than $30 on a RCA cable, because I personally don't notice an appreciable difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is one of my favorite quotes:
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Copper is warmer because it is reddish in color. Silver is shiny and white, hence the colder sound. Magical thinking at work.

 See ya
 Steve_


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


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

 Besides the fact that most blind testing related arguments here on Head-Fi end up in closed threads, I don't see why mentioning blind testing is such a blasphemy here._

 

That's a wonderful question and I will attempt to answer it for you.
 It's not blasphemy, it's waving a big red flag in front of a few individuals who are too immature to have an intelligent, congenial, enlightening discussion. 

 Such discussions usually end up in flame wars between those immature individuals on both sides of the fence. When the flames erupt with enough force, the thread gets closed to put out the flames. It's really that simple.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sovkiller - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I posted that sarcasm as this discussion always ended the same way, a pissing match, in which the cable believers try to ridicule the skeptics, trying to impose the superiority of their ears, and the skeptics try to refute, and try to make them, proved their claims by other ways, and at the end always a mud war, and this will go to nowhere...a dead horse...

 I will resume what I believe in a few words....there is absolutely no evidence, mathematical, physical, or electronic, in which nobody have been able to demonstrate that one conductor sounds better than other, or that cooper is warmer, or silver is colder, simply is such evidence exists, there will be no discussions, and it will be a proved fact...and the ideal conductor would be manufactured imediatelly...Do not misunderstood me, I said sound better and not sound different...

 Also you can tell me 100 times what you hear, and if I do not hear it, to me that means nothing...we have to hear to believe, human nature...

 I have tried several of them, and honestly after a decent manufacture and material selection, I can not tell a **** of a difference....

 I have the Wireworld CD also, in which they compared 17 different cables, and recorded the same piece of music thought them 17 times, using the same gear associated, if such differences exist (as they claimed) the differences would be recorded, I can make anybody a copy to see if you hear any...honestly if any they are very very subtle...after that test they stopped making the CD, and distributing it, and there is no reference in the website at all, at least I was not able to find it, IMO that test served as a boomerang to them demonstrating the opposite of what the intended to do...

 So following that advice by our moderator kwkarth, why not agreeing to disagree and end this discussion without any insult, an period, try to enjoy what you hear and be happy, and ignore what you do not hear...We all have a different hearing system, and that is the only part of the whole system, that we can not change, unless a miracle...

 I have a lot of friends that believe in a bunch of things that I do not, and others do not beleive in the ones I do, and we are all still friends...we agree to disagree and period

 To the original poster, there is no such evidence you are asking for, if that exists, you would not be asking, as it would be a fact for everybody...


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pageman99* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And yes I can prove it, but believe me the math of quantum mechanics is way beyond you. And no I'm not blathering. My background is in physics._

 

Try us. There is at least one other person on this forum (PhD Candidate, University of Arizona, Physics) who can understand.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So if you see something happen, that is fact, but if you hear it happening you're making it up? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sovkiller - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Interesting philosophical discussion about perception can come here, but to simplify greatly:

 You are not using your hearing to see if they passed the blind test. You are seeing if the cable being used matches the cable they think they are hearing. In essence, you are simply matching symbols. A deaf man could perform the tests and they would still be accurate.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flargosa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was browsing around head-fi last night and read somewhere that Copper is warmer than silver because more information is lost on transit compared to silver. This information loss smoothens out the naturally harsh digital audio. No one seemed to disagree, is this a fact? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

We're sort of ignoring the question in this thread.

 There are an incredibly number of theories that people state as to why they believe one cable sounds different then another.

 In addition, the cable designers themselves have many different theories.

 Since cables fail blind testing, science cannot provide an answer. You essentially have to feel your way through the question to an answer since the results are not verifiable.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So if you see something happen, that is fact, but if you hear it happening you're making it up? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Sovkiller - 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, of course not. You've missed the point entirely. 

 The point is that when I see Tiger hit the ball 300 yards, he's actually demonstrated that he can do, and not just made unverifiable claims. If you say, "I can hear a night and day difference between cables," that is the equivalent of the person who says "I can hit a golf ball 1000 yards and I don't need to prove it to you because I say that I can do it." There is no way for me to hear what you are hearing, so your claim is unverifiable.

 If, on the other hand, you can actually identify a cable in a controlled listening test, then you've done the equivalent of taking me out to the golf course and hitting the ball 1000 yards. 

 Note that I am not claiming that you can or cannot hear a difference between cables. All I am saying is that (1) in the absence of a controlled test, the claim is unverifiable, and (2) the fact that I *can't* hear what you claim to be able to hear is not evidence that you *can* hear it.

 For example:

 I can't hear the difference between high-bitrate MP3s and lossless originals. However, I *do* believe that there are others who can hear a difference. I believe that there are people who can hear that difference because I have seen, and in some instances, conducted, controlled tests that those people have passed. So the fact that I personally cannot hear something does not prevent me from acknowledging that others hear it. However, that doesn't mean I have to believe everything that people claim, however improbable.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_in which the cable believers try to ridicule the skeptics_

 

I feel pretty ridiculed by the skeptics personally. Maybe you should hold that mirror up to your self sometimes?

 Febs - I'll come back at some point and respond to you, but the Wife just got home.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(2) the fact that I *can't* hear what you claim to be able to hear is not evidence that you *can* hear it._

 

Of course.

 Similarly, the fact that you can't hear what they claim to hear is not evidence that they can't hear it either. Evidence for that would require _them_ to fail a blind test. Other people failing such tests doesn't say anything about what other people can or can't hear. Might provide some trend or statistics, but in effect it doesn't prove anything about non-tested subjects. Just a likelihood.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I feel pretty ridiculed by the skeptics personally. Maybe you should hold that mirror up to your self sometimes?

 Febs - I'll come back at some point and respond to you, but the Wife just got home. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Not sure why, while I have taken the skeptic position, I have only asked for evidence, as all skeptics do, I have never insulted you, AFAIK...a sarcasm maybe.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...But honestly if I did it, to do it was not my intention, and I apologize if I did, but my intention is get the real answers I'm looking for?

 BTW does anybody have them??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Now, if not having any evidence to support a claim, makes some people feel ridiculous, that is up to them, what I suggest then, is just to wait till they have the evidence to support such claims, and then discuss with something more than the classic *"I hear this and that, and period"* and make the rest feel like they have cloth ears...
 And I'm not saying that you literally have said that, but sometimes the other side can feel also that way, as we all have good educated ears, and they do not hear what the others do (sometimes far better than many that support those claims, and that is just mother nature, a guy with 40 year has more probabilities that have a better hearing than a guy with 65 and is claiming that hear this really subtle differences, that are sometimes related to parts of the spectrum they probably they do not even hear, as diferences in high freq, little harsness in high freq, etc...)


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I feel pretty ridiculed by the skeptics personally. Maybe you should hold that mirror up to your self sometimes?

 Febs - I'll come back at some point and respond to you, but the Wife just got home. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I look forward to your response. I hope that your first sentence wasn't directed at me. It is certainly not my intention to ridicule you or anyone else.


----------



## 003

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course.

 Similarly, the fact that you can't hear what they claim to hear is not evidence that they can't hear it either. Evidence for that would require them to fail a blind test. Other people failing such tests doesn't say anything about what other people can or can't hear. Might provide some trend or statistics, but in effect it doesn't prove anything about non-tested subjects. Just a likelihood._

 

This post is BS because you as well as I know it's impossible. I'm not saying there is or isn't a difference in cables, but to prove that NOBODY (if it's true) can hear a difference would require you to administer some form of blind test with cables to every individual on this earth for the remainder of the existence of the human race.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *003* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This post is BS because you as well as I know it's impossible. I'm not saying there is or isn't a difference in cables, but to prove that NOBODY (if it's true) can hear a difference would require you to administer some form of blind test with cables to every individual on this earth for the remainder of the existence of the human race._

 

That doesn't mean my post is BS. My point was due to the fact that formerly in the thread someone posted links to people reporting not passing blind tests comparing amps. My point is, that doesn't really prove anything about people in general. It only proves that such person didn't pass the test. Nothing more, nothing else.

 Someone might or might not have diabetes. You take one random person and apply the test, that person might or might not have diabetes. That sample alone doesn't say absolutely anything about the likelyhood for some other person to have diabetes. That's my point.

 A large enough, properly carried out study might yield consistent statistics on what percentage of people might or might not be able to identify differences in cables. Since such study hasn't been carried out (to the best of my knowledge), we are under uncertainty conditions, and claims on such percentages, or absolute statements about whether differences can or can't be perceived, _THOSE_ would be BS.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 It only proves that such person didn't pass the test. 
 

The question is not, is there someone who can't reliably tell cables apart in a controlled ABX test, it's: is there anyone who CAN?

 And the answer so far is a deafening NO.


----------



## flargosa

Back on topic.

 Yes, there are other variables such as shielding, cable thickness, etc. But the fact that most post here say that silver is bright and lean, copper is warm and full, and hardly ever the opposite, must mean that no matter how the cable is designed silver will always have its own distinct sound characteristics and copper its own. 

 I was just wanting to know why the two sounds different, and which one is truer to the source. One of them must be less colored, therefore closer to the source. If I find more info pertaining to this topic which may be helpful and interesting to us here, I may post it here. 

 Thanks for the enlightenment.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And the answer so far is a deafening NO._

 

Is it? Where's that conclusive study?

 Here is a link on John Atkinson's tests on people hearing amplifiers; pertinent to this thread's topic, though not on topic with respect to cables:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html


----------



## Dept_of_Alchemy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flargosa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any evidence that one is less transparent than another?_

 

Did someone say 'evidence'?


----------



## Steven Vujovic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, and we can also say that waving a dead chicken over the wires will provide the truest sound of all. But it's an assertion that is best backed up with evidence._

 

I think the "chicken tweek" gives the music a fowl character!


----------



## LawnGnome

This whole thread could easily be ended.

 As someone already said they could actually prove cables change sound with physical laws. But won't say how because we won't understand it.

 So I'm just going to sit and wait until he can explain to the normal folk. And if he doesn't, I'm sure his silence is actually explaining more than his words can. Just not what he had hoped.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it? Where's that conclusive study?

 Here is a link on John Atkinson's tests on people hearing amplifiers; pertinent to this thread's topic, though not on topic with respect to cables:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html_

 

That's sort of the problem. Not on topic with respect to cables. Find the engineer who can reliably blind cables and we can move forward on this debate.

 EDIT : The consumer reports comparison is sort of misleading. They look at amplifiers that measure very differently but then conclude they sound the same. We are facing the exact opposite problem -- past a certain grade the cables we are dealing with measure the same but supposedly sound very different.


----------



## peelax

I found Richard Dawkins' "Enemies of Reason" scarily relevant to some of the "discussions" seen on head-fi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?...reason-part-2/

 Has anyone seen it?

http://www.atheistnation.net/the_ene...st_13_2007.php


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found Richard Dawkins' "Enemies of Reason" scarily relevant to some of the "discussions" seen on head-fi 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?...reason-part-2/

 Has anyone seen it?

http://www.atheistnation.net/the_ene...st_13_2007.php_

 

Has everyone stopped to consider that the "enemies of reason" exist on both sides of the aisle of any given issue? 

 Just thought I'd ask. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The seeming need for some to force polarization on any issue is an enemy of reason itself. I dare say, one of the most insidious. Mutual respect, acceptance, and a desire to understand are the height of reason.

 As Dawkins said, "One just doesn't want to be so open minded that one's brain falls out." That's a great quote! 
 Short of that, it's good to be open minded.


----------



## aaron-xp

A random thought:

*Premise 1*
 Audio is mainly about personal enjoyment

*Premise 2*
 Enjoyment comes from many avenues

*Premise 3*
 Placebo effect gives enjoyment

*Conclusion*
 Placebo effect in cables is fine, as long as the listener doesn't mine paying for it

 It may sound ridiculous (still does to me), but why not?


----------



## peelax

I agree aaron-xp, I would actually quite like nice cables in the same way I would like a nice watch. But as Dawkins states the truth is important! 

 Even water dowsers went through the unmentionable procedure in that documentary, it was obvious from the experiment that it does not work......


----------



## markl

Back on topic, FWIW, I think the alleged diffreences between the sound of copper and silver interconnects are over-stated. 

 When silver wire was first introduced by a few manufacturers, they were given a stereotypical sound by members of the audio press and early adopters (i.e. "bright, brittle, and thin"). This pre-conception about the sound of silver cables vs. copper cables ("warm, fat, and rolled off") has carried over to today in an almost caricature-like way. 

 But this initial observation was based on a few early samples of silver wire, and back when even the fanciest copper cables were nearly as sophisticated as they are today. Nowadays, there are plenty of examples of silver cables that "don't sound silver" and copper cables that don't sound like copper. A cable is far more than the type of metal used for the wires; they are the sum total of all the design choices, materials used, geometry selected, dielectrics used, shielding (or no shielding) used, connectors selected, etc.-- they all have an impact.

 Nevertheless, do I think these metals have some sort of inherent sound signature? Yes. Given a choice between two identically constructed cables, one with copper wires and one with silver, I will choose the copper cable every time. However, given two totally different cables with radically different designs, knowing whether one was silver or copper would not help me much in my decision making. I would need to listen to both.

 Another thing-- scarcity on planet earth, and arbitrary value placed on certain metals by people who like bright shiny objects does not mean one metal sounds "better" than another or is naturally a superior conductor. It does not follow that because gold is more expensive, that gold-conductor cables automatically sound better than silver.

 Use your ears and listen to the whole cable, and worry less about what kind of metal is being used, you may be surprised by what you like and don't like.


----------



## dura

Long ago I visiited a Dutch forum, where some annoying young 'engineer' kept on spoiling every threath about cables by accusing everyone who claimed to hear differences between cables in their system of selfdelusion. Not a very polite thing to do I think, accusing people of imagining things, 
 Annyway, he kept on challenging people to DBT. 
 Since I did not want this fellow in my house I declined, being quite sure of what I hear and like (and yes, I know about selfdelusion, a lot, having a MD psychology).
 Others were less strong and gave in, and it turned out they were quite able to differentiate between their cables in their system with their music, less then 10% errors with 3 cables.
 Differenting between unknown cables in unknown systems I would not risk, but in my system only someone who is completely deaf would not hear the difference between my DIY braided silver cables and f.i. my AQ Coral. 
 I do not need blind tests for that, just as I do not need DBT to differentiate between my parents, thank you.


----------



## ingwe

I dipped copper stranded wire in cold and warm chicken broth for 10 minutes. While both were fowl, with an overall golden coloration, the cold broth was more clinical sounding while the warm broth was less forward.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 I dipped copper stranded wire in cold and warm chicken broth for 10 minutes. While both were fowl, with an overall golden coloration, the cold broth was more clinical sounding while the warm broth was less forward. 
 

 Thanks for an outstanding and amazingly mature "contribution" to our forum.

 Exactly the kind of drivel that is supposed to be wiped from this forum. Yes, let's do an experiment and see what the mods do about it.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I dipped copper stranded wire in cold and warm chicken broth for 10 minutes. While both were fowl, with an overall golden coloration, the cold broth was more clinical sounding while the warm broth was less forward._

 

If this was meant as humor, ok, a feather for your cap, but if meant as sarcasm, find another chicken coop to peck about in, because you're all wet.


----------



## peelax

I don't think this thread has been spoilt, the original question was:

  Quote:


 Is copper warmer because of signal loss?

 I was browsing around head-fi last night and read somewhere that Copper is warmer than silver because more information is lost on transit compared to silver. This information loss smoothens out the naturally harsh digital audio. No one seemed to disagree, is this a fact? 
 

There are at least two questions really. 

 Firstly does copper when compare to silver have some property that makes it lose more audible "signal"? Well I don't think there is any evidence to support this theory (please provide some?).

 Secondly is copper warmer? Some people claim (subjectively) it is, I however have not seen any corroborated and objective evidence to support this theory either. Therefore I think it should be assumed (at the moment) that there is, in practice, no audible difference between copper and silver cables.

 Of course if evidence is presented to the contrary...


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think this thread has been spoilt._

 

these threads are always spoiled and it seems to always be by the same people.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *aaron-xp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A random thought:

*Premise 1*
 Audio is mainly about personal enjoyment

*Premise 2*
 Enjoyment comes from many avenues

*Premise 3*
 Placebo effect gives enjoyment

*Conclusion*
 Placebo effect in cables is fine, as long as the listener doesn't mine paying for it

 It may sound ridiculous (still does to me), but why not?_

 

That would be fine however, if people accepted that it is placebo.

 It is not whether or not people say they hear a difference which gets people going. It is that people start claiming its because of some unmeasurable properties. And making claims that go against modern physics, and even basic reasoning.

 I personally think the biggest fuel to the fire is, when people claim they can prove it, but yet come up with reasons why they don't.

 As that usually gets people really going no matter what the topic is.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_these threads are always spoiled and it seems to always be by the same people._

 

How exactly do you expect such a thread to progress then? Look at any thread, on any forum, where the topic has two strongly opposing views, and you will see the same thing.


----------



## xenithon

I had a recent email discussion with a friend of mine regarding this topic. Some pertinent points were made which I think may be useful here:

 Silver is not necessarily bright and thin. Many poor executions of silver sounds edgy and grainy. But well implemented silver is not bright - it is deep, dense, weighty, yet highly resolving. The more people try silver though, the more opinion seems to split. 

 It is related to:
 (a) purity of silver - e.g., 5N is better than 4N
 (b) the method of aging and annealing (metallurgy related so quite complex and difficult to 
 (c) the wiring configuration 
 (4) the termination (I believe solderless is best for silver?)

 We thus should not be surprised if you find silver cables that are anything but thin or bright. One downside of silver cable is that it takes a very long time to burn-in and settle down. 

 Furthermore, companies can find a way to do silver right - but it may take 300+ hours to settle down, which not everyone will be willing to wait for. And as we all know, first impressions count!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *xenithon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Silver is not necessarily bright and thin. Many poor executions of silver sounds edgy and grainy. But well implemented silver is not bright - it is deep, dense, weight, yet highly resolving._

 

None of those descriptions mean a doggone thing. Could you please put that into terms that apply to sound, not ones that define tactile feelings, mass or vision. We're talking about sound. Use terms that describe sound.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## markl

Quote:


 None of those descriptions mean a doggone thing. 
 

_To you_. To anyone who has spent more than 10 seconds in this hobby (or has an ounce of intuition or common sense) knows *exactly* what these terms mean. There are audio glossaries on the web that will define them so even you can understand. 

 "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture". Words are inherently insufficient, but they are all we have, and a plethora of by now very well-understood terms has been developed to describe audio. Get to know them.


----------



## xenithon

Quote:


 None of those descriptions mean a doggone thing. Could you please put that into terms that apply to sound, not ones that define tactile feelings, mass or vision. We're talking about sound. 
 

Got up on the wrong side of bed, hey? And since when have descriptions of audio equipment EVER been limited to strictly characteristics of sound? In any case, hope your day gets better as you go along. And for clarification, my perspective on the terms (which may certainly differ from person to person):
 Deep = extension and depth in the audio spectrum, particularly deep, impactful bass
 Dense/Weighty = full-bodied. Often refered to as being warm, sometimes euphonic.
 Highly Resolving = details; audio minutiae; musical cues and intricacies.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Furthermore, companies can find a way to do silver right - but it may take 300+ hours to settle down, which not everyone will be willing to wait for. And as we all know, first impressions count! 
 

These are the claims I don't understand and we skeptics question. What actually happens in those 300 hours that makes it "settle down" as you put it? What physical changes are taking place and how do they affect the sound in an *audible* way?

 Trying to contribute to the discussion in a positive way, but what is keeping me from claiming that coat hangers make better interconnects than copper and silver?


----------



## xenithon

meat01 - I wholeheartedly agree that there are skeptics, especially if there is no (possibly scientific) explanation as to what changes in the wire. I really cannot tell you as I have no clue. I have _perceived_ changes in sound, in cables and other equipment. As a reviewer once said however, perhaps it is not the equipment breaking in, but the listener breaking into the equipment's sound.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The point is that when I see Tiger hit the ball 300 yards, he's actually demonstrated that he can do, and not just made unverifiable claims. If you say, "I can hear a night and day difference between cables," that is the equivalent of the person who says "I can hit a golf ball 1000 yards and I don't need to prove it to you because I say that I can do it." There is no way for me to hear what you are hearing, so your claim is unverifiable._

 

I understand what you are trying to say, but it is really more like this:

 "I can hear a difference between cable 1 and cable 2."

 "Tiger woods looks different when I look at him through a red colored lens or a green colored lens."

 Also, you are right, I don't feel that I need to prove anything to anyone. This is the main difference between the stance of most skeptics and most 'believers' [or at least myself]. I am stating an opinion and am not trying to convince anyone of anything. _Joe Skeptic_ comes in and tells me I am wrong because of his theories. He hasn't heard the cables I've heard in my system, but he is trying to convince me that I'm wrong.

 I'm sure you can see how this would get a little irritating.

 EDIT: Just to confirm, I'm not talking about you in this scenario... just trying to relate a common situation when cable differences get brought up. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If, on the other hand, you can actually identify a cable in a controlled listening test, then you've done the equivalent of taking me out to the golf course and hitting the ball 1000 yards. 

 Note that I am not claiming that you can or cannot hear a difference between cables. All I am saying is that (1) in the absence of a controlled test, the claim is unverifiable, and (2) the fact that I *can't* hear what you claim to be able to hear is not evidence that you *can* hear it._

 

Well that is nice, you are in the minority there I think. I appreciate the fact that you respect my opinion even though you don't necessarily agree with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope that your first sentence wasn't directed at me. It is certainly not my intention to ridicule you or anyone else._

 

No, not at all. There are certainly some good examples in this thread however.

 Sovkiller - If you really want I can past a long list of quotes which I feel are ridiculing my beliefs, but I think you know what I am talking about. After a point sarcasm can't really be your only excuse.

 markl - Nice description, I agree with most of what you said. I also think that the difference between silver and copper is blown out of proportion and that other factors make a greater impact on the sound of the cable.

 xenithon - Solderless connection? I doubt that would be a good idea. I agree that not all silver cables sound 'bright', and that is one of the myths perpetuated. I doubt that there is any difference between 4N or 5N silver, and am reasonably sure that is one of the watchout signs for snakeoil peddlers.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 One downside of silver cable is that it takes a very long time to burn-in and settle down.

 Furthermore, companies can find a way to do silver right - but it may take 300+ hours to settle down, which not everyone will be willing to wait for. And as we all know, first impressions count! 
 

One has to wonder: since burn-in is such a problem: why don't these companies burn their products in for 300+ hours before they ship to the customer? It would be very easy to do, and tremendously beneficial to the customer, who can simply plug in the new item and be wowed by the improvement, without having to wait a long time for burn-in and rely on unreliable persistence of memory to gauge the improvement. Given the prices the cables go for it doesn't seem unreasonable that they be sold with all necessary burn-in already done. It's like, if I'm paying a premium price for produce, I would prefer that it be ripe!


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand what you are trying to say, but it is really more like this:

 "I can hear a difference between cable 1 and cable 2."

 "Tiger woods looks different when I look at him through a red colored lens or a green colored lens."

 Also, you are right, I don't feel that I need to prove anything to anyone. This is the main difference between the stance of most skeptics and most 'believers' [or at least myself]. I am stating an opinion and am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Joe Skeptic comes in and tells me I am wrong because of his theories. He hasn't heard the cables I've heard in my system, but he is trying to convince me that I'm wrong.

 I'm sure you can see how this would get a little irritating.

 EDIT: Just to confirm, I'm not talking about you in this scenario... just trying to relate a common situation when cable differences get brought up.Well that is nice, you are in the minority there I think. I appreciate the fact that you respect my opinion even though you don't necessarily agree with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




No, not at all. There are certainly some good examples in this thread however.

 Sovkiller - If you really want I can past a long list of quotes which I feel are ridiculing my beliefs, but I think you know what I am talking about. After a point sarcasm can't really be your only excuse.

 markl - Nice description, I agree with most of what you said. I also think that the difference between silver and copper is blown out of proportion and that other factors make a greater impact on the sound of the cable.

 xenithon - Solderless connection? I doubt that would be a good idea. I agree that not all silver cables sound 'bright', and that is one of the myths perpetuated. I doubt that there is any difference between 4N or 5N silver, and am reasonably sure that is one of the watchout signs for snakeoil peddlers._

 

None of your analogies are valid. Oh why do people not know what logical fallacies are?

 It is sad to watch people reject science for blind faith. It seems to happen more and more in many areas of life.

 This entire hobby is built on electric principles, why is it they are thrown out when it comes to cables?


----------



## bigshot

Poetry is fine, but if you want to communicate ideas behind sound not just behind feelings about sound, you'll talk about dynamics, frequency response, distortion, speed fluctuation, channel separation, phase and signal to noise.

 I'm going to attempt to translate the comment I quoted. Hopefully, I'll get it right.

 Silver is not necessarily bright and thin.

 Translation: Silver is able to reproduce frequencies in a balanced way.

 Many poor executions of silver sounds edgy and grainy.

 Translation: Bad silver cables can cause distortion. (or introduce noise?)

 But well implemented silver is not bright - it is deep, dense, weight

 Translation: Able to reproduce low frequencies?

 yet highly resolving.

 Translation: Lack of distortion? (doesn't alter the shape of the waveform)

 How is that?
 Steve


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If this was meant as humor, ok, a feather for your cap, but if meant as sarcasm, find another chicken coop to peck about in, because you're all wet._

 

Humor. I'll take an African Grey Parrot tail feather please.


----------



## philodox

Well, the ignore list is pointless... I can still see the post there. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_None of your analogies are valid. Oh why do people not know what logical fallacies are?_

 

Excuse me? I made one analogy there. The point of laying it out that way is to show that a variable is being introduced into the situation and that a difference is perceived. All these "seeing tiger hit a ball" analogies make no sense.

 I could also say that I see differently with my glasses off or on, or that things feel different when I wear gloves or that my spaghetti sauce tastes different when I add cayenne pepper. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is sad to watch people reject science for blind faith. It seems to happen more and more in many areas of life.

 This entire hobby is built on electric principles, why is it they are thrown out when it comes to cables?_

 

I don't reject science, whatever gave you that idea?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, the ignore list is pointless... I can still see the post there.Excuse me? I made one analogy there. The point of laying it out that way is to show that a variable is being introduced into the situation and that a difference is perceived. All these "seeing tiger hit a ball" analogies make no sense.

 I could also say that I see differently with my glasses off or on, or that things feel different when I wear gloves or that my spaghetti sauce tastes different when I add cayenne pepper.I don't reject science, whatever gave you that idea?_

 

Please please do some research on logical fallacies.


----------



## ingwe

I just bought an iPod classic 160 and am using it with a diy LOD using stranded copper, with each strand "coated" in silver (23 guage). The LOD plugs into my RSA Hornet. Phones are Shure E500 and Senn HD-650.

 Compared to my Zune with same setup (substituting a mini-to-mini with same wire), the iPod is more forward brighter, and slightly fatiguing . Right now, I prefer the Zune. But the jury is still out.

 A couple hours ago I decided the weak link in all this was the LOD. I built it myself and it was a total PIA to solder the wire to the dock pins. Thus I went to the ALO site and made a guess of which LOD might be appropriate. I chose the jumbo cyro (all copper) instead of the silver offering because I thought there might be better synergy.

 Now, its possible I'm just buying into stereotypical (whether true or not) perceptions that silver is brighter, copper is warmer or whatever, but I could only justify purchasing one cable (especially at those prices). So I made a choice.

 Eventually, I hope to get to some meets and evaluate stuff personally. Nothing beats personal experience.

 -m
 (I wonder if my ALO would last longer with low salt, low fat broth? ;p )


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to attempt to translate the comment I quoted. Hopefully, I'll get it right.

 How is that?
 Steve_

 

Absolutely god awful. 

  Quote:


 Silver is able to reproduce frequencies in a balanced way. 
 

This couldn't be more ambiguous. "Balanced" may encompass not being bright and thin, but it certainly doesn't _mean_ not being bright and thin.

  Quote:


 Bad silver cables can cause distortion. (or introduce noise?) 
 

Edginess and grain can be independent of distortion. It's easy to confuse them. I guess obviously.

  Quote:


 Able to reproduce low frequencies? 
 

It's possible to have deepness, density and weight in most of the frequency range, not just in the lows. Well not so much deepness perhaps, but definitely density and weight.

  Quote:


 Lack of distortion? (doesn't alter the shape of the waveform) 
 

I don't know how else to say it - lack of distortion and highly resolving are not the same thing!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Humor. I'll take an African Grey Parrot tail feather please. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

While I admire your taste in tail feathers, I'm afraid all this one qualifies for is chicken feathers.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 One has to wonder: since burn-in is such a problem: why don't these companies burn their products in for 300+ hours before they ship to the customer? 
 

 Many of them do. But think of how much this adds to the cost of manufacture, it's VERY expensive to add 300 hours on a cable. That adds 300 hours "labor" into a product's completion before it can be sold. You have to have a cable cooker for each cable you want to burn in. That would make doing this prohibitively expensive for a targeted $100 cable, think about it.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just bought an iPod classic 160 and am using it with a diy LOD using stranded copper, with each strand "coated" in silver (23 guage). The LOD plugs into my RSA Hornet. Phones are Shure E500 and Senn HD-650.

 Compared to my Zune with same setup (substituting a mini-to-mini with same wire), the iPod is more forward brighter, and slightly fatiguing . Right now, I prefer the Zune. But the jury is still out.

 A couple hours ago I decided the weak link in all this was the LOD. I built it myself and it was a total PIA to solder the wire to the dock pins. Thus I went to the ALO site and made a guess of which LOD might be appropriate. I chose the jumbo cyro (all copper) instead of the silver offering because I thought there might be better synergy.

 Now, its possible I'm just buying into stereotypical (whether true or not) perceptions that silver is brighter, copper is warmer or whatever, but I could only justify purchasing one cable (especially at those prices). So I made a choice.

 Eventually, I hope to get to some meets and evaluate stuff personally. Nothing beats personal experience.

 -m
 (I wonder if my ALO would last longer with low salt, low fat broth? ;p )_

 


 Yes. There is also little to no evidence that cyro treated copper makes an audible difference.

 This flawed thinking though comes from the proven fact that copper does conduct better at extremely low temperatures. However, once the copper is no longer at those low temperature, its properties go back to normal.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just bought an iPod classic 160 and am using it with a diy LOD using stranded copper, with each strand "coated" in silver (23 guage). The LOD plugs into my RSA Hornet. Phones are Shure E500 and Senn HD-650.

 Compared to my Zune with same setup (substituting a mini-to-mini with same wire), the iPod is more forward brighter, and slightly fatiguing . Right now, I prefer the Zune. But the jury is still out.

 A couple hours ago I decided the weak link in all this was the LOD. I built it myself and it was a total PIA to solder the wire to the dock pins. Thus I went to the ALO site and made a guess of which LOD might be appropriate. I chose the jumbo cyro (all copper) instead of the silver offering because I thought there might be better synergy.

 Now, its possible I'm just buying into stereotypical (whether true or not) perceptions that silver is brighter, copper is warmer or whatever, but I could only justify purchasing one cable (especially at those prices). So I made a choice.

 Eventually, I hope to get to some meets and evaluate stuff personally. Nothing beats personal experience.

 -m
 (I wonder if my ALO would last longer with low salt, low fat broth? ;p )_

 

As it turns out, to my ears, the cryo copper LOD's represent the best of all worlds. They have all of the warmth and general fullness of copper, the superior ductility of copper, and 99% of the high end brilliance and top end extension of silver. You made a great choice! I'm not sure I hear much of a difference between the heavy gauge and the standard gauge cryo LOD, but the heavier one will take more abuse.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. There is also little to no evidence that cyro treated copper makes an audible difference.

 This flawed thinking though comes from the proven fact that copper does conduct better at extremely low temperatures. However, once the copper is no longer at those low temperature, its properties go back to normal._

 

Could be. I do hope to subjectively determine sound quality _to my ears_ one way or the other by direct observation. But the cyro wasn't the only reason; more important was a *very* well built cable made by a very experienced technician.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As it turns out, to my ears, the cryo copper LOD's represent the best of all worlds. They have all of the warmth and general fullness of copper, the superior ductility of copper, and 99% of the high end brilliance and top end extension of silver. You made a great choice! I'm not sure I hear much of a difference between the heavy gauge and the standard gauge cryo LOD, but the heavier one will take more abuse._

 

Abuse is my middle name, sir! 

 I'll report back in a few with my observations.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. There is also little to no evidence that cyro treated copper makes an audible difference.

 This flawed thinking though comes from the proven fact that copper does conduct better at extremely low temperatures. However, once the copper is no longer at those low temperature, its properties go back to normal._

 

FYI, here is a blurb about the Jena Labs cryo process that Ken uses for his cryo copper LOD's.
  Quote:


 What happens?

 Exposing metallic objects to this extreme cold causes beneficial molecular changes to occur. As metallic objects cool, they shrink. With the extreme cooling and the shrinkage that follows LN2 immersion, the crystal boundaries of metallic conductors align more closely with one another and become more conductive and quieter. Mechanical integrity is also improved. This improved molecular condition stays intact through the slow warming process and is stable at room temperature.

 Benefits

 When conducting an electric signal, treated wire and formed metallic parts will produce less micro-diode-effect noise, less impurity-inclusion field disturbance, and less “slow-field” transverse energy generation. The result is a cable or electrical device that is quieter in noise floor and more revealing of subtle musical nuances.

 Difficulties

 Working with LN2 requires very specialized and expensive equipment, and extreme care. It is very dangerous, as the cold is so severe that it can result in serious injury from accidental exposure to the liquid. The process of chilling and warming takes several days to complete and, if done incorrectly, can result in the fracture and loss of the materials being processed. In every phase of the treatment, extreme care must be taken. We feel strongly enough about the musical merits of the treatment, though, that we gladly make the investment in the equipment, the time, and the safety procedures needed to make the benefits available to our customers.

 Beware of others Cryo-Claims 

 Several audio writers, equipment modifiers, and so-called technologists have promoted refrigeration of cables and electronic parts by packing in dry ice. This is NOT cryogenic treatment. Dry ice has nothing to do with cryogenics.

 There are a few companies that provide a service employing gas-bath refrigeration in a cold furnace cooled by LN2. If it is a circulation process, these types of furnaces can reach down to about -180° to -240° Fahrenheit, generally speaking. With enough extreme and outrageously expensive effort (economically prohibitive for most providers), vapor circulation can get down to about -280° Fahrenheit. It does not matter what others claim: Getting vapor below -260° Fahrenheit is exceptionally hard. Period. But even that won’t provide a sufficient chill for our standards. Scientifically speaking, cryogenics refers ONLY to temperatures at or below the vapor point of nitrogen: -320.4° Fahrenheit. Our process involves temperatures that are substantially colder than this.

 Only true liquid nitrogen immersion, as employed by Jena Labs, will fully and permanently enhance the musical behavior of metallic conductors..


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please please do some research on logical fallacies._

 

Please lose your arrogant condescending attitude. I know what a logical fallacy is, do you? Just because my reasoning does not follow yours does not make it incorrect. Also, you are the one who is trying to prove something to me or force me to prove something to you... I'm not trying to prove anything here, just supporting my opinion.

 For what it is worth though, I am also a little skeptical about cryo treatment. The difference here is that I am skeptical because I, as of yet, have no experience with it. If at some point I have access to some liquid nitrogen, I wouldn't mind giving it a go as long as the process is safe for the component being treated.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. There is also little to no evidence that cyro treated copper makes an audible difference.

 This flawed thinking though comes from the proven fact that copper does conduct better at extremely low temperatures. However, once the copper is no longer at those low temperature, its properties go back to normal._

 

Flawed thinking comes from one assuming one knows everything there is to know about a given subject.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Many of them do. But think of how much this adds to the cost of manufacture, it's VERY expensive to add 300 hours on a cable. That adds 300 hours "labor" into a product's completion before it can be sold._

 

Nonsense. It just adds 12.5 days of time to the ship time. So figure out how many cables you want to ship out 2 weeks from now and plug them all into one another with a source at one end and a load at the other. As cables come off the line, you plug them in at the source end and mark the date with a tag. As they come off to ship you take them off the load end. As you add to one end and take off the other end, the cables will move from one end to the other as they age. 

 Nothing to it, and labor is probably about 2 minutes per cable. Fixed costs are one time: a CD player, an amp, whatever (based on what kinds of cables you're burning) and some dummy loads. 

 Nothing to it.

 However, if cables were sold already burned in, mfrs wouldn't be able to say, "you may not hear the difference at first, but once it burns in (and you get used to the hole in your wallet, and you think about how nice and sexy those FAT silver cables look) you will REALLY HEAR the difference!"


----------



## sugarinthegourd

More info on the crystalline properties of various substances and their effect on sound is available here:

  Quote:


 Some solid materials - most notably, metals & minerals - are comprised of atoms arranged in highly symmetrical, geometric structures called "crystal lattices." These structures are adopted because they constitute the lowest energy states of the atoms in the materials. A simplified crystal lattice structure is illustrated below; electric binding forces are shown interconnecting the atoms in the lattice. A 3-D image of the crystal lattice below can be visualized by allowing your eyes to cross slightly (de-focus) while viewing the two green cubes from a distance of about 18-20 inches from the computer screen. A "virtual" 3-D green cube will form between the other two 2-D images.






 A more complex arrangement of molecules and atoms within a lattice structure is shown below for Jadeite (sodium aluminum silicate).






 The temperature of a mineral crystal, as for any material, is proportional to the average kinetic energy of its atoms. External energy forces the atoms in the mineral crystal to move more energetically (i.e., gain kinetic energy); applying heat or mechanical or acoustic energy to the crystal increases the kinetic energy of the atoms and raises the temperature of the crystal.

 To illustrate how mechanical (including acoustic) energy is converted to heat in a mineral crystal, consider the extreme case of a crystal at a temperature approaching Absolute Zero (-459 degrees F), the lowest possible temperature, when atoms in the crystal lattice maintain their lowest energy positions with very little or no motion whatsoever. Any mechanical energy (e.g., acoustic waves or mechanical vibration), applied to that extremely cold crystal material forces the atoms to begin to vibrate around their equilibrium positions in the lattice - the greater the energy applied, the more energetic the vibration of the atoms. At the same time, the electric forces binding the atoms together begin to stretch and compress slightly to allow for the higher energy configuration; each atom acts as if it were connected to its neighbors by extremely small springs (see animation below). At room temperature the process is the same: energy applied to a crystal at room temperature increases the kinetic energy of the atoms and the potential energy of the compressing/stretching "virtual springs" (electric binding forces). Since the temperature of the crystal is a function of the kinetic energy of its atoms (same as for any material), it follows that the crystal is simply converting mechanical or acoustic energy to heat. The reason Brilliant Pebbles is such an effective "node damper" (energy dissipater) in audio applications is that it transfers energy more efficiently and rapidly than virtually all other energy dissipation type devices.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Flawed thinking comes from one assuming one knows everything there is to know about a given subject. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

i really wish the mods would make one thread titled something along the lines of "do cables sound any different." make it a sticky where these people and others who wants to discuss this stuff - theories, graphs, studies, tests, links, blind tests, mathematical equations, logical fallacies, and whatever else - could go and not annoy the rest of the head-fi community. and other threads in the cable forum would be limited to comments of actual cable use. not theory or any of that other garbage. just impressions and other conclusions based on what he or she has heard.

 i know i am not the only one completed frustrated by these people.

 end rant/


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Has everyone stopped to consider that the "enemies of reason" exist on both sides of the aisle of any given issue? 

 Just thought I'd ask. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The seeming need for some to force polarization on any issue is an enemy of reason itself. I dare say, one of the most insidious. Mutual respect, acceptance, and a desire to understand are the height of reason.

 As Dawkins said, "One just doesn't want to be so open minded that one's brain falls out." That's a great quote! 
 Short of that, it's good to be open minded._

 

x2, Quoted For Truth


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flargosa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was browsing around head-fi last night and read somewhere that Copper is warmer than silver because more information is lost on transit compared to silver. This information loss smoothens out the naturally harsh digital audio. No one seemed to disagree, is this a fact? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I can't tell you definitively about the "why." Opinions will vary, including mine! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As to the "what," yes, in my experience, most silver interconnects tend to sound brighter to my ears than copper. There are exceptions though, as those noted in this thread. 

 I once read a great paper that theorized the differing skin effect depth (yes, even at audio frequencies) of copper and silver was responsible for the different sound characteristics. Insulation material also, in my experience has great effect on the sound of a cable, as does construction geometry. Insulation and geometry are interrelated.

 This subject is highly contested. As a matter of fact, as you have seen from this thread, many people seem to expend far more energy to contest a subject than what they put into increasing their respective understanding of a given subject. Go figure! 

 Be cool, always keep an open and curious, but cautious mind.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't tell you definitively about the "why." Opinions will vary, including mine! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As to the "what," yes, in my experience, most silver interconnects tend to sound brighter to my ears than copper. There are exceptions though, as those noted in this thread. 

 I once read a great paper that theorized the differing skin effect depth (yes, even at audio frequencies) of copper and silver was responsible for the different sound characteristics. Insulation material also, in my experience has great effect on the sound of a cable, as does construction geometry. Insulation and geometry are interrelated.

 This subject is highly contested. As a matter of fact, as you have seen from this thread, many people seem to expend far more energy to contest a subject than what they put into increasing their respective understanding of a given subject. Go figure! 

 Be cool, always keep an open and curious, but cautious mind. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

And other's just like to sit back and believe things which lack any evidence. Guess its easier to be willfully ignorant. Like Thomas Gray wrote, "ignorance is bliss"

 Open minded does not mean accepting without evidence, being open minded is accepting what does have evidence, even when it contradicts previous beliefs. 

 Go figure.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_could go and not annoy the rest of the head-fi community._

 

You assume that the "rest of the head-fi community" thinks as you do, which of course is a fallacy. Like any large community, there are a wide variety of opinions and perspectives here. 

 And, frankly, it would be a very boring place if everyone thought the same thing.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And other's just like to sit back and believe things which lack any evidence. Guess its easier to be willfully ignorant. Like Thomas Gray wrote, "ignorance is bliss"

 Open minded does not mean accepting without evidence, being open minded is accepting what does have evidence, even when it contradicts previous beliefs. 

 Go figure._

 

So are you just here to argue? I'll give you your second statement, it's been echoed many times in this very thread, I guess you just had to repeat it, but your first statement....Even if you had a point to make, you're cutting off the ears of your potential audience before they get a chance to even hear you! I think that qualifies as colossall, imperious, and willful ignorance.


----------



## Icarium

Zu Mobius is indeed silver plated copper.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So are you just here to argue? I'll give you your second statement, it's been echoed many times in this very thread, I guess you just had to repeat it, but your first statement....Even if you had a point to make, you're cutting off the ears of your potential audience before they get a chance to even hear you! I think that qualifies as colossall, imperious, and willful ignorance._

 

Maybe you should stop trying to incite people. You may word things fairly carefully, but it is still clear you are trying to provoke people. Especially this line:

  Quote:


 As a matter of fact, as you have seen from this thread, many people seem to expend far more energy to contest a subject than what they put into increasing their respective understanding of a given subject. Go figure! 
 

You accuse others of going to far for making similiar statements, but yet you are the moderator. You represent this forum, if your going to make things personal, maybe you should only be representing yourself.

 This is a forum, forums are created for discussion, mainly debate.

 However, it appears that the "skeptics" opinions are not allowed to be discussed freely.

 The believers tell the "skeptics" to not post in threads. Yet nothing is done. Members tell the skeptics to "let them have their fun" and not express their opinions on cables. 

 But I guess half of this communities beliefs are worth less if they are a "skeptic".

 EDIT: You'll "give" me my second statement eh? Did not know that people needed your permission to make statements. As for the rest of what you said, I don't think I really need to say much on that, it pretty much speaks for itself, probably not how you would of liked however.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This subject is highly contested. As a matter of fact, as you have seen from this thread, many people seem to expend far more energy to contest a subject than what they put into increasing their respective understanding of a given subject._

 

I've spent plenty of time researching audio technology. I've been a hifi nut for nearly 30 years. I've spoken to numerous recording engineers. I do comparison testing of all the equipment I use. Nothing has ever indicated that there is any need to spend more on cables than what Radio Shack charges for its standard grade (not gold) cables.

 The only evidence I've ever heard in favor of high end cables is sales pitch by companies with an interest in selling audio equipment, and anecdotal comments from high end cable users who claim to hear a difference. The sales pitch is often littered with "tech-speak" and unsubstantiated claims. The anecdotes are often full of vague romanticized descriptions and exaggerated reports of the degree of difference. Taken together, they are contradictory- some say white- others black- some say big difference- others say small.

 I've listened and I've done my homework. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. It's my experience that cables are high profit items used by stereo salesmen to plus equipment sales. The pseudo-scientific justifications for cables don't stand up to science and they don't stand up to controlled testing. It's not helpful to people without experience in this hobby to recommend high end cables. Just a couple of days ago, a fella posting here with an iPod shuffle and a $90 headphone amp asked for advice about interconnects, and people were recommending cables that cost as much as his source and amp. To me, that is lousy advice, and I'm going to post saying that, whether cable believers like it or not.

 It's great that people report their own experiences here. But if they are unable to think logically, and they aren't able to argue fairly without resorting to fallacies, nothing they say means anything. It's a lot more justified to reject an anecdotal report based on faulty logic than it is to just say, "Your ears/equipment are lousy." I agree with LawnGnome that the root of the problem is the inability to think logically. It isn't the cable skeptics who are resorting to ad hominem attacks and circular arguments. We're just the ones that the ad hominem attacks and circular arguments are aimed at.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've spent plenty of time researching audio technology. I've been a hifi nut for nearly 30 years. I've spoken to numerous recording engineers. I do comparison testing of all the equipment I use. Nothing has ever indicated that there is any need to spend more on cables than what Radio Shack charges for its standard grade (not gold) cables.

 The only evidence I've ever heard in favor of high end cables is sales pitch by companies with an interest in selling audio equipment, and anecdotal comments from high end cable users who claim to hear a difference. The sales pitch is often littered with "tech-speak" and unsubstantiated claims. The anecdotes are often full of vague romanticized descriptions and exaggerated reports of the degree of difference. Taken together, they are contradictory- some say white- others black- some say big difference- others say small.

 I've listened and I've done my homework. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. It's my experience that cables are high profit items used by stereo salesmen to plus equipment sales. The pseudo-scientific justifications for cables don't stand up to science and they don't stand up to controlled testing. It's not helpful to people without experience in this hobby to recommend high end cables. Just a couple of days ago, a fella posting here with an iPod shuffle and a $90 headphone amp asked for advice about interconnects, and people were recommending cables that cost as much as his source and amp. To me, that is lousy advice, and I'm going to post saying that, whether cable believers like it or not.

 It's great that people report their own experiences here. But if they are unable to think logically, and they aren't able to argue fairly without resorting to fallacies, nothing they say means anything. It's a lot more justified to reject an anecdotal report based on faulty logic than it is to just say, "Your ears/equipment are lousy." I agree with LawnGnome that the root of the problem is the inability to think logically. It isn't the cable skeptics who are resorting to ad hominem attacks and circular arguments. We're just the ones that the ad hominem attacks and circular arguments are aimed at.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 Bigshot, don't let it get to you, its obvious he is trying to bait people now.


 I think what we have asked for is completely valid when talking about products which can cost so much.

 Proof.

 It is a plain and simple request. Both kwkarth and pageman99 have stated they have actual evidence (that is within the realms of physical laws) that can prove their views. Why not post it?


----------



## Chu

edit : whoops, maybe I should have read of all what I was replying too. Vapor baths are expensive to set up, but the difficultly is being a bit exaggerated in that blurb.


----------



## bigshot

I'm not at all upset.

 There are two levels of proof required:

 1) Cables alter the signal
 2) That alteration makes an audible difference

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## germanium

I make my own cables for componants that have higher output impedance as there the capacitance in the cabling becomes a factor in the sound at those higher impedances. My cables spec out at about 50pf per meter even with the terminations attached which adds some capacitance. The lowest I seen other wise is 95pf per meter. Even at 95pf there was a very very slight deadening of the sound even on well recorded piano. The more the capacitance the worse it got.

 The computer has a very low output impedance relative to most separate componants though & therefor don't seem to suffer this problem. Consequently even Radioshacks standard grade works absolutely wonderfull here.To me it makes no difference copper or silver just the capacitance to output impedace.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_edit : whoops, maybe I should have read of all what I was replying too. Vapor baths are expensive to set up, but the difficultly is being a bit exaggerated in that blurb._

 

They clearly state they're not using a vapor bath.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Maybe you should stop trying to incite people. You may word things fairly carefully, but it is still clear you are trying to provoke people. Especially this line:



 You accuse others of going to far for making similiar statements, but yet you are the moderator. You represent this forum, if your going to make things personal, maybe you should only be representing yourself.

 This is a forum, forums are created for discussion, mainly debate.

 However, it appears that the "skeptics" opinions are not allowed to be discussed freely.

 The believers tell the "skeptics" to not post in threads. Yet nothing is done. Members tell the skeptics to "let them have their fun" and not express their opinions on cables. 

 But I guess half of this communities beliefs are worth less if they are a "skeptic".

 EDIT: You'll "give" me my second statement eh? Did not know that people needed your permission to make statements. As for the rest of what you said, I don't think I really need to say much on that, it pretty much speaks for itself, probably not how you would of liked however. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I suppose that if I told you you made many incorrect assumptions in this post alone that I would be accused of "inciting" you. So I'll just let you figure it out for yourself. I never condoned or encouraged spending lots of money on expensive cables. A good cable does not have to be expensive to be good. Two different things. From the tone of your post, it appears that you're interested in argument. I'm not. I have repeatedly asked you to be civil. Others here have asked that you drop your condescending tone. You're a 20 year old kid, so I suppose it's too much to ask or hope for. Too bad, you might otherwise have something to add to this discussion. 
 Skeptics are welcome, jerks are not.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They clearly state they're not using a vapor bath._

 

I just reread that again . . . and I wish I could unedit my post, because what I mistakenly though at first glance was actually correct. This is just a LN2 immersion.

 LN2 immersion is dirt cheap. A 10L dewar flask is about $100 used, $500-$700 new. LN2 is not a controlled substance, you can get it most chemical supply houses.

 A custom-built cryocan suitable for cables (i.e. a very long box) could be done DIY for, I would guess, under $500. This is assuming they actually do that -- if they just coil up the cable and stick it in a cryo can (think very fancy thermos), you can get a fairly large used one for $500ish. Brand new in the $1K range.

 The running costs are dirt cheap, basically just the cost of the LN2.

 The paragraph is fairly deceptive because a refrigerator designed to cool to close but not quite LN2 temperatures would actually be much more expensive. 

 You know, considering how much some people value cryo treatement, it might actuially be fairly profitable to do this as a side buisness . . .

Cryo-cans
Dewar Flaks


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've spent plenty of time researching audio technology. I've been a hifi nut for nearly 30 years. I've spoken to numerous recording engineers. I do comparison testing of all the equipment I use. Nothing has ever indicated that there is any need to spend more on cables than what Radio Shack charges for its standard grade (not gold) cables.

 The only evidence I've ever heard in favor of high end cables is sales pitch by companies with an interest in selling audio equipment, and anecdotal comments from high end cable users who claim to hear a difference. The sales pitch is often littered with "tech-speak" and unsubstantiated claims. The anecdotes are often full of vague romanticized descriptions and exaggerated reports of the degree of difference. Taken together, they are contradictory- some say white- others black- some say big difference- others say small.

 I've listened and I've done my homework. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. It's my experience that cables are high profit items used by stereo salesmen to plus equipment sales. The pseudo-scientific justifications for cables don't stand up to science and they don't stand up to controlled testing. It's not helpful to people without experience in this hobby to recommend high end cables. Just a couple of days ago, a fella posting here with an iPod shuffle and a $90 headphone amp asked for advice about interconnects, and people were recommending cables that cost as much as his source and amp. To me, that is lousy advice, and I'm going to post saying that, whether cable believers like it or not.

 It's great that people report their own experiences here. But if they are unable to think logically, and they aren't able to argue fairly without resorting to fallacies, nothing they say means anything. It's a lot more justified to reject an anecdotal report based on faulty logic than it is to just say, "Your ears/equipment are lousy." I agree with LawnGnome that the root of the problem is the inability to think logically. It isn't the cable skeptics who are resorting to ad hominem attacks and circular arguments. We're just the ones that the ad hominem attacks and circular arguments are aimed at.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Please tell me who has attacked you? I and a number of others here have confessed to hearing differences in cables. Is that what you construe as an attack on you personally? On anybody? On any school of thought or theory? I prefaced my post by clearly stating that there is no proven scientific evidence in the realm of general knowledge that supports being able to hear differences. Is that some sort of an attack? I've encouraged people to listen for themselves and encouraged them to keep an open mind and to refrain from trying to polarize people. Do you construe that as an attack of some kind? Why do some people seem to be so hyper sensitive? What are people so afraid of?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suppose that if I told you you made many incorrect assumptions in this post alone that I would be accused of "inciting" you. So I'll just let you figure it out for yourself. I never condoned or encouraged spending lots of money on expensive cables. A good cable does not have to be expensive to be good. Two different things. From the tone of your post, it appears that you're interested in argument. I'm not. I have repeatedly asked you to be civil. Others here have asked that you drop your condescending tone. You're a 20 year old kid, so I suppose it's too much to ask or hope for. Too bad, you might otherwise have something to add to this discussion. 
 Skeptics are welcome, jerks are not._

 

This is exactly what bigshot was talking about when he was speaking about ad hominem. Attacking the person, not their argument.

 If I wanted to speak on your own age, I could easily say that you are much older, and should be much wiser. But yet still do not appear to have the same ability of reason as I do "a 20 year old kid".

 So, What I will ask for, again, since you have dodged this before, 

 Post the link to the article you read proving that cables make an audible difference.

 Also, what is your problem with debate? If everyone who had opposing views just conceded, we would not progress. Debating (arguing) forces people to hone their arguments, which in turns forces them to improve their reasoning.

 If we did not debate this topic, the believers would continue with their beliefs, and the skeptics would continue to be skeptical.

 Neither side would question their ideas, as neither side would be required to research or do any thinking into the matter.

 As more and more of these threads emerge, people will think more and more into the topic, growing the communities knowledge on this subject. And eventually someone will discover and prove once and for all whether or not there is a difference.

 If you think that these sorts of advances come about with people just going about with their beliefs unchallenged, think again. Historically, this is how scientific advances occur.

 This is how ideas grow.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


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

 You know, considering how much some people value cryo treatement, it might actuially be fairly profitable to do this as a side buisness . . ._

 

There you go! A new business is born! Actually, there's a bit more to the construction of the Jena Labs wire than just cryo treatment. Yes, a lot of the ad copy is hyperbole, what marketing schtick isn't? The stuff sounds good though. I could never see myself paying their prices for their interconnects. I personally use a lot of Outlaw Audio copper interconnects. Good build quality & great bang for the buck sound-wise IMHO. The only Jena wire I have is in my ALO LOD's, and yes, I do hear a difference. Have I ever done true double blind testing? No. I have done statistically significant blind testing though, enough to convince me that it's more than simply placebo effect. But that's just me. I'm happy with my rig, so please try to not be too upset with me and my hapiness. Thanks!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is exactly what bigshot was talking about when he was speaking about ad hominem. Attacking the person, not their argument.

 If I wanted to speak on your own age, I could easily say that you are much older, and should be much wiser. But yet still do not appear to have the same ability of reason as I do "a 20 year old kid".

 So, What I will ask for, again, since you have dodged this before, _

 

 I have never dodged anything. What, specifically, are you referring to?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Post the link to the article you read proving that cables make an audible difference._

 

There is no "link." To what link are you referring? Do you think I read some hyperbole somewhere that somehow convinced me of something I didn't heretofore believe in? Re-read all my posts in this thread carefully. You'll see that I heard what I could not explain. I did not read some explanation of something I couldn't hear.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, what is your problem with debate? If everyone who had opposing views just conceded, we would not progress. Debating (arguing) forces people to hone their arguments, which in turns forces them to improve their reasoning.

 If we did not debate this topic, the believers would continue with their beliefs, and the skeptics would continue to be skeptical._

 

I have no problem with honest, open minded debate.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Neither side would question their ideas, as neither side would be required to research or do any thinking into the matter._

 

 What? Not sure I follow your line of thought here.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As more and more of these threads emerge, people will think more and more into the topic, growing the communities knowledge on this subject. And eventually someone will discover and prove once and for all whether or not there is a difference._

 

 That would be wonderful! I bet you know the outcome already too, no?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you think that these sorts of advances come about with people just going about with their beliefs unchallenged, think again. Historically, this is how scientific advances occur._

 

Give me a break. Who do you think you're talking to?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have never dodged anything. What, specifically, are you referring to?


 There is no "link." To what link are you referring? Do you think I read some hyperbole somewhere that somehow convinced me of something I didn't heretofore believe in? Re-read all my posts in this thread carefully. You'll see that I heard what I could not explain. I did not read some explanation of something I couldn't hear.

 I have no problem with honest, open minded debate.
 What? Not sure I follow your line of thought here.

 That would be wonderful! I bet you know the outcome already too, no?
 Give me a break. Who do you think you're talking to?_

 


 Now you are, once again, just lowering the level of the debate.

 Your use of sarcasm amuses me though, considering YOU sent me a PM warning me and informing me you *deleted* my posts for their sarcasm.

 But since you don't seem to be able discuss things very well, I see no point in continuing with you.


 Anyone who enjoys organized, or any, debating actually, knows a person has no defense when they resort to ad hominem. Which you have time and time again resorted to.

 You really need to step back and look at things before you fire off another reply. You are starting to look very very foolish.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*I once read a great paper* that theorized the differing skin effect depth *(yes, even at audio frequencies)* of copper and silver was r*esponsible for the different sound characteristics.* Insulation material also, in my experience has great effect on the sound of a cable, as does construction geometry. Insulation and geometry are interrelated._


----------



## rb67

What this thread has turned into:


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please tell me who has attacked you?_

 

I really don't care if people attack me. It just makes them look bad. But if you'd like, I'll let you know when someone does. It happens every few days from the same three or four posters.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What this thread has turned into:



_

 

x2 

 Isn't that the case every time?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What this thread has turned into:




_

 

This thread has turned into timber making a desperate attempt for freedom?


----------



## tin ears

I spoke to a guy yesterday who had 10,000 songs on his Ipod. I asked him if he had compared the sound quality of the new premium Itunes downloads to the standard ones. 

 He said why should I, I have never been able to tell a difference between song burn rates and I have a really good stereo. Now reread my original post in this thread (if you can still find it)


----------



## peelax

Here is a nice list of common practices in "pseudoscience" from an article about homoeopathy. I find it quite relevant to this debate and believe most boutique cables most definitely involve pseudoscience. I'm not going to go over every point, so I leave it to the reader to fit together the pieces:

  Quote:


 * Ignore settled issues in science: We know a great deal about the behaviour of water (and evolution, and other contentious topics), but there are many efforts to introduce new science without ever addressing the existing body of knowledge. As such, many of the basic tenets of topics such as homeopathy appear to be ungrounded in reality as we understand it.
 * Misapplication of real science: Quantum mechanics is an undeniably successful description of parts of the natural world, but the limitations of its applicability are widely recognized by the scientific community, if not the general public. Pseudoscientists such as homeopaths appear to cynically target this sort of ignorance by applying scientific principles to inappropriate topics.
 * Rejection of scientific standards: Over the centuries, science has established standards of evidence and experiment to ensure that data remains consistent and reproducible. But these strengths are presented as weaknesses that make science impervious to new ideas, a stance that is often accompanied by...
 * Claims of suppression: Pseudoscience is rejected because it does not conform to the standards held by the scientific community. That community is depicted as a dangerous hegemony that rejects new ideas in order to perpetuate a stifling orthodoxy. This happens in spite of many examples of radical ideas that have rapidly gained not only acceptance, but major prizes, when they were properly supported by scientific evidence.
 * A conclusion/evidence gap: Many areas of pseudoscience do not set out to examine a phenomenon but rather have the stated goal of supporting a preordained conclusion. As such, they often engage in excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the desired conclusion.
 * Focusing on the fringes: All areas of science have anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the existing understanding. But those anomalies should not obscure the fact that the vast majority of current data does support the predominant theories. In the hands of a pseudoscientist, these unconnected edge cases are presented as a coherent body of knowledge that supports the replacement of existing understandings.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now you are, once again, just lowering the level of the debate.

 Your use of sarcasm amuses me though, considering YOU sent me a PM warning me and informing me you *deleted* my posts for their sarcasm.

 But since you don't seem to be able discuss things very well, I see no point in continuing with you.


 Anyone who enjoys organized, or any, debating actually, knows a person has no defense when they resort to ad hominem. Which you have time and time again resorted to.

 You really need to step back and look at things before you fire off another reply. You are starting to look very very foolish._

 

Most of the specifics I asked you about you ignored. Why? Don't you want to discuss things openly? The paper I referred to was an actual paper. It was not on the web, but actual ink on paper, or I would have gladly posted a link. Sorry, I do not have possession of it, and have no idea if it's published on the web. So, I'm not being evasive with you. If you would respond point by point to the questions I asked you, we might be able to have a more productive discussion. Then again, maybe we should close the thread since the inevitable train wreck happened and the horse is dead... I'll tell you what, I'll leave it up to you. Do you want an intellectually honest discussion or not? Let me know.


----------



## kwkarth

Lawngnome,
 My mistake was to confront you openly about your attitude since you didn't respond to the PM's that I sent to you. I shouldn't have done that. I apologize to all for having done so. I've undeleted all of your posts so everyone can review this entire thread and see for themselves how you have conducted yourself throughout. Then they can review all of my posts to see how I have conducted myself through the thread. They will see I screwed up when I started trying to confront you directly in attempt to have honest discussion with you, but prior to that I made appeals for reason and decorum. Now that everything is in the open, where would you like to go with this? Do you truly want an honest discussion? If so, then let's do it! We can even start a fresh thread if you like and get all of this cruft out of the way. Let me know. I'm willing to own up to my mistakes so we can get back on the right track.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most of the specifics I asked you about you ignored._

 

I've noticed this as well. I find it hard to stay interested in a discussion when my posts either get responded to with a one liner or ignored altogether.

 One thing that I will suggest, though I don't have much interest in such an experiment myself, is that LawnGnome should try to make it down to one of the next big Hamilton meets. As long as he keeps an open mind about the test, we can compare a few different cables 'my way'. At that point if he perceives a difference we can construct some sort of scientifically valid test to see what we find.

 Either way, the Hamilton meets are usually lots of fun with good people, nice gear and usually a few choice beers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: Also, I have to ask [and please don't take this as some sort of attack on your character], have you tried different cables in your system at some point or is your argument based purely on theory LawnGnome?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've noticed this as well. I find it hard to stay interested in a discussion when my posts either get responded to with a one liner or ignored altogether.

 One thing that I will suggest, though I don't have much interest in such an experiment myself, is that LawnGnome should try to make it down to one of the next big Hamilton meets. As long as he keeps an open mind about the test, we can compare a few different cables 'my way'. At that point if he perceives a difference we can construct some sort of scientifically valid test to see what we find.

 Either way, the Hamilton meets are usually lots of fun with good people, nice gear and usually a few choice beers. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: Also, I have to ask [and please don't take this as some sort of attack on your character], have you tried different cables in your system at some point or is your argument based purely on theory LawnGnome?_

 

LawnGnome and BigShot are known trolls in cable threads. They only preach that there is not a difference between cables, even though more and more people reporting hearing a significant difference between cables. 

 I have had these discussions in other cablethreads before supported with links and scientific evidence.

 All they can come up with is: the differences are inaudible. That's it really. if they can't win if you provide enough "evidence", this oneliner is their prove.

 I know for sure BigShot never heard any decent high end cables!

 Don't waste you're time on these people. Their mind is set like cement.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 Don't waste you're time on these people. 
 

Yeah, don't mind the skeptics.

 I have a green shirt that makes food taste more delicious. People say this doesn't make any sense! But I know what I am tasting. We did a test once where a friend blindfolded me and put some identical shirts of different colors in front of me and I put them on one at a time, and tasted some food with each shirt. Turns out that my red shirt made the food taste better that day, go figure! I think maybe the green shirt only works when I've been wearing it for a few hours. Rapid shirt changes confuse my tastebuds.

 Anyway, don't let the skeptics and double-blind testers try to trick you with their sneaky ways! We know what we are hearing/tasting!

 I'm going to go put my green shirt on now -- it makes my Lean Cuisine taste like a gourmet meal!


----------



## rb67

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are trolls. They are just simply as passionate about cables not making a difference as people are that they do make a difference. Since the only solid evidence that cables do make a difference is only anecdotal, (from what I've seen, ever) they (your "trolls") certainly have solid ground to stand on to refute cable claims and really shouldn't be labeled as trolls. (Although LawnGnome's conduct has kinda deteriorated through this discussion)

 The one unfortunate thing I've found is that cable "believers" often take the comments of cable "non-believers" to be personal attacks, which they rarely are.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Hey, did someone delete my last post??

 Why? It was very polite!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, did someone delete my last post??

 Why? It was very polite!_

 

Your last post was nothing more than flame bait as all can see. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* 
_Yeah, don't mind the skeptics.

 I have a green shirt that makes food taste more delicious. People say this doesn't make any sense! But I know what I am tasting. We did a test once where a friend blindfolded me and put some identical shirts of different colors in front of me and I put them on one at a time, and tasted some food with each shirt. Turns out that my red shirt made the food taste better that day, go figure! I think maybe the green shirt only works when I've been wearing it for a few hours. Rapid shirt changes confuse my tastebuds.

 Anyway, don't let the skeptics and double-blind testers try to trick you with their sneaky ways! We know what we are hearing/tasting!

 I'm going to go put my green shirt on now -- it makes my Lean Cuisine taste like a gourmet meal!_

 

It's ok to have a world view, it's ok to take a position on "cable effects," but it's not ok to try and impose your views upon another.

 I will give you and lawngnome a couple more hours to clearly declare your intent. Do you want open and honest discourse, do you want to drop this thread, or do you want to continue to stir up trouble? Then I will take appropriate action based upon your response.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rb67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't go so far as to say they are trolls. They are just simply as passionate about cables not making a difference as people are that they do make a difference. Since the only solid evidence that cables do make a difference is only anecdotal, (from what I've seen, ever) they (your "trolls") certainly have solid ground to stand on to refute cable claims and really shouldn't be labeled as trolls. (Although LawnGnome's conduct has kinda deteriorated through this discussion)

 The one unfortunate thing I've found is that cable "believers" often take the comments of cable "non-believers" to be personal attacks, which they rarely are._

 

I will let them declare their intent, and whether or not they're trolls. 

 It is good to be passionate, but with passion MUST come mutual respect and understanding.

 If by solid evidence, you mean DBT's conducted under questionable circumstances, with improper controls and biases, then yes, they have a "body" of evidence, such as it is. If you're referring to standard electronics theory, I can only say that such may be admitted as partial "evidence" because we cannot claim to know how to measure everything that people can hear. Partial evidence is no more substantive than anecdotal evidence.

 Nevertheless, I encourage intellectually honest discussion in the pursuit of the truth. I will not encourage the invective that we've seen demonstrated thus far.


----------



## Quaddy

i am not into the science of cable materials one bit, but comparing a silver portioned cable to an all copper, i personally can hear a warmer less fatiguing, clearer, sharper sound to vocals and tracks.

 in fact i am beginning to like the sound of the copper over the silver portioned cable, as sometimes it can be a bit too harsh vs the copper.

 IMHO silver for me gives greater detail and transparency.

 IMHO copper is more warmer, bassier and musical sounding


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will let them declare their intent, and whether or not they're trolls._

 

Here's my intent.

 When I started out in hifi, my brother and a bunch of his friends took the time to show me how things worked. They gave me advice based on their years of experience putting together stereo rigs, pa systems and designing speakers. They told me what mattered and what didn't.

 Because of this, I made some very good choices of equipment very early on. I'm still using my first turntable and the first speakers I ever bought. That solid advice saved me a LOT of money... money I was able to spend on other things- like music.

 The guys who mentored me also shared with me their philosophy of being a hifi nut. They told me it wasn't about fancy equipment to impress your friends, it was about making your music sound great. It's all about the music.

 They taught me how to do a systematic and organized listening test. I can tell you that I have irritated many stereo salesmen when I plunked myself down in a listening room with a yellow pad and a pile of CDs and spent half a day deciding on what I was going to buy. But I've never been disappointed with any of my purchases.

 Logical thinking and systematic approaches to comparing equipment is the way you efficiently determine the weaknesses of your system so you can address them. Randomly chasing theoretical and anecdotal improvements get you nowhere except broke. Discussion of logic and sound ways to compare and measure qualty of various components is totally germaine to the discussion of sound gear. Banning discussion of scientific testing principles because you personally find the concept to be wrongheaded is nothing more than an attempt to stack the deck. (Another logical fallacy.)

 I hope that my ability to share what I've learned in the past 30 years helps someone make smart choices on their own. The audiophile press, web and sales community is doing a criminally bad job of guiding people. All they seem to care about is generating revenue selling snake oil. Someone has to stick up for the individual hifi nut and arm him with the info he needs to put together a great rig without going into hock.

 See ya
 Steve

 P.S. Peelax's quote was great.


----------



## Sir Nobax

I always love these "YES" "NO" "YES" "NO", discussions.

 It is very easy to test if cables make a difference, just ask headroom to re-test the frequency (+ all other) graphs with a other cable.

 Until the day I see such results I think all is in your head.

 Btw, it is fun to see that a metal with a warm color (amber/orange), "sounds" warmer then a metal with a cold color (white/silver).
 What a coincedense!!!!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's my intent.

 When I started out in hifi, my brother and a bunch of his friends took the time to show me how things worked. They gave me advice based on their years of experience putting together stereo rigs, pa systems and designing speakers. They told me what mattered and what didn't.

 Because of this, I made some very good choices of equipment very early on. I'm still using my first turntable and the first speakers I ever bought. That solid advice saved me a LOT of money... money I was able to spend on other things- like music.

 The guys who mentored me also shared with me their philosophy of being a hifi nut. They told me it wasn't about fancy equipment to impress your friends, it was about making your music sound great. It's all about the music.

 They taught me how to do a systematic and organized listening test. I can tell you that I have irritated many stereo salesmen when I plunked myself down in a listening room with a yellow pad and a pile of CDs and spent half a day deciding on what I was going to buy. But I've never been disappointed with any of my purchases.

 Logical thinking and systematic approaches to comparing equipment is the way you efficiently determine the weaknesses of your system so you can address them. Randomly chasing theoretical and anecdotal improvements get you nowhere except broke.

 I hope that my ability to share what I've learned in the past 30 years helps someone make smart choices on their own. The audiophile press and sales community is doing a criminally bad job of guiding people. Someone has to do it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve,
 This is an awesome post! Why can't we keep it on this level? I can guarantee you will genuinely help many, many people with advice like this. 

 Even though it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I agree with everything you said. Gosh, how did we get off on the wrong foot? FWIW, I'm sorry for my part.

 For the record, there are many here who feel they've done all of the big improvements they can and are now chasing down the elusive last 5%. We have to respect those who choose to do so. It's their choice and they, for the most part, clearly understand that they're chasing the last few tiniest grains of sand to fill the glass. If I choose not to pursue that last 5%, that's fine. The folks who pursue the last 5% have to respect my decision too.

 Cheers!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sir Nobax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I always love these "YES" "NO" "YES" "NO", discussions.

 It is very easy to test if cables make a difference, just ask headroom to re-test the frequency (+ all other) graphs with a other cable.

 Until the day I see such results I think all is in your head.

 Btw, it is fun to see that a metal with a warm color (amber/orange), "sounds" warmer then a metal with a cold color (white/silver).
 What a coincedense!!!!_

 

Rather than lending intelligence to the discussion, you appear to be attempting to stir things up again. I am going to ask you to refrain from taking your overly simplistic view and imposing it upon others. Respect others.


----------



## Sir Nobax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Respect others._

 

Don't get me wrong, i really do respect all your opinions.

 And i am only pointing to the fact that a theoretic explanation isn't that hard to create and would get rid of such 'objective' threads.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For the record, there are many here who feel they've done all of the big improvements they can and are now chasing down the elusive last 5%._

 

They're probably wrong. You can't be anywhere close to great sound with just headphones. And you can't have good sounding speakers without equalization and room treatment. I've been working for thirty years, and there's still plenty of important stuff I need to work on. I see way too many people recommending high end cables to beginners for their portable rigs. That's just lousy advice any way you slice it.

 Some things matter... well recorded music, great speakers, an amp that can push the speakers properly, proper equalization and a good room to listen in. Some things just don't matter, no matter how fantastic your system is. Cables, as long as they are of reasonably good quality, just don't matter. Radio Shack makes great cables. No need to spend a penny more.

 Being a hifi nut shouldn't be a pissing contest. No one should wrap their ego around the cost of their equipment or the refinement of their ability to hear. The things I value myself are isolating and identifying problems and solving them, and getting the most bang for the buck. Bling bling and "connoisseurship" is for saps.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They're probably wrong. You can't be anywhere close to great sound with just headphones._

 

Having heard high end speaker setups in professional installations and high end headphone setups, I can say that you are _probably_ wrong here.

 I agree with kwkarth though, that was a nice post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see way too many people recommending high end cables to beginners for their portable rigs. That's just lousy advice any way you slice it._

 

Agreed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As for the rest of it, I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. We've been here before.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sir Nobax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And i am only pointing to the fact that a theoretic explanation isn't that hard to create and would get rid of such 'objective' threads._

 

The differences between cables has already been measured and quantified. It just isn't audible in a normal hifi rig. There's no need to keep going back and proving it all over again. I just state opinions based on my experience and evidence and stand on that. If someone disagrees, they will have to produce stronger experience and evidence. When it comes to cables, I wish them luck. That ship has sailed no matter how many anecdotal reports claim to still see it in the port.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Having heard high end speaker setups in professional installations and high end headphone setups, I can say that you are probably wrong here._

 

You should hear MY system when I've got the 5:1 tweaked just right!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Yes, and you should hear my headphone rig.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They're probably wrong. You can't be anywhere close to great sound with just headphones. And you can't have good sounding speakers without equalization and room treatment. I've been working for thirty years, and there's still plenty of important stuff I need to work on. I see way too many people recommending high end cables to beginners for their portable rigs. That's just lousy advice any way you slice it.

 Some things matter... well recorded music, great speakers, an amp that can push the speakers properly, proper equalization and a good room to listen in. Some things just don't matter, no matter how fantastic your system is. Cables, as long as they are of reasonably good quality, just don't matter. Radio Shack makes great cables. No need to spend a penny more.

 Being a hifi nut shouldn't be a pissing contest. No one should wrap their ego around the cost of their equipment or the refinement of their ability to hear. The things I value myself are isolating and identifying problems and solving them, and getting the most bang for the buck. Bling bling and "connoisseurship" is for saps.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Again, I agree with most of what you say, but you still have to respect those who choose to pursue something that you choose not to pursue. 

 I too, value getting the best bang for my buck in most cases, but if someone chooses a different path, we must respect them and not denigrate their decision.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The differences between cables has already been measured and quantified. It just isn't audible in a normal hifi rig. There's no need to keep going back and proving it all over again. I just state opinions based on my experience and evidence and stand on that. If someone disagrees, they will have to produce stronger experience and evidence. When it comes to cables, I wish them luck. That ship has sailed no matter how many anecdotal reports claim to still see it in the port.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Throughout history there have been many, many times where respected scientists of their day had taken the position that alll that could be discovered had been discovered. They were all wrong. I submit to you, that all is not known about ways to actually measure what we hear. I am confident that there are more discoveries yet to come. The only ship that has sailed is the ship of opinion. Any good scientist will tell you that there is much we still do not understand about our world.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... It just isn't audible in a normal hifi rig...._

 

For discussion's sake, I have not been able to hear differences between cables in my normal Hi-Fi rig either. I can, however, hear them with my good Headphone rigs, although not with all headphones.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sir Nobax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...

 And i am only pointing to the fact that a theoretic explanation isn't that hard to create and would get rid of such 'objective' threads._

 

Actually, today, with existing methods, no one has been able to demonstrate and measure the differences that people hear. This can mean a couple of different things. Either we have not yet learned how to measure all that we hear, or all people who hear differences are delusional. Having done a lot of single blind testing myself, I personally feel we see a lot of both cases demonstrated.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The differences between cables has already been measured and quantified. It just isn't audible in a normal hifi rig. There's no need to keep going back and proving it all over again. I just state opinions based on my experience and evidence and stand on that. If someone disagrees, they will have to produce stronger experience and evidence. When it comes to cables, I wish them luck. That ship has sailed no matter how many anecdotal reports claim to still see it in the port.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Your own experience isn't stronger evidence then people Hearing differences between cables. That's their experience.

 As i stated before, cables are sometimes also very tricky on certain systems. I personally heard the same cable sound bad on one rig and sounding wonderfull on another.
 So, synergy and matching is important. But i constantly heard differences between cheap and higher end cables.

 Nobody is saying you need the most expensive cable around, but a decent cable will give you more of the good stuff.

 What is decent and what is good, is in the eye of the beholder; some are only satisfied with the most expensive gear, some with an ipod and some with a rig in between.


----------



## dura

I love measurements by qualified engineers. rather then doing something subjective like listening they measure, and the insightful conclusions they reached with measurements: in the 70-s they measured cheap Japanese transistoramplifiers had far less distortion then tube-amps, so they were better. Audiophiles claiming tubeamps sounded better were ridiculed, called selfdeluded, cheated on by cunning salesmen, placebo-fooled, etc. At the best they were addicted to euphonic distortion.
 a decade later Cd cames, and CD measured far better then vinyl. People who preferred vinyl were resolutedly pointed out they were completely wrong, same reasons.
 We all ended up with systems nobody cared to listen to, but at least they measured great.

 The conclusion could be made that although it is easy to get figures from measurements, it is hard to figure out what figures to get and how to interpret them, so looking down on people who prefer a subjective method seems a little arrogant to me.

 Part of the problem is, the difference between f.i. ugly and beautiful sometimes can't be put into numbers, and if you can, that number can be surprisingly small, take red wine f.i. What substances are you gonna measure, and how are you going to interpretet what you measure? Nobody knows.

 But if you don't believe that here is a tip how to get the best red wine possible: take the percentage of alcohol on the etiquette and divide that by the price. 
 The higher the outcome the better the wine, the rest is all placebo and selfdelusion and theft, as can be easily proved by DBT's.


----------



## Andrew_WOT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_a decade later Cd cames, and CD measured far better then vinyl. People who preferred vinyl were resolutedly pointed out they were completely wrong, same reasons._

 

Really?


----------



## philodox

Well said dura/kwkarth, that is the problem I see with relying solely on measurements.


----------



## Sir Nobax

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Part of the problem is, the difference between f.i. ugly and beautiful sometimes can't be put into numbers, and if you can, that number can be surprisingly small, take red wine f.i. What substances are you gonna measure, and how are you going to interpretet what you measure? Nobody knows._

 

It isn't to check 'HOW IS IT DIFFERENT', but 'IS IT DIFFERENT'.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sir Nobax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It isn't to check 'HOW IS IT DIFFERENT', but 'IS IT DIFFERENT'._

 

YES, i submitted figures of measurements of cables and the differences of the most significant parts to be related to different sound in cables are 600 and 800 percent. Relative high figures between cables. All sceptics say it isn't audible. Right, differences between sources etc. are in the same catagory yet sceptics do claim to hear differences in sources. Quite a bit contradictive.

 All i say is: if you don't hear differences then don't bother and be happy with what you got. If you do hear differences, there is still alot to be explored.


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, today, with existing methods, no one has been able to demonstrate and measure the differences that people hear. This can mean a couple of different things. Either we have not yet learned how to measure all that we hear, or all people who hear differences are delusional. Having done a lot of single blind testing myself, I personally feel we see a lot of both cases demonstrated._

 

Actually, I don't understand why people ignored or disregarded the function of the brain in this type of discussion. This should not be viewed not as an insult but just another theory on the difference.

 For example, the optical theory tell us that we should be seeing things upside down but we're seeing things right side up. This is because the brain is doing the correction for us. When you are watching a movie, you actually viewing a series of pictures and nothing is really moving.

 So why can't the brain tell us to hear different things because the perception we had that we should be hearing different things.

 Sting's recording in "leaving las vegas" is recorded in a log cabin with the fire place going. I was trying to listen for this detail the other day. Took me a while but I heard it but I didn't hear the music. The point is maybe we should pay a little more attention to the music itself than trying to defend that extra warmth or grain that we heard.

 I don't want to stir up anything. But I have yet to see a power cable solve any ground loop problem. But if you do a search, you'll see people recommending power cable to solve the "humming noise" problem. I think people should be more informed but information should be accurate and factual and emotional outburst isn't necessary.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 I hope that my ability to share what I've learned in the past 30 years helps someone make smart choices on their own. The audiophile press, web and sales community is doing a criminally bad job of guiding people. All they seem to care about is generating revenue selling snake oil. Someone has to stick up for the individual hifi nut and arm him with the info he needs to put together a great rig without going into hock. 
 

Yes! Exactly. And if there weren't some skeptics in this community I for one would want no part of it. I mean, the same sites/magazines that I look to for great reviews of amps and speakers publish serious analyses of CD degaussers and $10,000 power cords! This is one of the most BS-ridden, conniving industries in existence. Thank goodness there are other places to find information and listening impressions!

 (And yes, I absolutely think vinyl quality, stylus, cartridge, headshell cable, turntable quality and drive, phono headamp, CD transport & DAC, preamp, power amp, tubes vs solid-state, speakers, speaker stands & isolation, room treatment -- all these things make a difference: some small, some huge but all audible, measurable, repeatable, explainable, and testable.)

 But fancy interconnects and power cords belong right up there with CD degaussers, green markers, $400 wooden knobs, rainbow stickers, $5 clocks with secret stickers and magic rocks, in terms of things that may make a difference in the listener's mental state, but have no effect on the soundwaves reaching his eardrum.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, I don't understand why people ignored or disregarded the function of the brain in this type of discussion. This should not be viewed not as an insult but just another theory on the difference.

 For example, the optical theory tell us that we should be seeing things upside down but we're seeing things right side up. This is because the brain is doing the correction for us. When you are watching a movie, you actually viewing a series of pictures and nothing is really moving.

 So why can't the brain tell us to hear different things because the perception we had that we should be hearing different things.

 Sting's recording in "leaving las vegas" is recorded in a log cabin with the fire place going. I was trying to listen for this detail the other day. Took me a while but I heard it but I didn't hear the music. The point is maybe we should pay a little more attention to the music itself than trying to defend that extra warmth or grain that we heard.

 I don't want to stir up anything. But I have yet to see a power cable solve any ground loop problem. But if you do a search, you'll see people recommending power cable to solve the "humming noise" problem. I think people should be more informed but information should be accurate and factual and emotional outburst isn't necessary._

 

Well said, I'm 100% with you on this one!


----------



## greggf

I wonder if sellers of cable are liable to future lawsuits?

 I also wonder if reviewers of cables or of audio equipment in general could be held legally accountable for their statements?

 There must be an attorney or three hereabouts. Perhaps they could address this question, at least in the abstract.

 Can I order an aftermarket Sennheiser cable, hear no difference, hire an attorney, force the seller to try to prove the efficacy of their products, and win damages if they can't scientifically back up their claims?

 Interesting. Might be worth pursuing. I wonder if any sellers of aftermarket cables might be willing to comment? Have you taken any legal steps to protect yourself and your business?

 In a world where people sue over hot spilled coffee, shouldn't you? Wouldn't it be prudent?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greggf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder if sellers of cable are liable to future lawsuits?

 I also wonder if reviewers of cables or of audio equipment in general could be held legally accountable for their statements?

 There must be an attorney or three hereabouts. Perhaps they could address this question, at least in the abstract.

 Can I order an aftermarket Sennheiser cable, hear no difference, hire an attorney, force the seller to try to prove the efficacy of their products, and win damages if they can't scientifically back up their claims?

 Interesting. Might be worth pursuing. I wonder if any sellers of aftermarket cables might be willing to comment? Have you taken any legal steps to protect yourself and your business?

 In a world where people sue over hot spilled coffee, shouldn't you? Wouldn't it be prudent?_

 

If they didn't deliver, somebody would allready have sued them. Especially for cables of 18.000 dollars one might suspect it should perform accordingly, no bad word of those users though. So, clearly alot of people who actually use higher end cables in their system don't complain but tell other people they are better in their systems.


 I only hear people complain who don't actually own high end cables or never heard those cables!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes! Exactly. And if there weren't some skeptics in this community I for one would want no part of it. I mean, the same sites/magazines that I look to for great reviews of amps and speakers publish serious analyses of CD degaussers and $10,000 power cords! This is one of the most BS-ridden, conniving industries in existence. Thank goodness there are other places to find information and listening impressions!_

 

I agree 100%
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_(And yes, I absolutely think vinyl quality, stylus, cartridge, headshell cable, turntable quality and drive, phono headamp, CD transport & DAC, preamp, power amp, tubes vs solid-state, speakers, speaker stands & isolation, room treatment -- all these things make a difference: some small, some huge but all audible, measurable, repeatable, explainable, and testable.)_

 

I'm still with you here, except for the fact that many differences that people hear are still not measurable by known methods.
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But fancy interconnects and power cords belong right up there with CD degaussers, green markers, $400 wooden knobs, rainbow stickers, $5 clocks with secret stickers and magic rocks, in terms of things that may make a difference in the listener's mental state, but have no effect on the soundwaves reaching his eardrum._

 

So, you allowed, above, that many formerly considered intangible things do make a difference. I submit to you, that like some other component to component differences, we haven't learned to measure all of these differences or to correlate measurable parameters to things we hear. 

 I wouldn't be so quick to throw cables into the green marker heap just yet.

 The ear / brain system is one of the most sophisticated audio signal processing systems known to man and it is not yet fully understood. 

 Not too many years ago stereo magazines confidently published that no one could distinguish +- 0.5db differences in FR. Today we know that some people can easily distinguish that sort of difference. 

 We know today that some are equally sensitive to phase alignment across the spectrum, some even to absolute phase. Not too many years ago, it was generally believed that phase alignment octave to octave within the spectrum was not that important. We have much to learn yet!


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 except for the fact that many differences that people hear are still not measurable by known methods. 
 

I'm not sure anyone has ever proven that the human ear is more sensitive to anything than a good oscilloscope? I wouldn't even say that the ear is better than the best mic? Electrons are just electrons - they are dealt with in the speaker in an understandable way, and compression waves are just compression waves. Surely if there was some gap in our understanding someone would be trying to set up some nobel prize winning experiment using these types of technologies?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greggf* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder if sellers of cable are liable to future lawsuits?

 I also wonder if reviewers of cables or of audio equipment in general could be held legally accountable for their statements?

 There must be an attorney or three hereabouts. Perhaps they could address this question, at least in the abstract.

 Can I order an aftermarket Sennheiser cable, hear no difference, hire an attorney, force the seller to try to prove the efficacy of their products, and win damages if they can't scientifically back up their claims?

 Interesting. Might be worth pursuing. I wonder if any sellers of aftermarket cables might be willing to comment? Have you taken any legal steps to protect yourself and your business?

 In a world where people sue over hot spilled coffee, shouldn't you? Wouldn't it be prudent?_

 

Good question! I think that once we do learn how to better qualify and measure what people hear, the potential for lawsuits may increase, because then things will move more out of the realm of subjectivity into the realm of objectivity, and claims will be able to be substantiated or not. There are sincere and passionate cable makers out there and there are also a lot of snake oil sellers. The latter know who they are and will be out of business one day.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure anyone has ever proven that the human ear is more sensitive to anything than a good oscilloscope? I wouldn't even say that the ear is better than the best mic? Electrons are just electrons - they are dealt with in the speaker in an understandable way, and compression waves are just compression waves. Surely if there was some gap in our understanding someone would be trying to set up some nobel prize winning experiment using these types of technologies?_

 

Woah there pardoner. Let's not over simplify this thing. We're not talking about simple frequency domain or amplitude measurements here. There are extremely complex interrelationships between all the sounds of the spectrum and their octave to octave phase alignment, time and frequency domain. Heck, we're net even talking electrons here at all. We''re talking about the compression and rarefaction of air molecules, we're talking about HRTF for every individual,and all the subtle L/R frequency, amplitude, and phase relationships precessed by your brain to develop the illusion/model of 3D space in your head. There is much yet that science doesn't fully understand, and the honest ones will freely admit it.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure anyone has ever proven that the human ear is more sensitive to anything than a good oscilloscope?_

 

Oh, and talking about absolute sensitivity...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...d/earsens.html
 Can you show me an electronic system that even possesses this dynamic range? ...Not to mention the sophisticated 2 channel cross coupled signal processing system to go with it?

 Here's another blurb re sensitivity of the human ear:
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm* 
_Sound pressure level (SPL) is given in dB SPL. This is a scale that is defined such that the threshold of hearing is close to 0 dB. The threshold of pain is about 135 dB. This is a logarithmic scale where power doubles for each 3 dB increase; the 135 dB difference between the thresholds of hearing and pain means the power doubles about 45 times - an increase of 32 trillion (32x1012) in the power level. This is an incredible dynamic range, and totally blows away anything human engineers are capable of creating. (Actually in a Dec 99 Newsgroup post Dick Pierce states that B&K 4138 microphones have a dynamic range of 140 dB, so I was underrating human engineers). At the low end of the range the ears lose function due to background noise. At 0 dB SPL noise created by blood flow in the ear is one source. It is shown elsewhere that the noise of molecules colliding with the eardrum is not far below this level. At the threshold sound level of 0 dB SPL Everest states that the eardrum moves a distance smaller than the diameter of a hydrogen molecule! At first I was incredulous when I read this, but it is consistent with the change in diameter of the balloon example used in the previous section. For a 0 dB SPL the change in balloon diameter is 6x10-10 inches, which is about 1/10 of the diameter of a hydrogen atom. The sensitivity of the ear is truly mind-boggling._


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Either we have not yet learned how to measure all that we hear, or all people who hear differences are delusional._

 

The areas of auditory perception that are still to be discovered are the ones that involve the mind more than the ears. We're able to measure what we can and can't hear extremely accurately. The thing we can't do is fully understand how that information is processed by the brain. Referring to that process as "delusion" adds a value judgement that doesn't apply at all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking you hear something you don't. All of us do that every single day. That's how our brains fill in the gaps between information so we can understand what we hear better.

 The fact remains that the difference between cables, if it exists at all, is so minute and so vague that people who claim to hear it can't under controlled testing, and they can't even agree on what sort of difference they hear. That indicates to me that it extends beyond what we can actually hear and into the area we think we can hear.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dura* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_in the 70-s they measured cheap Japanese transistoramplifiers had far less distortion then tube-amps, so they were better. Audiophiles claiming tubeamps sounded better were ridiculed

 snip

 a decade later Cd cames, and CD measured far better then vinyl. People who preferred vinyl were resolutedly pointed out they were completely wrong, same reasons.
 We all ended up with systems nobody cared to listen to, but at least they measured great._

 

You may not realize it, but transistorized amplifiers *were* much better than the bulky, hissy, undependable, heat generating tube amps they replaced. And CDs do have the ability to sound better than LPs. You're applying the wrong cause to the effect. They don't sound good because they measure poorly.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not too many years ago stereo magazines confidently published that no one could distinguish +- 0.5db differences in FR. Today we know that some people can easily distinguish that sort of difference._

 

If there are humans who are able to listen to music and discern .5dB differences in frequency response, they're wearing blue suits with red capes. Frequency masking can cause larger changes than the numbers would indicate, but it takes considerably more than .5dB to create any kind of discernable masking effect. It's important to keep in mind what these numbers relate to. 1dB isn't a heck of a lot of difference.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The areas of auditory perception that are still to be discovered are the ones that involve the mind more than the ears. We're able to measure what we can and can't hear extremely accurately. The thing we can't do is fully understand how that information is processed by the brain. Referring to that process as "delusion" adds a value judgement that doesn't apply at all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking you hear something you don't. All of us do that every single day. That's how our brains fill in the gaps between information so we can understand what we hear better.

 The fact remains that the difference between cables, if it exists at all, is so minute and so vague that people who claim to hear it can't under controlled testing, and they can't even agree on what sort of difference they hear. That indicates to me that it extends beyond what we can actually hear and into the area we think we can hear.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve,
 Absolutely, the brain is an important part of the "system."

 Have you, yourself ever participated in any sort of an experiment to try an identify differences between cables, single blind or otherwise?

 Granted, perhaps the studies you are aware of were inconclusive for a number of potential reasons. Have you ever been to a head-fi meet where someone was demonstrating audible cable differences?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good question! I think that once we do learn how to better qualify and measure what people hear, the potential for lawsuits may increase_

 

People can sue for anything, even if it isn't justified at all. And sellers have to make blatantly obvious misrepresentations if they are going have a judgement awarded against them. Snake oil is alive and well and being sold all over America in a million different forms. Anyone over the age of 12 should be familiar with the term, "caveat emptor".

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If there are humans who are able to listen to music and discern .5dB differences in frequency response, they're wearing blue suits with red capes. Frequency masking can cause larger changes than the numbers would indicate, but it takes considerably more than .5dB to create any kind of discernable masking effect. It's important to keep in mind what these numbers relate to. 1dB isn't a heck of a lot of difference.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I'm not talking about identifying a particular change from one level to the next, but rather the frequency response difference between one system and another. When systems differ as little as 0.5db at various frequencies, many people can identify those systems with statistical significance. I wish I knew where to find those studies, they were very interesting. Maybe I'll peruse the web to see if I can locate them..


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_People can sue for anything, even if it isn't justified at all. And sellers have to make blatantly obvious misrepresentations if they are going have a judgement awarded against them. Snake oil is alive and well and being sold all over America in a million different forms. Anyone over the age of 12 should be familiar with the term, "caveat emptor".

 See ya
 Steve_

 

How true!


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure anyone has ever proven that the human ear is more sensitive to anything than a good oscilloscope? I wouldn't even say that the ear is better than the best mic? Electrons are just electrons - they are dealt with in the speaker in an understandable way, and compression waves are just compression waves. Surely if there was some gap in our understanding someone would be trying to set up some nobel prize winning experiment using these types of technologies?_

 

You are correct peelax. But this is when people start applying supernatural properties to things.


 Also, kwkarth, if you do the math and convert those figures into decibels(that site has a converter). You will see the range is 10db to 140db. Not really as huge as you would think.

 Especially since that range is from barely audible, to painful. Also, some of the unmodded emu series reach 120 Db dynamic range. Also, even 120Db is significantly out of the dynamic range of a CD. And several other formats.

 So yes, we do have measuring systems much much more accurate and sensitive than our own ears.


 This is where the discussions turn bad, when people give supernatural properties to things.


 Science and logic is about believing what is proven, NOT about believing what has yet to be disproven. And this is where the divide comes from.

 You can understand the cable effects best not by reading physics texts, but by reading pretty much any 1st year psych texts.


 EDIT: some quick links I could find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusor...nuity_of_tones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_tone
http://psy.ucsd.edu/~ddeutsch/psycho...l#Introduction (direct scientific research on psychoacoustics.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_Audio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/courses/sp...9_3/sld001.htm (intro to psychoacoustics)
http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception (great link, VERY vital to this topic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-pu...ationalization (another one that is vital)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_correlation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect


 The more you read about the mind, the more you will realize how easily persuaded it is. 

 Many studies have shown people will perceive things differently, when in reality nothing has change, or they perceived something that did not occur.

 If someone pays a fair amount of money for a product, they are more likely to THINK they are hearing a difference. For several reason's,

 One, they want to hear a difference.

 And two, they are listening more closely.

 If anyone wants to actually learn about the factors behind the cable effect. Do some research on perception, psychoacoustics, and self deception.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are correct peelax. *But this is when people start applying supernatural properties to things.*


 Also, kwkarth, if you do the math and convert those figures into decibels(that site has a converter). You will see the range is 10db to 140db. Not really as huge as you would think.

 Especially since that range is from barely audible, to painful. Also, some of the unmodded emu series reach 120 Db dynamic range. Also, even 120Db is significantly out of the dynamic range of a CD. And several other formats.

*So yes, we do have measuring systems much much more accurate and sensitive than our own ears.*


*This is where the discussions turn bad, when people give supernatural properties to things.*


*Science and logic is about believing what is proven, NOT about believing what has yet to be disproven. And this is where the divide comes from.*

*You can understand the cable effects best not by reading physics texts, but by reading pretty much any 1st year psych texts.*_

 

Am I to assume your intent to troll rather than discuss because you've resorted yet again to gross generalizations and invective as well as ignoring the references I posted? State your intent and I will take action accordingly.


----------



## cantsleep

do a comparision using; 
 -2 of same source(cdp) (see if anyone near you has same source. it shouldnt be too hard)
 -amp with dual input (switch feature)
 -headphone

 listen, switch back and forth. the test should be accurate as long as two sources are identically burned in and so on.

 if you dont hear the difference between cables, too bad.
 if you do, too bad for you, too, for you are going to end up spending more money.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Woah there pardoner. Let's not over simplify this thing. We're not talking about simple frequency domain or amplitude measurements here. There are extremely complex interrelationships between all the sounds of the spectrum and their octave to octave phase alignment, time and frequency domain._

 

I'm not a big fan of that techno speak that you read in sales literature. I liked Mr Wizard on TV with his practical applications of science that you could wrap your head around.

 A digital audio program is a great way to get a feeling for what makes a difference and what doesn't. For instance, take a digital reverb and slowly ramp up the delay until it starts to make a difference. Check out the numerical reading of the delay. You'd be amazed at how much of a time shift can take place before you can even discern it. Now compare that amount of time with the figures being tossed around in the threads dealing with jitter. They aren't even in the same ballpark. People are worrying about flecks on nicks in spots on bumps on hairs of gnats.

 Frequencies are what we actually hear. It's hard enough to achieve anywhere near flat response across the audible spectrum. Focus on that instead of wasting your time on tiny slivers of time that you can't even hear. All that stuff about phase and time and pits in CDs is easily disproven with a pair of headphones, a WAV file and a good 2 channel audio program.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Absolutely, the brain is an important part of the "system."_

 

Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you, yourself ever participated in any sort of an experiment to try an identify differences between cables, single blind or otherwise?_

 

Yep. An engineer at a sound studio I was recording at pulled out a Radio Shack cable and an expensive audiophile cable and did a quick single blind test with me and the people I was recording with. The engineer explained that the studio he had designed used cables he had made himself, but the only reason he did that was because of cost. It's a lot cheaper to buy connectors and spindles than it is to buy premade cables. He said that if he was in a position to not have a cable he needed for a particular patch, he would have no hesitation to send a PA to Radio Shack to pick one up. He would use it until it wore out without a bit of concern about the quality of the sound. This guy recorded some of the top names in the music business as well as the TV business. He could talk your ear off about miking and mixing theories. He knew his stuff and he was able to show me what he was talking about very clearly.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not a big fan of that techno speak that you read in sales literature. I liked Mr Wizard on TV with his practical applications of science that you could wrap your head around._

 

Neither am I.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A digital audio program is a great way to get a feeling for what makes a difference and what doesn't. For instance, take a digital reverb and slowly ramp up the delay until it starts to make a difference. Check out the numerical reading of the delay. You'd be amazed at how much of a time shift can take place before you can even discern it. _

 

I've done that a number of times when time aligning sound systems in large venues. Even under those relatively crude circumstances I could easily discern just a few (less than 3) milliseconds delay difference. What's your point?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now compare that amount of time with the figures being tossed around in the threads dealing with jitter. They aren't even in the same ballpark. People are worrying about flecks on nicks in spots on bumps on hairs of gnats._

 

I don't recall we were discussing jitter here in this thread. Did I miss something? I thought we were talking about hearing differences between interconnect cables.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So yes, we do have measuring systems much much more accurate and sensitive than our own ears._

 

There certainly are... there are devices that can see spots on the sun when all we see with our eyes is glare, and sonar that can detect reflected sound underwater miles away. An oscilloscope is a very useful tool for comparing audio equipment, and it can give an accurate representation of the audible spectrum of two channel sound.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't recall we were discussing jitter here in this thread. Did I miss something? I thought we were talking about hearing differences interconnect cables._

 

Perhaps I misunderstood... Are you saying that interconnects introduce timing and phase errors?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cantsleep* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_do a comparision using; 
 -2 of same source(cdp) (see if anyone near you has same source. it shouldnt be too hard)
 -amp with dual input (switch feature)
 -headphone
 listen, switch back and forth. the test should be accurate as long as two sources are identically burned in and so on._

 

The output levels of two identical sources may be different. You would need a preamp to balance the levels between the amp and source. Tiny variations in volume can sound like differences in audio quality. Balance the volume and the problems go away.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!_

 

Lol! No doubt!


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yep. An engineer at a sound studio I was recording at pulled out a Radio Shack cable and an expensive audiophile cable and did a quick single blind test with me and the people I was recording with. The engineer explained that the studio he had designed used cables he had made himself, but the only reason he did that was because of cost. It's a lot cheaper to buy connectors and spindles than it is to buy premade cables. He said that if he was in a position to not have a cable he needed for a particular patch, he would have no hesitation to send a PA to Radio Shack to pick one up. He would use it until it wore out without a bit of concern about the quality of the sound. This guy recorded some of the top names in the music business as well as the TV business. He could talk your ear off about miking and mixing theories. He knew his stuff and he was able to show me what he was talking about very clearly._

 

Been there, done that too. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, differences between cables for myself could only be heard with my better headphone systems. Differences were not audible with my speaker based systems.


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You may not realize it, but transistorized amplifiers *were* much better than the bulky, hissy, undependable, heat generating tube amps they replaced. And CDs do have the ability to sound better than LPs. You're applying the wrong cause to the effect. They don't sound good because they measure poorly.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Soft focus lens can produce "better" portrait. If you watch TV news show, sometimes they over use the soft focus lens on women anchor. So maybe there is good distortion and bad distortion to some.
 The sad part is I wonder how many "audiophile" go to live concert and remember what live music sounds like.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So why can't the brain tell us to hear different things because the perception we had that we should be hearing different things._

 

That doesn't wash with me as I went into this whole cable business a skeptic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 EDIT: I do agree with the larger point you were making in your post though, preconceptions can definitely have an effect on what we perceive.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps I misunderstood... Are you saying that interconnects introduce timing and phase errors?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Interconnects can alter the octave to octave phase relationships. (Group delay) This of course has to include reflections caused by termination and other impedance anomalies.


 But...I do not know conclusively if this is what is causing the audible differences people hear between cables. Just conjecture on my part so far.


----------



## chesebert

I thought this thread would be locked long time ago. Is the mod failing us?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Soft focus lens can produce "better" portrait. If you watch TV news show, sometimes they over use the soft focus lens on women anchor. So maybe there is good distortion and bad distortion to some.
 The sad part is I wonder how many "audiophile" go to live concert and remember what live music sounds like._

 

Absolutely, at least to my way of thinking, the live performance has to be our final standard of what sounds good and what doesn't.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That doesn't wash with me as I went into this whole cable business a skeptic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: I do agree with the larger point you were making in your post though, preconceptions can definitely have an effect on what we perceive._

 

I could easily believe that the differences were entirely in our heads if it weren't for the fact of repeatable results in single blind tests, and what sounds "better" does not at all correlate with what is more expensive or what is cheaper.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I thought this thread would be locked long time ago. Is the mod failing us?_

 

I've decided to lock users who repeatedly make trouble rather than lock the thread.

 See, I'm not above trying something new in the intrest of progress.


----------



## philodox

kwkarth - Very true, I've found many expensive cables that were bested by cheaper offerings.


----------



## LawnGnome

LawnGnome is away on vacation.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_kwkarth - Very true, I've found many expensive cables that were bested by cheaper offerings._

 

I am curious, can you give me a list? I still didn't find a better cable then the reference series IC i use now. And i tried and heard quite alot. Ranging from cheap to expensive. I ended up somewhere in the middle, buying second hand reference series of cables that otherwise would cost me an arm and a legg. In my system, it is way above anything else thus far.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If there are humans who are able to listen to music and discern .5dB differences in frequency response, they're wearing blue suits with red capes. Frequency masking can cause larger changes than the numbers would indicate, but it takes considerably more than .5dB to create any kind of discernable masking effect. It's important to keep in mind what these numbers relate to. 1dB isn't a heck of a lot of difference.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I would never claim such a thing, the science will back up 3db steps, since that doubles the perception of sound eg. it sounds twice as hard.

 O.5 db is a very tough task, but i know who you are talking about. But to be honest, he's the other end of extreem.

 Some things about cables and power i agree on with him, the rest is also a bit too extreem for me.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could easily believe that the differences were entirely in our heads if it weren't for the fact of repeatable results in single blind tests, and what sounds "better" does not at all correlate with what is more expensive or what is cheaper._

 

Hmm, in my system, the most expensive reference series IC's i use still sound better then anything cheap. Also much better then the cheaper cables of the brand itself. So, price IS to an extend responsable for quality but after a certain point the price is not in relation to the improvement, if any at all!

 E.g. a 3000 dollar ic can be as good as a 9000 dollar ic. A 150 dollar ic can be better then a 300 dollar ic etc. But on the other hand, i've never heard a 15 dollar ic sound as good as a more expensive one, let alone a high end cable.

 I've also tested home made high grade ic's but while good, didn't reach the level of the reference series of ic's.

 Some ic's have that magical touch that is not easy to reproduce; some have tried to copy certain brands and never really came close or bettered the original designs.

 I agree that a good or higher end system let you hear differences easier.

 I recently had my amp totally modded and i still can't believe how big the difference is! It's like going from listening to a disc, being transported into the live stage! That big a difference!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LawnGnome is away on vacation._

 

Have a nice vacation and enjoy the music.

 It's more fun listening to the music then talking about it anyway.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 But then again, what else would you do when you don't listen to music.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've decided to lock users who repeatedly make trouble rather than lock the thread.

 See, I'm not above trying something new in the intrest of progress. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Much better.

 Some people still wanna know why they hear what they hear and why some don't hear what i hear or what you hear.

 One plausable and very possible explaination is that ears are in general not the same.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, in my system, the most expensive reference series IC's i use still sound better then anything cheap. Also much better then the cheaper cables of the brand itself. So, price IS to an extend responsable for quality but after a certain point the price is not in relation to the improvement, if any at all!_

 

Yeah, to a degree I guess I have to agree with you here.
 I thought the Cardas Neutral Reference sounded better than any other cable I've heard, but I chose not to spring for that much dough. I settled for a second best solution that I could better afford. (to my ears and values)

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_E.g. a 3000 dollar ic can be as good as a 9000 dollar ic. A 150 dollar ic can be better then a 300 dollar ic etc. But on the other hand, i've never heard a 15 dollar ic sound as good as a more expensive one, let alone a high end cable._

 

I still have trouble with the ridiculously high buck cables. Seems to me like the manufacturer's are fleecing people with that stuff, but admittedly, I've never heard most of the ultra high buckage cables... At those prices, I'm not interested.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some ic's have that magical touch that is not easy to reproduce; some have tried to copy certain brands and never really came close or bettered the original designs.

 I agree that a good or higher end system let you hear differences easier.

 I recently had my amp totally modded and i still can't believe how big the difference is! It's like going from listening to a disc, being transported into the live stage! That big a difference!_

 

Agreed!


----------



## Superpredator

I see that my last post was deleted. So my pointing out the ludicrousness of people condemning others who rely on their own experience doesn't fly, but comments like this do?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sometimes I think some people around here have been modding their brains, if you know what I mean!_

 

If it's acceptable to throw out blanket accusations that people who have heard significant differences between cables are "modding their brains," then it should certainly be acceptable to point out the fact that skeptics who regard these heard differences as unreliable experiences should probably go ahead and discount any opinion anyone ever has.

 By the way, bigshot, I'm still waiting on a response to my reply to your translation post. The mere fact that you reduced specific if poetic descriptions of subtle sonic qualities to "technical" words that failed on every level to capture what the "flowery" descriptions actually conveyed says to me that it's quite possible that you don't know what those things are. I'm not trying to question your ability to hear, as I find that practice extremely rude, but I'm having a hard time reconciling your really poor translations with someone who knows what it is he is hearing.

 And please don't assume you know what my opinion is regarding cables. Not everyone who has experienced significant differences between _some _cables is a rabid believer gulping down snake oil. Not everyone delved into the whole cable mess wanting to believe _anything_ specific, and for the record there have been plenty of instances in my own experience when I've found expensive cables inferior to ones costing 1/8 the price.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interconnects can alter the octave to octave phase relationships. (Group delay) This of course has to include reflections cause by termination and other impedance anomalies._

 

How would that be affected by the materials used? It seems like that would be a design issue. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how the difference between copper and silver can cause a big enough alteration to the phase to affect the whole color of the upper mids. Wouldn't a test tone show this up on the waveform?

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see that my last post was deleted. So my pointing out the ludicrousness of people condemning others who rely on their own experience doesn't fly, but comments like this do?_

 

Your deleted post was a direct attack on a single individual, and further, added nothing new to the discussion:
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* 
_Dude where's your objective proof that you went into this as a skeptic? If your brain is telling you that cables can sound different from one another how can you trust your brain? Please discount your own experience from here on out, k?_

 

So play nice and your posts won't disappear, k?

 I'm trying my best to be objective here. The peacemaker usually takes fire from both sides. So be it.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How would that be affected by the materials used? It seems like that would be a design issue. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how the difference between copper and silver can cause a big enough alteration to the phase to affect the whole color of the upper mids. Wouldn't a test tone show this up on the waveform?

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

Fair questions. I'll do my best to answer;
 In theory, It has a lot to do with more than just the conductors themselves. The geometry of construction (proximity (parallelism)) can allow EM inductive interference between conductors such that dynamic impedance changes cause minor group delay issues. This is obviously (at least in my mind) not a factor in low impedance interconnects for things like speakers, but may be a factor in source to amp interconnects. Again, this would be dependent upon both source and drain impedances and upon the nature of the connectors used. If the characteristic impedance of the connector is different from that of the conductor, reflections could arise, etc. Anyway, this is just my half cocked attempt to understand what I'm hearing. This may also help explain why some source/amps are more sensitive to cables than others. 

 Besides the construction geometry, connectors, and impedance matching/signal reflection concerns, there's the dielectric constant of the insulator material used and how much energy it stores and then releases again. Anyway, as I said, this is my struggle to understand why I hear diferences between cables. Some day we'll get it figured out!

 Test tones? Scope? certainly with complex waveforms as in real music, no, I doubt we'd ever see it. Using square waves and observing rise and fall times, overshoot/undershoot, and ringing might give a clue to sonic problems... Not sure. We can always use TDR to see impedance bumps and concomitant reflections at very high frequencies, but there's no guarantee that there's any translation down into audio frequencies, theoretically there's none...maybe we just don't know yet.


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interconnects can alter the octave to octave phase relationships. (Group delay) This of course has to include reflections cause by termination and other impedance anomalies.


 But...I do not know conclusively if this is what is causing the audible differences people hear between cables. Just conjecture on my part so far._

 

One of the most important things that affects the sound of cables is capacitance & its relationship to the output impedance. High output impedance from your source will cause more muffled sound than the same cable plugged into an otherwise equal componant but with lower output impedance. 

 The same is true the other way that if you increase the capacitance of the cabling but leave the output impedance the same ( I'm talking a relatively high output impedance that is common on most CD players & other sources ie. 600 ohms or higher) your sound will become more muffled as you increase the capacitance. I have found capacitances of as low as 95pf to have a negative effect on the sound. 

 For this reason I make my own cables that have 50pf or less capacitance for my CD & DVD players & also to connect my preamp to the amps in my speakers. I use standard cabling to connect my computer to my preamp as the low output impedance is less prone to deteriorating the sound with normal capacitance cabling. 

 The best case scenerio is if we could match all the impedances (input & output) to the impedance characteristics if a cable with a know impedance characteristic. Example imput & output impedance of 50 ohms coupled with cabling that has a 50 ohm impedance characteristic (common CB RF cable has this impedance characteristic for example).

 Impedance characteristic in a cable refers to where the inductance & the capacitance of the cabling balances out & gives the best wide band performance. 50ohm cable will have flat response well out into the 100's of megahertz when coupled with a matched imput and output impedance & hense have no sound of its own to speak of.

 Part of the difference that people hear when going between silver & copper cabling is not just the wire itself but the insulation & geometry & its effects on the capacitance of the cabling. Silver cabling being more expensive they usually use better materials & geometry on the silver cables but copper can sound just as good given the same attention. Better insulaters yield lower capacitance for the same geometry.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *germanium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One of the most important things that affects the sound of cables is capacitance & its relationship to the output impedance. High output impedance from your source will cause more muffled sound than the same cable plugged into an otherwise equal componant but with lower output impedance. 

 The same is true the other way that if you increase the capacitance of the cabling but leave the output impedance the same ( I'm talking a relatively high output impedance that is common on most CD players & other sources ie. 600 ohms or higher) your sound will become more muffled as you increase the capacitance. I have found capacitances of as low as 95pf to have a negative effect on the sound. 

 For this reason I make my own cables that have 50pf or less capacitance for my CD & DVD players & also to connect my preamp to the amps in my speakers. I use standard cabling to connect my computer to my preamp as the low output impedance is less prone to deteriorating the sound with normal capacitance cabling. 

 The best case scenerio is if we could match all the impedances (input & output) to the impedance characteristics if a cable with a know impedance characteristic. Example imput & output impedance of 50 ohms coupled with cabling that has a 50 ohm impedance characteristic (common CB RF cable has this impedance characteristic for example).

 Impedance characteristic in a cable refers to where the inductance & the capacitance of the cabling balances out & gives the best wide band performance. 50ohm cable will have flat response well out into the 100's of megahertz when coupled with a matched imput and output impedance & hense have no sound of its own to speak of.

 Part of the difference that people hear when going between silver & copper cabling is not just the wire itself but the insulation & geometry & its effects on the capacitance of the cabling. Silver cabling being more expensive they usually use better materials & geometry on the silver cables but copper can sound just as good given the same attention. Better insulaters yield lower capacitance for the same geometry._

 

This is what i've been reporting in other threads as well, and inductance and capacitance figures between the best and worst measuring cables were 600 and 800 percent difference! You bet you can hear that. The best only had 6 pf, worst about 60pf.
 The 6pf farad cable sounds the best though. Contradictive with your findings.

 probably one of the reasons why cables can sound bad on one rig and shine on others. I've been through that process couple of times.

 Pure silver cables mostly use teflon as insulator. Teflon is known as the best insulator. might have impact on the sound as well, since it leaks less into the core, means less sound smearing.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is what i've been reporting in other threads as well, and inductance and capacitance figures between the best and worst measuring cables were 600 and 800 percent difference! You bet you can hear that. The best only had 6 pf, worst about 60pf.
 The 6pf farad cable sounds the best though. Contradictive with your findings.

 probably one of the reasons why cables can sound bad on one rig and shine on others. I've been through that process couple of times.

 Pure silver cables mostly use teflon as insulator. Teflon is known as the best insulator. might have impact on the sound as well, since it leaks less into the core, means less sound smearing._

 

Many many years ago, I built some interconnects using scope probe wire which was only about 5pf per foot. It was ok, but I think in that case, the geometry and insulation was not the right stuff.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, to a degree I guess I have to agree with you here.
 I thought the Cardas Neutral Reference sounded better than any other cable I've heard, but I chose not to spring for that much dough. I settled for a second best solution that I could better afford. (to my ears and values)


 I still have trouble with the ridiculously high buck cables. Seems to me like the manufacturer's are fleecing people with that stuff, but admittedly, I've never heard most of the ultra high buckage cables... At those prices, I'm not interested.


 Agreed!_

 

That's why i buy them second hand, better bang for the buck but high end performance!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Many many years ago, I built some interconnects using scope probe wire which was only about 5pf per foot. It was ok, but I think in that case, the geometry and insulation was not the right stuff._

 

Don't forget how much of an influence plugs and insulation has on the sound, insulations leaks and the worst leaks the most. It means that signal is leaking back into the core wich smears sound. The one that smears less, gives the cleanest signal. This is inherant to physics and cannot be avoided. So trying to make it best as possible is a pre.

 This phenomenon is also linked to burnin of cables. The insulator has to adopt to the signal and after time it leaks constant.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fair questions. I'll do my best to answer;
 In theory, It has a lot to do with more than just the conductors themselves. The geometry of construction (proximity (parallelism)) can allow EM inductive interference between conductors such that dynamic impedance changes cause minor group delay issues. This is obviously (at least in my mind) not a factor in low impedance interconnects for things like speakers, but may be a factor in source to amp interconnects. Again, this would be dependent upon both source and drain impedances and upon the nature of the connectors used. If the characteristic impedance of the connector is different from that of the conductor, reflections could arise, etc. Anyway, this is just my half cocked attempt to understand what I'm hearing. This may also help explain why some source/amps are more sensitive to cables than others. 

 Besides the construction geometry, connectors, and impedance matching/signal reflection concerns, there's the dielectric constant of the insulator material used and how much energy it stores and then releases again. Anyway, as I said, this is my struggle to understand why I hear diferences between cables. Some day we'll get it figured out!

 Test tones? Scope? certainly with complex waveforms as in real music, no, I doubt we'd ever see it. Using square waves and observing rise and fall times, overshoot/undershoot, and ringing might give a clue to sonic problems... Not sure. We can always use TDR to see impedance bumps and concomitant reflections at very high frequencies, but there's no guarantee that there's any translation down into audio frequencies, theoretically there's none...maybe we just don't know yet._

 

I red somewhere that the cleaner the crystal structure of the core, the better the frequencies travel through that core. So, alot of impurities like cheap copper can have affect of how frequencies travel through the core and come out at the other end. maybe one of the reasons why silver or silver plated copper has extended highs?!

 In the end, the best sounding cable might just be a mix of well thought through design.


----------



## xenithon

Quote:


 I read somewhere that the cleaner the crystal structure of the core, the better the frequencies travel through that core 
 

Have heard/read that too. With all the debates surrounding cables though, it is difficult to tell what is truly (scientifically?) valid and what is "snake oil".

 Now I remember....Harmonic Technology with their Single Crystal design and Analysis Plus with their Solo Crystal design (click on link for _Harmonic's_ explanation on Single Crystal designs).


----------



## sugarinthegourd

If incredibly small amounts of capacitance create an audible effect, the best solution would be to physically separate the "hot" and "ground" wires -- air is a cheap and plentiful dielectric. So why not just use lamp cord with little spacers that hold the 2 wires a couple inches apart. Probably don't want to use RCA jacks at all -- instead you'd need a new connector designed for close to 0pF capacitance. Should be very cheap and easy, and you could use 3 cents per foot lamp cord for your interconnects. Problem solved!


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 The insulator has to adopt to the signal and after time it leaks constant. 
 












 This is pure mumbo-jumbo. We're back in the land of dead chicken-waving now.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If incredibly small amounts of capacitance create an audible effect, the best solution would be to physically separate the "hot" and "ground" wires -- air is a cheap and plentiful dielectric. So why not just use lamp cord with little spacers that hold the 2 wires a couple inches apart. Probably don't want to use RCA jacks at all -- instead you'd need a new connector designed for close to 0pF capacitance. Should be very cheap and easy, and you could use 3 cents per foot lamp cord for your interconnects. Problem solved!_

 

Air has the next bast dielectric property to a perfect vacuum. That's why cotton seems to make a great insulator in cable construction. It's mostly air.

 The trouble with using lamp cord is that it isn't shielded in any way. in our world with so much RF and EM hash in the air, you pretty much need some form of shielding even for line level signal propagation, even if it's only UTP, and then you're back to the importance of the dielectric again. It's not only raw capacitance, but also the character of the dielectric as well. Connectors do make a big difference and there are large differences between connectors.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


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











 This is pure mumbo-jumbo. We're back in the land of dead chicken-waving now._

 

C'mon now, if you're going to discuss Campbell's theory of audio, do it nicely.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


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












 This is pure mumbo-jumbo. We're back in the land of dead chicken-waving now._

 

No it isn't learn physics of electrical components first before you comment.

 "The problem is that any insulating material next to a conductor acts like a capacitor which stores and
 later releases energy. This is true of circuit board materials, cables, resistors and of course capacitors.
 The ideal wire is one with no insulation except for air. When a solid material must be applied, it should
 be electrically invisible, meaning that the less energy it absorbs, the better. The energy which is absorbed
 should stay absorbed (turned into heat, a high dissipation factor), and the energy which does
 come back into the metal conductor should have minimal phase shift and not be frequency selective
 (a high velocity of propagation, independent of frequency). All dielectrics absorb more energy at higher
 frequencies, but some are more linear in their overall behavior relative to frequency."

 The knowledge of sceptics is mumbo jumbo.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Air has the next bast dielectric property to a perfect vacuum. That's why cotton seem to make a great insulator in cable construction. It's mostly air.

 The trouble with using lamp cord is that it isn't shielded in any way. in our world with so much RF and EM hash in the air, you pretty much need some form of shielding even for line level signal propagation, even if it's only UTP, and then you're back to the importance of the dielectric again. It's not only raw capacitance, but also the character of the dielectric as well. Connectors do make a big difference and there are large differences between connectors._

 

You betcha. If i had a long enough IC, i would hardwire it into my amp, avoiding any plug at all. And saving 200 quit for high end plugs.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:













 This is pure mumbo-jumbo. We're back in the land of dead chicken-waving now. 
 

I think the intent was to discuss the importance of "forming" of the lumped capacitance which makes up the cable. There are a whole line of AQ (DBS) cables which have battery driven pre stressed capacitance based upon this theory. Probably 95% hokus pokus, and 5% validity. It's still 5%.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the intent was to discuss the importance of "forming" of the lumped capacitance which make op the cable. There are a whole line of AQ (DBS) cables which have battery driven pre stressed capacitance based upon this theory. Probably 95% hokus pokus, and 5% validity. It's still 5%._

 

You allready know what "audiophiles" do for the last 5%.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You allready know what "audiophiles" do for the last 5%.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hmmm, but I found it difficult to concentrate on the music while standing on my head.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmmm, but I found it difficult to concentrate on the music while standing on my head._

 

1) I bet it sounded distorted as well, ears are ment to be used standing or sitting. So what audiophiles do is to sit in a lazy chair(making themselfs comfortable), get a nice glass of wine or other liquid, turn on the amp, the cdplayer or recordplayer and put on the headphone.

 Some even might smoke a sigar.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 2) You KNOW that people only can listen to music relaxed when everything is sounding "right". So, before that, critical listening IS essential. If this chapter is finished, return to nr 1!


----------



## kwkarth

Here's a blurb from the manufacturer of the interconnects I use most widely in my system. They're not the best I've heard, but they're very, very close at a fraction of the price. Their price has pretty much doubled since I first started buying them, but even at the current $34.95/0.5m pair and $49.95 per 1.2m pair, they're a lot of bang for the buck.

*Manufacturing*
 First, all Outlaw cables are designed by us in conjunction with a world-class, ISO 9002 certified manufacturer in Taiwan. Prior to offering these cables we met with the manufacturer and personally inspected the facilities where raw copper ingots are processed, extruded, and built into our own PCA offerings. Even the connectors are made for us and the final assembly is done under strict supervision with silver content solder. Make no mistake about it; these cables are manufactured under the strictest quality controlled conditions.

*Philosophy and Design*
 We are firm believers in the use of twisted, twin conductor construction for analog audio interconnects. This type of construction is superior due to the natural hum and noise reduction when twisted pairs are used, something not possible when coax type construction is used for audio applications. In addition, the use of twisted pair construction allows us to build semi-balanced style cables, where the ground is lifted at one end. This allows for a further degree of noise immunity not possible when coax style cables are used for audio applications.

 To further increase the transparency of our cables, the PCA interconnects are designed in a "dual-symmetrical" configuration, with two separately jacketed conductor paths for each side of the cable. The PCA cables have a dual shield system to isolate them from RFI and EMI as well as the digital noise that permeates today's complex audio/video systems. A 100% coverage copper foil shield, as opposed to the less expensive aluminum shield used in competitive products, is the first line of defense, covered in turn by a high-coverage copper braided shield. This dual system gives the maximum possible defense against both high and low frequency intrusion into the audio signal path.

 The PCA cables have an internal fabric braid and the outer covering is a tough, clear PVC jacket. The connections are made with silver content solder and high quality locking connectors are used.

 Unlike many of the myriads of cable companies on the market today, there ain't no smoke and mirrors here! Our cables utilize real world technologies that just sound better. As you may have read in our FAQ, or in prior newsletters, our PCA cables list "OCC" as a main feature. So what does that mean? The OCC process for refining copper was developed and patented by Professor Ohno of the Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan and is licensed to our manufacturer for use in the production of wire and cable products for the audio/video industry. In conventional processing, hot molten copper is poured into a cooled mold for extrusion, resulting in multiple, fractionated crystal structure. While the copper may be "pure" in the sense of measuring gas impurities in the copper in comparison to standard copper refining techniques, Oxygen Free Copper (OFC) has undesirable effects that lead many to use more expensive materials such as silver for their conductive strands.






 As developed for A/V cable use, the OCC process utilizes a heated mold for casting and extruding, with cooling taking place in a separate process. The result is a larger crystal size and increased purity that approaches the 6N, 99.9998%! Looking at it another way, traditional copper has oxygen impurities of 200 to 500 parts per million (PPM), while traditional OFC copper reduces that to less than 10 PPM. With the OCC process, the figure is cut in half to less than 5 PPM of oxygen, and less than 0.25 PPM of hydrogen (compared to 0.5 PPM for OFC). See figure 1.

 With these results, the OCC process creates "ultra-pure" copper, and thus the acronym for the copper material is more properly known as "UP-OCC", for Ultra-Pure, Ohno Continuous Casting.

 Now that you know what "OCC" is, it is important to understand what it does. *Using UP-OCC material produces a truly unidirectional copper crystal* that is as free from impurities as possible to prevent corrosion. It increases flexibility and fatigue resistance without impairing conductive characteristics. It offers extremely low electrical resistance and rapid signal transmission. In plain English, your signals get from point A to B without losing the detail, soundstage, and bass response of the original recording. 

*(smoke and mirrors section highlighted for clarity)* The important thing is they're built well, using good connectors, good cable, good solder, and they sound good.


----------



## bigshot

I'm sorry, but I'm a practical soul. I've been around enough stereo salesmen to not trust any manufacturer's sales sheets. I've found that most sales pitch like this is deliberate obfuscation designed to induce OCD. (I love how they helpfully translate all the gobbledegook for you in the last sentence!) A year or two ago, I spent three days researching and puzzling out jitter. When I was done, all I had to show for it was three days of my life that I'll never get back. I'm not going to sit down and puzzle out this particular patter. If someone with an electrical engineering background wants to tackle it, I say more power to you.

 Salesmen always want to make everything so complicated. The scientific principles behind a wire running between two components should be very simple. I'm betting that 99% of audio cables have absolutely none of the problems that the manufacturers are helpfully offering to fix for us.

 If you're a big fan of complication, there's a delightfully complicated way to test to see if cables are "leaking" or interference is causing problems. Get a spindle of regular old shielded copper interconnect wire. On the spindle, it's wrapped around and around on itself. Plenty of opportunity to leak all over the place! (Put down a tarp in case it leaks on the floor.) Attach connectors to each end. Plug the spindle in. Compare it to a short cable. No difference? Get a bigger spindle! Roll it out on the floor in a big tangled mess and figure out how long a cable needs to be before the quality degradation is obvious to your ears. Then look at the difference between that monster of wire piled up all over your living room and your three foot interconnect from Radio Shack that works perfectly fine for four bucks.

 Or just do controlled, blind, level balanced A/B testing between a fancy cable and a Radio Shack one and find out the exact same thing.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sugarinthegourd

I do have an approx. 90' run of lamp cord through the basement to a set of (non-audiophile) bookshelf speakers in my kitchen. They sound fine, although something funny does happen: at low volumes sometimes one or both speakers will cut out. Turning the volume up will get the sound going -- it can then be turned back down to where it was and will remain OK until it is turned down to a very low level again when the problem will remanifest itself. I don't know why this happens, but I would expect the impedence introduced by 90' of lamp cord would be a problem.


----------



## tin ears

Or you could simply have a crappy volume pot that craps out one channel or both at low volume.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sorry, but I'm a practical soul. I've been around enough stereo salesmen to not trust any manufacturer's sales sheets. I've found that most sales pitch like this is deliberate obfuscation designed to induce OCD. (I love how they helpfully translate all the gobbledegook for you in the last sentence!) A year or two ago, I spent three days researching and puzzling out jitter. When I was done, all I had to show for it was three days of my life that I'll never get back. I'm not going to sit down and puzzle out this particular patter. If someone with an electrical engineering background wants to tackle it, I say more power to you.

 Salesmen always want to make everything so complicated. The scientific principles behind a wire running between two components should be very simple. I'm betting that 99% of audio cables have absolutely none of the problems that the manufacturers are helpfully offering to fix for us.

*If you're a big fan of complication, there's a delightfully complicated way to test to see if cables are "leaking" or interference is causing problems. Get a spindle of regular old shielded copper interconnect wire. On the spindle, it's wrapped around and around on itself. Plenty of opportunity to leak all over the place! (Put down a tarp in case it leaks on the floor.) Attach connectors to each end. Plug the spindle in. Compare it to a short cable. No difference? Get a bigger spindle! Roll it out on the floor in a big tangled mess and figure out how long a cable needs to be before the quality degradation is obvious to your ears. Then look at the difference between that monster of wire piled up all over your living room and your three foot interconnect from Radio Shack that works perfectly fine for four bucks.
*
 Or just do controlled, blind, level balanced A/B testing between a fancy cable and a Radio Shack one and find out the exact same thing.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Steve,
 I'm not sure who you are responding to, but please cut back on the goofy things like I've highlighted above. That doesn't help anybody. If you're responding to my post of the Outlaw cables, I highlighted the double talk to make sure everyone knew that's what it was. In spite of that double talk they are honestly well constructed cables and worth the $$ for their quality alone even if you don't believe in hearing differences in cables. They are far better built than anything TRS sells, and actually cheaper than some of the stuff TRS sells.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do have an approx. 90' run of lamp cord through the basement to a set of (non-audiophile) bookshelf speakers in my kitchen. They sound fine, although something funny does happen: at low volumes sometimes one or both speakers will cut out. Turning the volume up will get the sound going -- it can then be turned back down to where it was and will remain OK until it is turned down to a very low level again when the problem will remanifest itself. I don't know why this happens, but I would expect the impedence introduced by 90' of lamp cord would be a problem._

 

Nothing wrong with lamp cord for general purpose speaker wire, although I would recommend a half twist every couple feet or so to prevent RFI from getting back into your amp via the "antenna" that the lamp cord presents. I wouldn't think the cut out problem has anything at all to do with your speaker cable. As tin ears suggested, it could simply be a bad pot. At the low impedances of an amp's output, 90' of lamp cord would not likely present any capacitive loading problem.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tin ears* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or you could simply have a crappy volume pot that craps out one channel or both at low volume._

 

Don't think so -- it's an NAD amp in perfect working order and the mains are fine -- the 90' run is to auxilliary speakers. The speakers in question aren't great either (cheap Wharfedales) but they are easy to drive...


----------



## tin ears

Try hooking you short run mains to the aux out and vice versa with the 90fter.


----------



## rsaavedra

Move your speakers just to try with very short cables (different from the lamp cord) and see if the problem persists. If so, then you know the 90' lamp cord isn't the culprit.


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 No it isn't learn physics of electrical components first before you comment.

 "The problem is that any insulating material next to a conductor acts like a capacitor which stores and
 later releases energy. This is true of circuit board materials, cables, resistors and of course capacitors.
 The ideal wire is one with no insulation except for air. When a solid material must be applied, it should
 be electrically invisible, meaning that the less energy it absorbs, the better. The energy which is absorbed
 should stay absorbed (turned into heat, a high dissipation factor), and the energy which does
 come back into the metal conductor should have minimal phase shift and not be frequency selective
 (a high velocity of propagation, independent of frequency). All dielectrics absorb more energy at higher
 frequencies, but some are more linear in their overall behavior relative to frequency."

*The knowledge of sceptics is mumbo jumbo.* 
 

Shouldn't you tell off Tourm too kwkarth 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Where was the info from Tourm? I have a nice counter article:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...ables-debunked

 Here is a nice one about Skin effect:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-cables-page-3

  Quote:


 Unlike many of the myriads of cable companies on the market today, there ain't no smoke and mirrors here! 
 

 hehe


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shouldn't you tell off Tourm too kwkarth 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where was the info from Tourm? I have a nice counter article:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...ables-debunked

 Here is a nice one about Skin effect:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-cables-page-3

 hehe_

 

I suppose you're right. I guess I missed that one.
 tourmaline, straighten up and fly right! Cool down papa, don't you blow your top!
 Thanks!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suppose you're right. I guess I missed that one.
 tourmaline, straighten up and fly right! Cool down papa, don't you blow your top!
 Thanks!_

 

yes daddy.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shouldn't you tell off Tourm too kwkarth 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where was the info from Tourm? I have a nice counter article:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...ables-debunked

 Here is a nice one about Skin effect:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-cables-page-3

 hehe_

 

I didn't start the mumbo jumbo part.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 he doesn't debunk it, as a matter afact he confirms this effect exists. he states it isn't audible like anything else.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shouldn't you tell off Tourm too kwkarth 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where was the info from Tourm? I have a nice counter article:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...ables-debunked

 Here is a nice one about Skin effect:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-cables-page-3

 hehe_

 

These articles are about *speaker cables* , not line level interconnects. I agree, many things that are important factors with interconnects are insignificant with speaker cables. Our thread is about line level interconnects as far as I know. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
 [size=large]
 Let's not get the two mixed up.[/size] There's a world of difference, and it's a different discussion entirely, just as it would be for power cords.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

If speaker cables don't have problems with dielectric capacitance, then line-level interconnects _certainly _don't!

 As one of those excellent articles concludes:

  Quote:


 *this theory cannot be sound as it violates basic Electrical Engineering Principles, the Laws of Physics, and common sense.* 
 

A perfect summary of some of the pseudo-science that is bandied about by cable manufacturers, 6moons reviews, and in many of these threads.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If speaker cables don't have problems with dielectric capacitance, then line-level interconnects certainly don't!

 As one of those excellent articles concludes:

 A perfect summary of some of the pseudo-science that is bandied about by cable manufacturers, 6moons reviews, and in many of these threads._

 

You've got it backwards. 

 Please do not confuse speaker cable with interconnects. They are two entirely different worlds. Line level interconnects are FAR more sensitive to all forms of loading, *real* or *imaginary*, lumped, or discrete. (FYI, I'm using the words *real* and *imaginary* in the engineering sense of resistance and reactance...just for fun.) BTW, interconnects are also vulnerable to RFI and EMI, far more so than speaker cables. As a matter of fact, the only vulnerability that speaker cables have to EMI and RFI is with regards to any of that getting back into the amp via the negative feedback loop.

 So let's keep things straight.

 Nonetheless, here's a more relevant article from Audioholics that *supports* folks that say they cannot hear interconnect differences:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-cables-page-5

 In my humble opinion, it contains some very good factual information and also a measure of subjective bias. That's ok, most everything you could read is biased one way or the other anyway. There's probably more good than bad. It's worth the read anyway.
 Cheers!


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your deleted post was a direct attack on a single individual, and further, added nothing new to the discussion:

 So play nice and your posts won't disappear, k?

 I'm trying my best to be objective here. The peacemaker usually takes fire from both sides. So be it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ha, that was not an attack. That was pure stanky facetiousness at its best, and not at all directed at philodox, who I rather agree with most of the time.

 As to whether the post added something new to the discussion, well, I think you should grade me on the curve.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ha, that was not an attack. That was pure stanky facetiousness at its best, and not at all directed at philodox, who I rather agree with most of the time.

 As to whether the post added something new to the discussion, well, I think you should grade me on the curve._

 

Well, geeze, if I grade on a curve you'd get an A+. That wouldn't be any fun, would it?


----------



## Quaddy

so does this thread win the record for the most admin rebuttles? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it sure is interesting material to read, everyones knowledge is amazing!!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so does this thread win the record for the most admin rebuttles? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it sure is interesting material to read, everyones knowledge is amazing!!_

 

There are a lot of smart cookies around here!

 As far as my participation goes, my posts, for the most part, are just me participating as a fellow enthusiast. I try to keep the two hats separate as much as possible.
 I only put on the mod hat to try and keep things congenial so we can all learn from one another.


----------



## Quaddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are a lot of smart cookies around here!_

 

you do very well, i am not licking admin @$$ here, but your replies are long and complex and well thought out, and i think you balance the guardian-peer thing rather decently.

 i am a half eaten cookie at the moment, knowledge wize, maybe thats too generous, but would like oneday to be a fully formed chewy white choc and pecan cookie! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 p.s. i will jump off this thread now. sry.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you do very well, i am not licking admin @$$ here, but your replies are long and complex and well thought out, and i think you balance the guardian-peer thing rather decently.

 i am a half eaten cookie at the moment, knowledge wize, maybe thats too generous, but would like oneday to be a fully formed chewy white choc and pecan cookie! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 p.s. i will jump off this thread now. sry._

 

Thanks I appreciate a pat on the back once in a while. I do try my best, but usually, I'm only a half baked cookie most of the time..... wait a minute... that has another connotation as well.... ah, never mind.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you do very well, i am not licking admin @$$ here, but your replies are long and complex and well thought out, and i think you balance the guardian-peer thing rather decently.

 i am a half eaten cookie at the moment, knowledge wize, maybe thats too generous, but would like oneday to be a fully formed chewy white choc and pecan cookie! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 p.s. i will jump off this thread now. sry._

 

He's really needed in threads like these, believe me! Some other cable threads are closed down because they turned really nasty in no-time!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If speaker cables don't have problems with dielectric capacitance, then line-level interconnects certainly don't!

 As one of those excellent articles concludes:



 A perfect summary of some of the pseudo-science that is bandied about by cable manufacturers, 6moons reviews, and in many of these threads._

 






*"With a nominal 4ohm impedance speaker, the resistive losses at these cable lengths would dominate and result in over 2.4dB of signal loss alone, not to mention destroying the damping factor of the system. Add in the reactance losses (inductance and capacitance) and we see a whopping 11dB of loss (not factoring in any potential amplifier stability issues from the high reactance of the cable).*

 I guess you did miss this one. Do you think 11db isn't audible?! Ok, it's a long cable but it's there!
 If we translate that to way more sensative IC's, you could see on this scale an audible signal loss.

 For IC's it gets even worse, since the signal is a magnitude smaller then in speaker cable.

 Also, people who measured cables do recognize inductance and capacitance as the two main factors of how a cable sounds.

*"(not factoring in any potential amplifier stability issues from the high reactance of the cable)."*




 This explains nicely why some cables sound better on one system then another.

 So, as a matter afact he doesn't debunk anything, he even confirms what i posted in several threads.

 The question is, who can hear a difference between 0.5db to 3db, that's the figures we're talking about in IC's.

 Some can, some don't.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You've got it backwards. 

 Please do not confuse speaker cable with interconnects. They are two entirely different worlds. Line level interconnects are FAR more sensitive to all forms of loading, *real* or *imaginary*, lumped, or discrete. (FYI, I'm using the words *real* and *imaginary* in the engineering sense of resistance and reactance...just for fun.) BTW, interconnects are also vulnerable to RFI and EMI, far more so than speaker cables. As a matter of fact, the only vulnerability that speaker cables have to EMI and RFI is with regards to any of that getting back into the amp via the negative feedback loop.

 So let's keep things straight.

 Nonetheless, here's a more relevant article from Audioholics that *supports* folks that say they cannot hear interconnect differences:

http://www.audioholics.com/education...-cables-page-5

 In my humble opinion, it contains some very good factual information and also a measure of subjective bias. That's ok, most everything you could read is biased one way or the other anyway. There's probably more good than bad. It's worth the read anyway.
 Cheers!_

 

The link is in contradiction of what you stated in this thread about the high end cables you heard and you clearly stated they sounded "better" then the cheaper one.

 "Summary 
 Aside from interference pickup, capacitance and crosstalk are the only real potential problem with interconnects.* Capacitance can be minimised by selection of the cable*. In come cases, even though the impedance of the preamp may be low enough, use of a *highly capacitive cable *may cause RF instability in the output stages - *this will definitely ruin the sound.*

 Clear enough.

 So can we conclude from this that a more expensive cable is better balanced for stability with amps?!

 Also he clearly states that picking the "right' cable IS of importance.

 So instead of people debunking, most people confirm the differences between cables and how they react with an amp. So, cable matching is also confirmed.

 Now i know why my cable sounds so good, it has one of the lowest capacitance figures!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The link is in contradiction of what you stated in this thread about the high end cables you heard and you clearly stated they sounded "better" then the cheaper one._

 

Yes, it clearly is. I commented on that at the bottom of my post too. It was posted as a courtesy to the adherents of all cables sound the same.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Summary 
 Aside from interference pickup, capacitance and crosstalk are the only real potential problem with interconnects.* Capacitance can be minimised by selection of the cable*. In come cases, even though the impedance of the preamp may be low enough, use of a *highly capacitive cable *may cause RF instability in the output stages - *this will definitely ruin the sound.*

 Clear enough._

 

Well, not quite. That is, as you know, not the whole story by a long shot.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So can we conclude from this that a more expensive cable is better balanced for stability with amps?!_

 

No, I don't think we can conclude that at all from the information presented.
 There is nothing said here regarding cost unless I missed it, and even if I did miss that sort of statement, we've already agreed that cost does not directly correlate with performance or sound.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also he clearly states that picking the "right' cable IS of importance._

 

Many of us believe that because we've experienced that. But picking the "right" cable is a relative term and what might be the right cable in one system, may in fact be the wrong cable for the next.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So instead of people debunking, most people confirm the differences between cables and how they react with an amp. So, cable matching is also confirmed._

 

 I don't know if I would go so far as to say "most" people, I would say that people who hear cable differences are in the minority.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now i know why my cable sounds so good, it has one of the lowest capacitance figures!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm sure that's one of the reasons, and there are probably more.


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is what i've been reporting in other threads as well, and inductance and capacitance figures between the best and worst measuring cables were 600 and 800 percent difference! You bet you can hear that. The best only had 6 pf, worst about 60pf.
 The 6pf farad cable sounds the best though. Contradictive with your findings.

 probably one of the reasons why cables can sound bad on one rig and shine on others. I've been through that process couple of times.

 Pure silver cables mostly use teflon as insulator. Teflon is known as the best insulator. might have impact on the sound as well, since it leaks less into the core, means less sound smearing._

 

I have never measured any that had less than 50pf/meter though I have made some that were prbably about 10pf out of copper tubing & they sounded great. They weren't very flexable though & had to be made for each connection for the proper lenth & bends. I use a different configuraton now that works just as well but more practical. I never measured the copper tubing interconnect capacitance but the overall design suggested very very low capacitance.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


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





*"With a nominal 4ohm impedance speaker, the resistive losses at these cable lengths would dominate and result in over 2.4dB of signal loss alone, not to mention destroying the damping factor of the system. Add in the reactance losses (inductance and capacitance) and we see a whopping 11dB of loss (not factoring in any potential amplifier stability issues from the high reactance of the cable).*

 I guess you did miss this one. Do you think 11db isn't audible?! Ok, it's a long cable but it's there!
 If we translate that to way more sensative IC's, you could see on this scale an audible signal loss.

 For IC's it gets even worse, since the signal is a magnitude smaller then in speaker cable.

 Also, people who measured cables do recognize inductance and capacitance as the two main factors of how a cable sounds.

*"(not factoring in any potential amplifier stability issues from the high reactance of the cable)."*

 This explains nicely why some cables sound better on one system then another.

 So, as a matter afact he doesn't debunk anything, he even confirms what i posted in several threads.


 The question is, who can hear a difference between 0.5db to 3db, that's the figures we're talking about in IC's.

 Some can, some don't._

 

You seem to be cutting and pasting without any understanding of what is being discussed. The writer in the first bit is talking about a speaker cable that is 511 feet (!) long! Yes, I agree, it will add some impedance. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The idea that short "audiophile" interconnects will provide a 0.5db to 3.0db improvement in volume in the audible spectrum vs short Radio Shack interconnects is absolutely preposterous. This would be very easily measured, and if this were the case this topic would not be contentious. It would be a done deal. 

 Anyway, you have changed the subject, from dielectric absorption in interconnects, to impedence in a very long, thin speaker cable. The latter is not up for debate! Of course, it is a given!

 As for dielectric absorption in extremely low wattage transmissions in the audio range, the prospect of dielectric absorption by even a relatively poor dielectric such as PVC, is just ridiculous. An analogy comes to mind. Say you have a PVC pipe 10" in diameter, with a trickle of water running back and forth -- not a high-pressure flood, but a low-volume, slow-moving trickle, filling maybe 1% of the pipes total cross-section capacity, with relatively low resistance to the water's movement at both ends. You are suggesting that in this scenario, the PVC pipe itself will somehow have water forceably injected into its matrix, despite the fact that it is relatively impermeable. If the pipe were extremely small, or the pressure or flow extremely high, maybe we could imagine the pipe being stressed to the point that some water molecules are forced into tiny interstices in the pipe. Eventually, the pipe will, as you say, leak. But at low pressure, this will not happen.

 This is why I say the idea of dielectric absorption or dielectric capacitance is absurd in these applications -- there is such an easy path through the cable for the electrons (or the positive charges if you prefer) that the idea that the dielectric will become charged is ridiculous. It's like suggesting a spark gap between the poles of a AAA battery. Yes, spark gaps can occur through an excellent dielectric like air but you need more than 1.5V and a couple dozen amps to induce a spark! A Tesla coil might help here. Similarly, you will not induce capacitance into an interconnect's dielectric! It's absurd, even more so in low wattage interconnects than in relatively higher power speaker cables. 

 You are as likely to see a river flow uphill as you are to find this happening. 

 Impossible.

 And the idea that

  Quote:


 The insulator has to adopt to the signal and after time it leaks constant. 
 

is offered without any explanation of how a relatively non-conductive piece of plastic can "[adapt] to a signal" and eventually "leak" when exposed to very low-power audio signal -- this is basically a meaningless assertion.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *germanium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have never measured any that had less than 50pf/meter though I have made some that were prbably about 10pf out of copper tubing & they sounded great. They weren't very flexable though & had to be made for each connection for the proper lenth & bends. I use a different configuraton now that works just as well but more practical. I never measured the copper tubing interconnect capacitance but the overall design suggested very very low capacitance._

 

I posted a link where people measured Nordost cables and they were 6pf.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to be cutting and pasting without any understanding of what is being discussed. The writer in the first bit is talking about a speaker cable that is 511 feet (!) long! Yes, I agree, it will add some impedance. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The idea that short "audiophile" interconnects will provide a 0.5db to 3.0db improvement in volume in the audible spectrum vs short Radio Shack interconnects is absolutely preposterous. This would be very easily measured, and if this were the case this topic would not be contentious. It would be a done deal. 

 Anyway, you have changed the subject, from dielectric absorption in interconnects, to impedence in a very long, thin speaker cable. The latter is not up for debate! Of course, it is a given!

 As for dielectric absorption in extremely low wattage transmissions in the audio range, the prospect of dielectric absorption by even a relatively poor dielectric such as PVC, is just ridiculous. An analogy comes to mind. Say you have a PVC pipe 10" in diameter, with a trickle of water running back and forth -- not a high-pressure flood, but a low-volume, slow-moving trickle, filling maybe 1% of the pipes total cross-section capacity, with relatively low resistance to the water's movement at both ends. You are suggesting that in this scenario, the PVC pipe itself will somehow have water forceably injected into its matrix, despite the fact that it is relatively impermeable. If the pipe were extremely small, or the pressure or flow extremely high, maybe we could imagine the pipe being stressed to the point that some water molecules are forced into tiny interstices in the pipe. Eventually, the pipe will, as you say, leak. But at low pressure, this will not happen.

 This is why I say the idea of dielectric absorption or dielectric capacitance is absurd in these applications -- there is such an easy path through the cable for the electrons (or the positive charges if you prefer) that the idea that the dielectric will become charged is ridiculous. It's like suggesting a spark gap between the poles of a AAA battery. Yes, spark gaps can occur through an excellent dielectric like air but you need more than 1.5V and a couple dozen amps to induce a spark! A Tesla coil might help here. Similarly, you will not induce capacitance into an interconnect's dielectric! It's absurd, even more so in low wattage interconnects than in relatively higher power speaker cables. 

 You are as likely to see a river flow uphill as you are to find this happening. 

 Impossible.

 And the idea that



 is offered without any explanation of how a relatively non-conductive piece of plastic can "[adapt] to a signal" and eventually "leak" when exposed to very low-power audio signal -- this is basically a meaningless assertion._

 

I am NOT the one mixing IC's and speaker cable up!

 "PTFE is the original Teflon® formulation, and is the material employed in Pear Cable products. The three different types of Teflon® listed in Table 1 all have virtually identical dielectric constants. This makes them all good choices for audio cables. More importantly, the dielectric constant is stable over a wide range of conditions. Unlike most other plastics, from 1 Hz to over 1 GHz the dielectric constant remains the same. This stability is absolutely crucial to achieving undistorted audio transmission. Most other materials have peaks and valleys in the dielectric constant across the audio frequency band, which causes a plethora of corresponding distortion problems."

 dielectric constant for teflon:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...bles/diel.html

 after a vacuum and air, teflon is by far the best!

 "The relative static permittivity (or static relative permittivity) of a material under given conditions is a measure of the extent to which it concentrates electrostatic lines of flux. It is the ratio of the amount of stored electrical energy when a potential is applied, relative to the permittivity of a vacuum." 

 so, like a capacitor, teflon stores energy! And every capacitor leaks.....

 "Teflon Air-tubes: Air is the best insulation because it does not absorb and later release energy. Teflon is the best extrudable solid insulation because it absorbs less than other materials."

 "Beyond being non-conductive, it is desirable to have insulation that does not absorb energy. One of the primary measurements of how much energy an insulation material will absorb is called the dielectric constant. The dielectric constant has a direct impact on the capacitance of the cable, which is discussed in detail in the “Electrical Properties” section. In brief, capacitance describes the storage and discharge of voltage. When trying to convey an audio signal through a cable, this storage and discharge of voltage is a direct form of distortion and should be minimized."

 Righty.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I posted a link where people measured Nordost cables and they were 6pf._

 

Must be 6pf per *foot* not per *meter*. Makes a difference.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The idea that short "audiophile" interconnects will provide a 0.5db to 3.0db improvement in volume in the audible spectrum vs short Radio Shack interconnects is absolutely preposterous. This would be very easily measured, and if this were the case this topic would not be contentious. It would be a done deal._

 

Who ever suggested that audiophile interconnects provided a 0.5db to 3.0db gain or improvement across the audio spectrum? That is preposterous! If you misunderstood my statement that it has been shown that some people can hear a 0.5db bump or dip within the audible spectrum, then I apologize to you for failure to clearly articulate my thoughts. Sometimes I make assumptions about other's being on the same page as I am. My bad.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is why I say the idea of dielectric absorption or dielectric capacitance is absurd in these applications --_

 

I understand your logic, but I can tell you that with significant repeatability, I have heard the difference and correctly identified difference between two interconnects identically constructed save for the dielectric used in their construction. So what could be a plausible explanation for what I'm hearing? I'm searching for an answer.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 Who ever suggested that audiophile interconnects provided a 0.5db to 3.0db gain or improvement across the audio spectrum? That is preposterous! 
 

Tourmaline did, a few posts up. Thanks for your input and good moderation, kwkarth.

  Quote:


 I have heard the difference and correctly identified difference between two interconnects identically constructed save for the dielectric used in their construction. 
 

Well, I haven't, but maybe that's just lack of experience. What you're saying is at least plausible, though. The dielectric certainly can help reduce capacitance, induction and crosstalk. Whether audibly, I dunno (skeptical) but measureably, sure! But I don't believe that the dialectrics in inexpensive interconnects are themselves charged with capacitance by audio signals, or that the dielectric somehow "adapts" to the signal in any way.

 And now we have more random & irrelevant cutting & pasting. I'm done here. 

 Bottom line is, I think fancy cables can look a lot better than cheap ones, and that can produce some pleasure in the listener. So if buyers are happy, that's great! But AFAIK neither science nor double-blind testing supports an audible difference between decently-constructed cables of adequate specification. 

 My last word on this thread.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tourmaline did, a few posts up. Thanks for your input and good moderation, kwkarth.

 And now we have more random & irrelevant cutting & pasting. I'm done here. 

 Bottom line is, I think fancy cables can look a lot better than cheap ones, and that can produce some pleasure in the listener. So if buyers are happy, that's great! But AFAIK neither science nor double-blind testing supports an audible difference between decently-constructed cables of adequate specification. 

 My last word on this thread._

 

Oh come on, man, we need your input here! Agreed, fancy cables usually look better than cheap ones. How a cable looks has little to no correlation to its sound in my experience, unless of course, one has found a correlation between materials and construction geometry and concomitant sound.

 My personal opinion about DBT is that all DBT's that I have ever seen documented, were otherwise so poorly designed that the DBT apparatus itself presented enough deleterious affect on the overall sound of the system as to obfuscate any otherwise obvious differences between cables being tested.


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I posted a link where people measured Nordost cables and they were 6pf._

 

I had nordost before myself & by my meter it measued 95pf Nordost is teflon insulated flat strand wire that is unshielded just so you know that we are talking the same wire. My elcheapo self made interconnects measure at 50pf. It was eqivolent to thier black knight cable though there may be some differences. Even thier claims have them at 4 times the capacitance that you claim to measure. That claim to be of the cable alone & the terminations add to that. The ones I had were about 10 years ago. According to thier website the black knight comes in at 8.6pf/foot x 3 for the meter comes out to 25.8pf/meter without terminations & that is being very generous as 1 meter is slightly longer than 3 feet. Then you add the terminations after that. Add to the fact that most manufacturers try to make there product look better than everone elses. That is not to say Nordost is bad cable as it is in fact the best ready made cable I have in fact measured. Its just I've made lower capacitance cable than Nordost is all. There may be a slight difference in meter readings but according to my meter I make the lower capacitance cable is all.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Steve,
 I'm not sure who you are responding to, but please cut back on the goofy things like I've highlighted above._

 

It may be entertaining, but it isn't goofy. A good way to test for effects is to multiply the cause to try to increase it. If you suspect a 3 foot run of cable is altering the sound, try a 300 foot run and see if it's 100x altered. If you think you are losing sound quality when you rip and burn CDs, try ripping and burning the same CD to 20 generations and see if it is 20x worse. The engineer from McIntosh who put up that excellent website on cables that was quoted in an earlier thread said pretty much the same thing as my highlighted goofy quote. Does someone have a link to that site?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_tourmaline, straighten up and fly right! Cool down papa, don't you blow your top!_

 

You and I are probably the only ones here that know who the KC Trio were.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It may be entertaining, but it isn't goofy. A good way to test for effects is to multiply the cause to try to increase it. If you suspect a 3 foot run of cable is altering the sound, try a 300 foot run and see if it's 100x altered. If you think you are losing sound quality when you rip and burn CDs, try ripping and burning the same CD to 20 generations and see if it is 20x worse. The engineer from McIntosh who put up that excellent website on cables that was quoted in an earlier thread said pretty much the same thing as my highlighted goofy quote. Does someone have a link to that site?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Ok, I get your point now, I'm sorry I missed that the first time around. Absolutely I agree. Valid method.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does someone have a link to that site?_

 

OK one more post:

http://www.roger-russell.com/

  Quote:


 You and I are probably the only ones here that know who the KC Trio were. 
 

Just found joy
 I'm as happy as a baby boy, baby boy
 With another brand new choo-choo toy
 When I met my sweet Lorraine


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Just found joy
 I'm as happy as a baby boy, baby boy
 With another brand new choo-choo toy
 When I met my sweet Lorraine_

 

Oh yeah, now you're talkin'
 You take me right back to the track, Jack!

 Re the K.C. Trio, nobody can sing like Nat did, but there are many great renditions of both of those songs.
 The renditions of Strighten Up that I like are:
Nat, of course
Oscar Peterson
John Pizzarelli
Acoustix
Arthur Blythe
Dianne Reeves
Bob James Trio
Nnenna Freelon & Take 6
There are actually other renditions but those are my favorites.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_These articles are about *speaker cables* , not line level interconnects. I agree, many things that are important factors with interconnects are insignificant with speaker cables. Our thread is about line level interconnects as far as I know. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong._

 

Actually I thought it was about cables in general. That's why I mentioned my comparison between the Zu and an aftermarket headphone cables, they carry signals much more powerful than live level.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually I thought it was about cables in general. That's why I mentioned my comparison between the Zu and an aftermarket headphone cables, they carry signals much more powerful than live level._

 

Look at the title of the article and the numerous uses of the word "speaker."

 After market headphone cables are another kettle of fish too. Sort of right in between line level and speaker level.


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 My personal opinion about DBT is that all DBT's that I have ever seen documented, were otherwise so poorly designed that the DBT apparatus itself presented enough deleterious affect on the overall sound of the system as to obfuscate any otherwise obvious differences between cables being tested._

 

I whole heartedly agree. 

 As you can see I have outlined what I've seen & heard that has made a difference in the cable. Yes there are real differences that are hidden by DBT equipment. That happens when you get multiple layers of amps switches & cables. Amps can sometimes be grainy enough sounding the these switches to obliterate any of the subtleties that we listen to when relaxing to good music. I had an amp that I had modified that had excellent sound but due to the switch in an audio store you couldn't tell the difference but could easily hear it at home. The amps in the swich board were very grainy. Have you ever seen a stereo shop hook there highend amps, speakers or sources up to these switches. I have never seen them do that on highend equipment.$1000-1500 seems to be the limit. Above that they aren't hooked to these comparitor switches.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *germanium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I whole heartedly agree. 

 As you can see I have outlined what I've seen & heard that has made a difference in the cable. Yes there are real differences that are hidden by DBT equipment. That happens when you get multiple layers of amps switches & cables. Amps can sometimes be grainy enough sounding the these switches to obliterate any of the subtleties that we listen to when relaxing to good music. I had an amp that I had modified that had excellent sound but due to the switch in an audio store you couldn't tell the difference but could easily hear it at home. The amps in the swich board were very grainy. Have you ever seen a stereo shop hook there highend amps, speakers or sources up to these switches. I have never seen them do that on highend equipment.$1000-1500 seems to be the limit. Above that they aren't hooked to these comparitor switches._

 

There is a very easy solution to this since we are dealing with headphones.

 Build 3 identical systems. Two with the same ICs, the third using a different one. Obfuscate the cables in each so the subject cannot see them. The test is to find the different ones. The initial setup would probably be somewhere around $1-$1.5K x 3 excluding the cost of the cables, and reclaiming 60-80% back after the test by selling the gear.

 Completely impractical for speaker setups, if only for sheer cost never mind the logistics, however for a headphone system this would work.

 Similarly is passing around a set of three cables, two the same and one different, and see what happens, a la the copper/silver/cheapo IC test that was done a while back. I don't know if the cables could be sufficiently obfuscated though since a lot of boutique cables use easily identifiable terminators, however it would make an interesting copper vs. silver test.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Must be 6pf per *foot* not per *meter*. Makes a difference._

 

it was per foot, you're right. So, for a meter IC you'll get about 20pf. For worse cables it can 600% worse, this was the difference between the best measuring cable(nordost) and the worst measuring cable. So, the worst measuring cable have huge impact on capacitance, wich in return has immediate impact on the sound!

 it is exactly what i am hearing, nordost is very clean and analytical; it let's you hear what a component does in your system. others are better for masking imperfections in a system. Your choice of cable.

 Germanium, did you measure one of their reference series of cables?! Sine there is quite a difference between the cheapest and the top of the cables in sound.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You and I are probably the only ones here that know who the KC Trio were.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Pappa was a rolling stone 
 where ever he laid his hat was his home..........


----------



## tourmaline

meanwhile TS still doesn't know why copper cable sounds warmer then silver cable or silverplated copper.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is a very easy solution to this since we are dealing with headphones.

 Build 3 identical systems. Two with the same ICs, the third using a different one. Obfuscate the cables in each so the subject cannot see them. The test is to find the different ones. The initial setup would probably be somewhere around $1-$1.5K x 3 excluding the cost of the cables, and reclaiming 60-80% back after the test by selling the gear.

 Completely impractical for speaker setups, if only for sheer cost never mind the logistics, however for a headphone system this would work.

*Similarly is passing around a set of three cables, two the same and one different, and see what happens, a la the copper/silver/cheapo IC test that was done a while back. I don't know if the cables could be sufficiently obfuscated though since a lot of boutique cables use easily identifiable terminators, however it would make an interesting copper vs. silver test.*_

 

I think I remember participating in a test that was conducted in this manner, a number of years ago. I can't dig up any more specifics out of my brain right now, but I think it's a great idea.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_meanwhile TS still doesn't know why copper cable sounds warmer then silver cable or silverplated copper._

 

Man, I wish I could remember the title of that paper/book (a white paper that had been bound and published as a book) that I read a couple years ago. As I vaguely recall, it offered a plausible explanation of why copper and silver sound different as conductors in the audio band. It had to do with the depth of skin effect in the two metals if I'm remembering correctly. I will continue to pursue this, and if and when I can find the info, I will post it. (I borrowed that work from somebody, so I have to seek them out and see if I can borrow the book again.)


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 Well, I haven't, but maybe that's just lack of experience. What you're saying is at least plausible, though. The dielectric certainly can help reduce capacitance, induction and crosstalk. Whether audibly, I dunno (skeptical) but measureably, sure! But I don't believe that the dialectrics in inexpensive interconnects are themselves charged with capacitance by audio signals, or that the dielectric somehow "adapts" to the signal in any way.

 And now we have more random & irrelevant cutting & pasting. I'm done here.

 Bottom line is, I think fancy cables can look a lot better than cheap ones, and that can produce some pleasure in the listener. So if buyers are happy, that's great! But AFAIK neither science nor double-blind testing supports an audible difference between decently-constructed cables of adequate specification.

 My last word on this thread. 
 

Well said. The question is how much money can you spend on a cable before there is 0% increase in performance, I would say not much, but then just to be 100% sure? - http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

 Of course everyone here loves music, the idea that you might be missing something is suggested by cable companies, its a hard thing to ignore.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well said. The question is how much money can you spend on a cable before there is 0% increase in performance, I would say not much, but then just to be 100% sure? - http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

 Of course everyone here loves music, the idea that you might be missing something is suggested by cable companies, its a hard thing to ignore._

 

I heard almost the complete line of a certain brand and i can tell you for sure there is a significant difference between the cheapest and the top of the line cable in sound! not only the sound, but also in detail, i can hear much more then with the cheaper cables on a recording. Also the sound is more rounded are more lifelike.

 For me, enough a difference to buy one of the top line IC's but i bought second hand wich increases the bang for the buck ratio considderably. This way high end cables are more affordable to more people. Still quite alot of money but still much better then any cable i've heard in that pricerange.

 Remember that the "need" for a higher end cable is higher for a higher end system.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, I wish I could remember the title of that paper/book (a white paper that had been bound and published as a book) that I read a couple years ago. As I vaguely recall, it offered a plausible explanation of why copper and silver sound different as conductors in the audio band. It had to do with the depth of skin effect in the two metals if I'm remembering correctly. I will continue to pursue this, and if and when I can find the info, I will post it. (I borrowed that work from somebody, so I have to seek them out and see if I can borrow the book again.)_

 

I i am thinking the same way; explains why silver plated copper has extended highs, less skineffect on the outer edge of the core.

 Yet, will your paper satisfy the sceptics. In their ears there is no difference at all.

 I found that no matter how much "evidence" you provide, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well said. The question is how much money can you spend on a cable before there is 0% increase in performance, I would say not much, but then just to be 100% sure? - http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

 Of course everyone here loves music, the idea that you might be missing something is suggested by cable companies, its a hard thing to ignore._

 

I am sure, as some threads state, that there are better cables, but they will cost you much more!

 As with anything else in life, if you want the best you gotta pay for it!

 I read bluejeans is using heavy shielding. I did my own experiments with shielding and i found out that heavy shielding obscures deatil. By removing the shielding, you have a much better sound and detail.

 So, yes, i think they loose some detail there. 

 Also they state on their site their capacitance is 12, some other high end cables measured are in the realms of 6pf.

 I generally believe that the lower the capacitance is, the better the cable will sound and the easier the cable will match with amplifiers.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is a very easy solution to this since we are dealing with headphones.

 Build 3 identical systems. Two with the same ICs, the third using a different one. Obfuscate the cables in each so the subject cannot see them. The test is to find the different ones. The initial setup would probably be somewhere around $1-$1.5K x 3 excluding the cost of the cables, and reclaiming 60-80% back after the test by selling the gear.

 Completely impractical for speaker setups, if only for sheer cost never mind the logistics, however for a headphone system this would work.

 Similarly is passing around a set of three cables, two the same and one different, and see what happens, a la the copper/silver/cheapo IC test that was done a while back. I don't know if the cables could be sufficiently obfuscated though since a lot of boutique cables use easily identifiable terminators, however it would make an interesting copper vs. silver test._

 

The problem with that method is that you'll never get 3 exactly the same cables. As we learned in this thread, insulation has huge impact on the sound and behavier of the conductor.

 So, unless a manufacteror is able to make 2 cables with exactly the same specs, except for the copper and silver cores, you cannot compare the effect of those cores, since more expensive cables almost without an exception use teflon insulation and cheap cables use poly.

 So, in other words, is the effect caused by the core or by the choice of the insulator.


----------



## peelax

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. While I do appreciate the work that goes into some of these cables I just cannot believe that a human is able to detect differences that state of the art machines cannot, or that in this case DBT is not appropriate or reliable (this is something that every dodgy "science" claims).

 [I do not wish to offend anyone with the following statement it is my honest belief and I am not saying it always applies.]

 I think there is a definite line that should always be drawn between perception and reality. Reality is solid and explainable by science, while perception - although as solid for each individual is not. While a person may experience better sound through their expensive cables in reality I do not believe anything is changed. I do not even think you have to believe that the cables make a difference to perceive the improved sound. I personally have tested pieces equipment and thought there to be a massive difference only to conclude through blind testing that there is not. Anyone who has taken mind altering substances will know how fragile our perception can be, so we must rely on proper scientific processes, which I still have not seen for expensive cables. I believe that due to the lack of proper experimental evidence any reasonable person must conclude that a cable of decent measurements is enough.

 P.S. Theories are all well and good, but unless they are backed up by _objective_ evidence they aren't worth much.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, in other words, is the effect caused by the core or by the choice of the insulator.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

The thing is, if the variation between cables is enough that with extreemly well built cables you cannot distinguish copper from silver based solely on mechanical variance, you are essentially admitting that the metal does not matter. Picking the cables used in the test would be done explicitly to elimiate such variance as different insulator material.


----------



## dura

Quote:


 Man, I wish I could remember the title of that paper/book (a white paper that had been bound and published as a book) that I read a couple years ago. 
 

Don't know, but i seem to remember that the depth of penetration of an electronal signal in a conductor depends on the amplitude of the signal.
 With equal soundpressure, a lower freq signal penetrates deeper in a conductor then a high freq signal.
 Since the surface of silver is smoother then copper, silver is potentially the better conductor for higher frequencies.
 Silverplated copper is bad if this way of reasoning is valid; at some freqeuncy the border between silver and copper is crossed and the resistance of the conductor chances.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing is, if the variation between cables is enough that with extreemly well built cables you cannot distinguish copper from silver based solely on mechanical variance, you are essentially admitting that the metal does not matter. Picking the cables used in the test would be done explicitly to elimiate such variance as different insulator material._

 

I don't, i just wana make certain the insulator would not be a factor in the equasion. I never state that copper is the same as silver, that is NOT what i hear on my system.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. While I do appreciate the work that goes into some of these cables I just cannot believe that a human is able to detect differences that state of the art machines cannot, or that in this case DBT is not appropriate or reliable (this is something that every dodgy "science" claims).

 [I do not wish to offend anyone with the following statement it is my honest belief and I am not saying it always applies.]

 I think there is a definite line that should always be drawn between perception and reality. Reality is solid and explainable by science, while perception - although as solid for each individual is not. While a person may experience better sound through their expensive cables in reality I do not believe anything is changed. I do not even think you have to believe that the cables make a difference to perceive the improved sound. I personally have tested pieces equipment and thought there to be a massive difference only to conclude through blind testing that there is not. Anyone who has taken mind altering substances will know how fragile our perception can be, so we must rely on proper scientific processes, which I still have not seen for expensive cables. I believe that due to the lack of proper experimental evidence any reasonable person must conclude that a cable of decent measurements is enough.

 P.S. Theories are all well and good, but unless they are backed up by _objective_ evidence they aren't worth much._

 

What do you do with the people that actually DID pick all three cables right?! In the double blind test?

 I have never seen any propper dbt. No measuring of hearing of the particpants ( to make sure everyone can hear right).

 Most of the time the cables are visable.

 Switching boards have huge impact on sound etc, etc , etc.



 What is reallity? Science has made corrections on old theories every year!

 The best sentence you wrote here is "i cannot believe". period. You can believe what you want, i know what i hear on my system.

 No hard feelings, that's why there is priceranges in cables, buy the one with the right price for you. Or the one that gives according to you the best sound for the best price.

 For both camps, there's something for everybody.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I won't deny there are people that buy expensive stuff because it is expensive to brag to other people. I am not one of those. Sound is most important for me and looks are just 10th grade. Sound is first grade.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 I think there is a definite line that should always be drawn between perception and reality. Reality is solid and explainable by science, while perception - although as solid for each individual is not. 
 

Speaking of perception vs. reality, I posted a couple fun examples here:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=260188


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 What do you do with the people that actually DID pick all tree right cables?! In the double blind test? 
 

I believe that was through chance as overall there was no significant trend.

 If I wrote a paper based on that kind of evidence I would be laughed out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


 The best sentence you wrote here is "i cannot believe". period. You can believe what you want, i know what i hear on my system. 
 

I cannot believe cables make a difference based on the evidence, I have seen DBTs showing no difference. I admit these aren't the most exhaustive tests, but that is what there is to go on at the moment.

 Also conventional wisdom says there should be no difference, cable companies and audiophiles say there is a difference, I would like some decent evidence before I believe the minority opinion.

  Quote:


 No hard feelings 
 

You too, I really do hope they do find something concrete I would love to be able to justify expensive cables to my girlfriend


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You too, I really do hope they do find something concrete I would love to be able to justify expensive cables to my girlfriend 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If any, you have to justify the price for yourself. Do you hear a difference or not. Your girfriend doesn't have anything to do with it! I never didn't hear anything. I always heard that a new IC was either worse or better, i never came across cables that sounded exactly the same! Not even with the same brand!

 This is by my extensive testing with cables, shielding and modding amps. So, i have enough experience.

 I've done my bit also with home made ic's and other cables. They never reached the quality of the ones i currently use. Some came very close, but never quite reached the same level.

 Are your own ears NOT evidence enough?! These are the instruments, together with your mind that actually translates soundwaves into sound. Not a measuring instrument or cable.

 If i would find a 15 dollar cable that would sound the same as my high end cable, i immediatly would sell the expensive cable, but thus far(25 years) i've never came across such a cheap wonder cable, sorry to dissapoint you.

 IF i could sell my high end cables, i would have plenty of money to invest in actual music.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't, i just wana make certain the insulator would not be a factor in the equasion. I never state that copper is the same as silver, that is NOT what i hear on my system._

 

Really though, if the result of a positive result for _any_ reason, it would be a huge step forward. The claim of "cables don't matter" would be bunk, even if the secret was the dielectric.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are your own ears NOT evidence enough?! These are the instruments, together with your mind that actually translates soundwaves into sound. Not a measuring instrument or cable._

 

I really hate this line of reasoning, because in a properly designed expirement your ears are still the tool being used to measure.


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 Your girfriend doesn't have anything to do with it! 
 

Believe me she has a lot to do with it!

  Quote:


 Are your own ears NOT evidence enough?! These are the instruments, together with your mind that actually translates soundwaves into sound. Not a measuring instrument or cable. 
 

I need to know I am not fooling myself. I cannot justify them as jewellery with my limited budget, I have other things to buy first like a DAC1. Of course with unlimited budget I wouldn't care


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I think we will have to agree to disagree. While I do appreciate the work that goes into some of these cables I just cannot believe that a human is able to detect differences that state of the art machines cannot, or that in this case DBT is not appropriate or reliable (this is something that every dodgy "science" claims).

 [I do not wish to offend anyone with the following statement it is my honest belief and I am not saying it always applies.]

 I think there is a definite line that should always be drawn between perception and reality. Reality is solid and explainable by science, while perception - although as solid for each individual is not. While a person may experience better sound through their expensive cables in reality I do not believe anything is changed. I do not even think you have to believe that the cables make a difference to perceive the improved sound. I personally have tested pieces equipment and thought there to be a massive difference only to conclude through blind testing that there is not. Anyone who has taken mind altering substances will know how fragile our perception can be, so we must rely on proper scientific processes, which I still have not seen for expensive cables. I believe that due to the lack of proper experimental evidence any reasonable person must conclude that a cable of decent measurements is enough.

 P.S. Theories are all well and good, but unless they are backed up by _objective_ evidence they aren't worth much._

 

I appreciate your position here peelax. The only thought I would like to add is perhaps a minor refinement of your definition of reality. There are many observable phenomena in our universe that are not yet fully comprehended by science. The difference between reality and fantasy is repeatable observation. Whether or not we fully understand how to measure and quantify something that is repeatedly observable make it no less real.

 The key is statistically significant repeatability. I can tell you I have observed first hand statistically significant repeatable audible differences in cables. I cannot, to my satisfaction, fully explain or measure what I can observe. As I get older, it may become more and more difficult for me to hear differences, so I will be happy with less and less!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really hate this line of reasoning, because in a properly designed expirement your ears are still the tool being used to measure._

 

An experiment is not a measuring instrument. For some sceptics a measuring instrument is the only tool, not their ears, yet it is the only tool that let them hear sound/music.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Believe me she has a lot to do with it!



 I need to know I am not fooling myself. I cannot justify them as jewellery with my limited budget, I have other things to buy first like a DAC1. Of course with unlimited budget I wouldn't care 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Don't think so, she only determins how much you may spend on a certain cable, it is however NOT a measure of quality!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No matter how sweet or good looking your girlfriend is.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_An experiment is not a measuring instrument. For some sceptics a measuring instrument is the only tool, not their ears, yet it is the only tool that let them hear sound/music._

 

I don't think I've ever seen a skeptic claim this, ever. In the sense that ones ears are not a measuring instrument.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really though, if the result of a positive result for any reason, it would be a huge step forward. The claim of "cables don't matter" would be bunk, even if the secret was the dielectric._

 

well, we learned in this thread that dielectric has huge impact on sound.
 So, i won't deny in reality it will also have huge impact on what you'll actually hear.

 So, if a more expensive cable lets you hear more, then the secret could still be the teflon, wich is practically the best insulator. Although there is a 18.000dollar IC in this world which actually uses a vacuum as insulator and square cores, wich are to be said better sounding that round cores.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think I've ever seen a skeptic claim this, ever. In the sense that ones ears are not a measuring instrument._

 

Oh yeah i did. Some month ago in another cable thread that turned really nasty in no-time and was closed for that reason. Some stated that for them, the only evidence was a measuring instrument, not what they actually heard.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The problem with this is that a measuring instrument cannot actually measure the perception of sound. In other words, what i hear or how i hear things. So apperently between a measuring instrument and what you'll actually hear is still quite a difference.

 For instance, can people hear that the capacitance is actually low, no. It sound good or better then a comparative object. Only when you start to measure, the actual things that you hear start to make sense. E.g. the really good cable has actually one of the lowest capacitance figures.

 As far as i can see, the threads seem to confirm my theory; the cables that are really appreciated here turn out to actually have very low capacitance figures like Nordost, bluejeans cables etc. So apperently, people are hearing quality.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing is, if the variation between cables is enough that with extreemly well built cables you cannot distinguish copper from silver based solely on mechanical variance, you are essentially admitting that the metal does not matter. Picking the cables used in the test would be done explicitly to elimiate such variance as different insulator material._

 

I have already posted in this thread that I can clearly hear a difference between two identically constructed cables, with the only difference being one uses silver as the conductor and the other uses copper.

 The key here, as you say, is "extremely" well built. It is fairly common to see one or more egregious errors committed in the name of convenience or cost containment WRT cable construction such that the audible difference between conductor metals is obfuscated by the effect of those other compromises.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have already posted in this thread that I can clearly hear a difference between two identically constructed cables, with the only difference being one uses silver as the conductor and the other uses copper._

 

Did you make your own cables with dielectric or did you buy two different cables of the same brand. You can only be absolutely sure if the dielectric is exactly the same.

 I believe ya, it's the same thing i hear. Also between a cheap and a more expensive cable. So a cheaper copper cable sounds worse then a more expensive copper cable. Same thing with silver cores. Maybe the teflon versus poly insulator is the difference in copper cables and silver cables in a higher priced range.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you make your own cables with dielectric or did you buy two different cables of the same brand. You can only be absolutely sure if the dielectric is exactly the same.

 I believe ya, it's the same thing i hear. Also between a cheap and a more expensive cable. So a cheaper copper cable sounds worse then a more expensive copper cable. Same thing with silver cores. Maybe the teflon versus poly insulator is the difference in copper cables and silver cables in a higher priced range._

 

Ken from ALO built them identically as an experiment in his quest for the ultimate sound. I was fortunate enough to be able to participate and observe for myself, the differences between conductor materials, insulators, geometries, etc. Teflon, BTW, is not a good insulator for audio. I've heard that difference too.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have already posted in this thread that I can clearly hear a difference between two identically constructed cables, with the only difference being one uses silver as the conductor and the other uses copper.

 The key here, as you say, is "extremely" well built. It is fairly common to see one or more egregious errors committed in the name of convenience or cost containment WRT cable construction such that the audible difference between conductor metals is obfuscated by the effect of those other compromises._

 

Now you know why high end cables are so expensive, no compromises in build.

 best conductor, best insulation material and best plugs. This alltogether results in a very low degradation of the signal and doesn't interfere with how the amp should work.

 We learned in this thread that if these figures aren't low, it interferes with the sound and how good actually the amp will work!

 So apperently the quality of the cable is essential but also the conjuction between the amp and the cable; e.g. does the cable actually do the amp work at it's best.


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 I can tell you I have observed first hand statistically significant repeatable audible differences in cables. 
 

You should really put these results up on this forum, I'm sure a lot of users would be interested, me included!

  Quote:


 well, we learned in this thread that dielectric has huge impact on sound. 
 

I think that is a bit of a strong statement!


----------



## sugarinthegourd

I can't seem to stay away!

  Quote:


 I have already posted in this thread that I can clearly hear a difference between two identically constructed cables, with the only difference being one uses silver as the conductor and the other uses copper. 
 

When you say "identically contructed" be aware that silver has lower resistance than copper, so if the conductors have the exact same diameter, the silver wire will have slightly lower resistance, which may have some effect somewhere. What I am saying is that the ONLY difference between silver and copper is their resistance, and if you use a correspondingly larger (very small difference*) copper wire it will perform identically to silver in every way. 

 * Based on 1.68 x 10^-8 ohm/meter for copper and 1.59 x 10^-8 ohm/meter for silver, ratio of cross-sectional area should be 1.05660377 for copper:silver. So for a silver conductor of diameter 1, the diameter of the copper conductor with identical resistance would be 1.02791234 (approx 3% thicker).


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 So a cheaper copper cable sounds worse then a more expensive copper cable. 
 

This sums the entire discussion up. Doesn't matter what's inside the two -- It's all about price tag.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now you know why high end cables are so expensive, no compromises in build.

 best conductor, best insulation material and best plugs. This altogether results in a very low degradation of the signal and doesn't interfere with how the amp should work.

 We learned in this thread that if these figures aren't low, it interferes with the sound and how good actually the amp will work!

 So apperently the quality of the cable is essential but also the conjuction between the amp and the cable; e.g. does the cable actually do the amp work at it's best._

 

To the best of my knowledge, some high end cables are so expensive because the manufacturer is trying to bilk the public. 

 Some cables are worthy of their price because they represent not only the finest materials, but also thousands of hours of research and experimentation along with the most meticulous care and time being expended to build them properly as well.

 Along with the two extremes, there is everything in between.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't seem to stay away!



 When you say "identically contructed" be aware that silver has lower resistance than copper, so if the conductors have the exact same diameter, the silver wire will have slightly lower resistance, which may have some effect somewhere. What I am saying is that the ONLY difference between silver and copper is their resistance, and if you use a correspondingly larger (very small difference*) copper wire it will perform identically to silver in every way. 

 * Based on 1.68 x 10^-8 ohm/meter for copper and 1.59 x 10^-8 ohm/meter for silver, ratio of cross-sectional area should be 1.05660377 for copper:silver. So for a silver conductor of diameter 1, the diameter of the copper conductor with identical resistance would be 1.02791234 (approx 3% thicker)._

 

In our particular experiment cross sectional area was the same, but experiments were also done with differing gauges of the same conductor. I could not, in a statistically significant manner, distinguish any difference in sound between different gauges (24ga to 18ga) used in line level interconnect wire. The currents and wire lengths were insignificant. I would expect the sound to deteriorate if cross sectional diameters were to exceed that of an 18ga. wire because of skin effect problems... I conjecture that this should only be apparent at considerable lengths of cable.


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Skin effect is not an issue at audio frequencies. If you are concerned about it, you should be using Litz wire!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This sums the entire discussion up. Doesn't matter what's inside the two -- It's all about price tag._

 

only for you, my ears tell me the story.

 ever heard of occ and ofocc copper, the latter being even more pure and having those large single crystal structure inside the core. It means that NOT two coppercables have to be generally the same.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Professor ohno, wich has the patent on that single crystal structure measured significant improvements in frequency responce using his technique compared to normal copper. Read, less high frequncy loss and detail in high frequncies. Do you think he gets a patent on this if it is nothing but air?!

 So, most more expensive copper cables use this structure and sound different form normal copper cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To the best of my knowledge, some high end cables are so expensive because the manufacturer is trying to bilk the public. 

 Some cables are worthy of their price because they represent not only the finest materials, but also thousands of hours of research and experimentation along with the most meticulous care and time being expended to build them properly as well.

 Along with the two extremes, there is everything in between._

 

I know my cable is hard to manufacture and uses the best available.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Remember that i didn't pay the premium; bought second hand raising the bang for the buck factor. For retail, you would never get a cable performing at this scale.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh yeah i did. Some month ago in another cable thread that turned really nasty in no-time and was closed for that reason. Some stated that for them, the only evidence was a measuring instrument, not what they actually heard.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Link please.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You should really put these results up on this forum, I'm sure a lot of users would be interested, me included!



 I think that is a bit of a strong statement!_

 

Well, at least i learned something in this thread.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Skin effect is not an issue at audio frequencies. If you are concerned about it, you should be using Litz wire!_

 

Actually, according to some, it is.

 I'm too lazy to put this in my own words right now, so it's lifted directly from someone else. Still worth the read.

 Skin-Effect is one of the most fundamental problems in cables. It is useful to think of a metal conductor as a rail-guide. Electric potential is transferred as current inside a metal conductor and as a magnetic field outside the conductor. One cannot exist without the other. The only place that both magnetic field and current density are 100% is at the surface of a conductor. The magnetic field outside a conductor diminishes at distances away from the conductor, density is 100% only at the surface of the conductor. Something similar is true inside the conductor. Skin-effect means that current density diminishes at distances away from the surface on the inside. 

 There is some disagreement as to whether skin-effect is relevant at audio frequencies. The argument concerns whether skin-effect causes damage other than simply power loss. Since the 3dB down point (50% power loss) for a certain size strand might be at 50,000Hz, not everyone understands the mechanism by which skin-effect is a problem at audio frequencies (20-20,000Hz). However, the problems are very real and very audible. This is because well before skin-effect causes a substantial power loss, it 
 causes changes in resistance and inductance. Skin-effect causes different frequencies to encounter different electrical values at different distances from the surface of a conductor. 

 If a single strand is too large, skin-effect will cause each frequency component of an audio signal to behave differently. Each frequency component will exhibit a unique current density profile. The result 
 is that some of the delicate high frequency information, the upper harmonics, will be smeared. 

 We hear sound that is dull, short on detail and has a flat sound stage. The energy is there, the amplitude (frequency) response has not been changed, however the information content of the signal has been changed in a way that makes it sound as though the midrange notes have lost their upper harmonics. 

 There is a textbook equation which describes the reduction in current and power density at any depth from the surface of an electrical conductor. For copper the equation is: 6.61 divided by the square root of the frequency (Hz) equals the depth in mm at which the current density will be 1/e. Since 1/e is 37%, this equation tells us the depth at which the current density has been reduced by 63%. For 20,000Hz, current density is only 37% at a depth of 0.0467 mm, which is the center of a 0.934 mm (18 awg) conductor. 

 Conventional use of the above formula falsely assumes that it is acceptable to have a 63% reduction in current flow and an 86% reduction in power density at the center of a conductor. However, this formula does not by itself describe at what depth audible distortion begins. Listening (empirical evidence) shows that audible distortion begins at somewhat lesser depths. 

 There is a solution to skin-effect-using a single strand of metal which is just small enough to push skin-effect induced audible distortion out of the audio range. Simple evaluation of multiple sizes reveals that audible skin-effect induced anomalies begin with a strand (or conductor) larger than 0.8 
 mm. A much smaller strand yields no benefit.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, according to some, it is.

 I'm too lazy to put this in my own words right now, so it's lifted directly from someone else. Still worth the read.

 Skin-Effect is one of the most fundamental problems in cables. It is useful to think of a metal conductor as a rail-guide. Electric potential is transferred as current inside a metal conductor and as a magnetic field outside the conductor. One cannot exist without the other. The only place that both magnetic field and current density are 100% is at the surface of a conductor. The magnetic field outside a conductor diminishes at distances away from the conductor, density is 100% only at the surface of the conductor. Something similar is true inside the conductor. Skin-effect means that current density diminishes at distances away from the surface on the inside. 

 There is some disagreement as to whether skin-effect is relevant at audio frequencies. The argument concerns whether skin-effect causes damage other than simply power loss. Since the 3dB down point (50% power loss) for a certain size strand might be at 50,000Hz, not everyone understands the mechanism by which skin-effect is a problem at audio frequencies (20-20,000Hz). However, the problems are very real and very audible. This is because well before skin-effect causes a substantial power loss, it 
 causes changes in resistance and inductance. Skin-effect causes different frequencies to encounter different electrical values at different distances from the surface of a conductor. 

 If a single strand is too large, skin-effect will cause each frequency component of an audio signal to behave differently. Each frequency component will exhibit a unique current density profile. The result 
 is that some of the delicate high frequency information, the upper harmonics, will be smeared. 

 We hear sound that is dull, short on detail and has a flat sound stage. The energy is there, the amplitude (frequency) response has not been changed, however the information content of the signal has been changed in a way that makes it sound as though the midrange notes have lost their upper harmonics. 

 There is a textbook equation which describes the reduction in current and power density at any depth from the surface of an electrical conductor. For copper the equation is: 6.61 divided by the square root of the frequency (Hz) equals the depth in mm at which the current density will be 1/e. Since 1/e is 37%, this equation tells us the depth at which the current density has been reduced by 63%. For 20,000Hz, current density is only 37% at a depth of 0.0467 mm, which is the center of a 0.934 mm (18 awg) conductor. 

 Conventional use of the above formula falsely assumes that it is acceptable to have a 63% reduction in current flow and an 86% reduction in power density at the center of a conductor. However, this formula does not by itself describe at what depth audible distortion begins. Listening (empirical 
 evidence) shows that audible distortion begins at somewhat lesser depths. 

 There is a solution to skin-effect-using a single strand of metal which is just small enough to push skin-effect induced audible distortion out of the au- 
 dio range. Simple evaluation of multiple sizes reveals that audible skin-effect induced anomalies begin with a strand (or conductor) larger than 0.8 
 mm. A much smaller strand yields no benefit._

 

makes quite sense and make me understand why some manufacturers use very fine strands of core material.

 Audio note has a cable that is specifically developed for signal transport in amps and uses 20 very fine silver strands. Makes sense if you read this. So, they use litz AND very thin cores.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_makes quite sense and make me understand why some manufacturers use very fine strands of core material.

 Audio note has a cable that is specifically developed for signal transport and uses 20 very fine silver strands. Makes sense if you read this._

 

There are other problems with multi-stranded cables as well, also having to do with the combination of skin effect and signal traversing wire to wire as the strands of the "bundle" physically make contact and not with one another. A good potential solution to this issue was Litz wire as sugarinthegourd mentioned earlier. I've spent time with Litz wire as well, and while better than many, it's not the best of what I've heard.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm too lazy to put this in my own words right now, so it's lifted directly from someone else._

 

Quote your source, please.

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are many observable phenomena in our universe that are not yet fully comprehended by science. The difference between reality and fantasy is repeatable observation._

 

That and controls on the testing to insure that the observation is caused by objective factors, not purely subjective ones.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That and controls on the testing to insure that the observation is caused by objective factors, not purely subjective ones.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Agreed!


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quote your source, please.

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

It's from a... (drumroll)...

 ...sales brochure...

 ...for...

 ...wait...







Audioquest!! 

 A seller of high-priced cables!

 (Bet you would have never guessed!)


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think there is a definite line that should always be drawn between perception and reality. Reality is solid and explainable by science, while perception - although as solid for each individual is not. While a person may experience better sound through their expensive cables in reality I do not believe anything is changed. I do not even think you have to believe that the cables make a difference to perceive the improved sound. I personally have tested pieces equipment and thought there to be a massive difference only to conclude through blind testing that there is not._

 

Putting aside whether there really is a difference or not, there are issues of practicality. Only the most flagrantly illogical cable believers (whose posts I routinely skip over in this thread) say that there's a "night and day" difference between cables. Most people agree that the difference is subtle. I don't buy the "last 5%" argument, because I don't think the people who cite it really are at the last 5% with their systems. Like a photographer who puts all of his attention on new and modern camera equipment and ignores the most fundamental of tools- lighting; a lot of audiophiles get caught up in plussing the 5% while ignoring fundamental freqency balance issues. The "5%" ends up getting discussed 90% of the time.

 The plain truth is, there are MUCH more efficient and inexepensive ways to improve your system than to plunk down a Benjamin for each wire connecting it. Many of those ways don't get discussed much here, and when they do, it's clear that people don't really know much more than what someone else told them about the subject. It says a lot that there's a dedicated forum here for wires and silly tweaks, and none for audio processing, room treatment or psychoacoustic principles related to codecs.

 Why does discussion of cables get so much attention then? It's simple. Status. Buying a high end CD player costs thousands. The same goes for amps. High end speakers cost tens of thousands. That's an awfully big nut to serve as admission to the big leagues. But a high end cable is in an affordable price range. Most people can afford to waste a couple hundred dollars, so they buy cables for status appeal. As I said before, that's like Cadillac hubcaps on a Yugo. Put a fancy cloth covered wire that looks like it's out of Frankenstein's lab on a garden variety DAP and headphone amp, and it looks all bling bling. That's what drives most sales of high end cables, not sound quality.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## sugarinthegourd

Quote:


 psychoacoustic principles related to codecs 
 

That is an interesting topic. Back when I was using a minidisc, I did some A/Bs where I consistently PREFERRED the sound of ATRAC3 to the original CD source. It sounded warmer to me. This is a lossy codec, but one which is far more advanced psychoacoustically than something like mp3.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quote your source, please.

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

Sorry, I am lazy, aren't I? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 It was a portion of a PDF on Cable Theory I downloaded from the AQ website.
 The title is: "Cable Design Theory Versus Evidence." Its authorship is not attributed to any single person. Obviously, AQ want to sell their cables, so that should be kept in mind when reading it in its entirety. Generally good information though, IMHO. Just know that there are a number of dubious claims for which they offer no substantiation. I am a skeptic at heart, but I guess a rational, reasoning one rather than a rabid one, so I'll consider, but eventually, I want, like yourself, to see proof. Anyway, FWIW...happy reading!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's from a sales brochure for A seller of high-priced cables!_

 

If this is a forum where discussion of DBT is forbidden, I get to choose what sort of proof I get to reject out of hand. I choose sales literature. I think my choice is more valid than rejecting scientific testing methods!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's from a... (drumroll)...

 ...sales brochure...

 ...for...

 ...wait...







Audioquest!! 

 A seller of high-priced cables!

 (Bet you would have never guessed!) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I can understand your skepticism, which I share, but I cannot understand your cynicism in light of the fact that we're all seeking a better understanding of cable theory and practice together. Perhaps you are not seeking to better your understanding. Perhaps you have this all figured out. If that's the case, congratulations! Please allow us, who are slower and more skeptical than cynical to further explore these issues.
 Regards,


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Putting aside whether there really is a difference or not, there are issues of practicality. Only the most flagrantly illogical cable believers (whose posts I routinely skip over in this thread) say that there's a "night and day" difference between cables. Most people agree that the difference is subtle. I don't buy the "last 5%" argument, because I don't think the people who cite it really are at the last 5% with their systems._

 

You state that this is what you *think*, but where is your objective evidence? You have no idea where other people's systems are in their relative states of development. Further, someone's entry level system may be more resolving and revealing than my fancy dancy system, so who am I to tell them what they can and can't hear or pursue to enhance performance?

 I certainly agree with you that there are huge issues here with regards to practicality. Now we're getting into value judgments which are all subjective. The best you can do is to give people all of the known data that you have, and let them decide for themselves. Once they've decided, you must respect their decision. 

 As far as sonic differences go, subtleties become less and less subtle as the rest of the system gets better, removing what was once obfuscating distortions and colorations out of the way.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like a photographer who puts all of his attention on new and modern camera equipment and ignores the most fundamental of tools- lighting; a lot of audiophiles get caught up in plussing the 5% while ignoring fundamental freqency balance issues. The "5%" ends up getting discussed 90% of the time._

 

Whoa, the most important thing in photography is composition, IMHO. See, we disagree on that too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The plain truth is, there are MUCH more efficient and inexepensive ways to improve your system than to plunk down a Benjamin for each wire connecting it. Many of those ways don't get discussed much here, and when they do, it's clear that people don't really know much more than what someone else told them about the subject. It says a lot that there's a dedicated forum here for wires and silly tweaks, and none for audio processing, room treatment or psychoacoustic principles related to codecs._

 

Who is advocating spending big bucks on cables? Name one person here and when you do, cite the evidence. My memory is often selective, but I don't recall anyone insisting that people have to spend lots of money. I've seen a few people say that to a point, better cables generally cost more than cheapies, but those same people have shared things that they do to lower cost barriers. That's good for everybody! Remember this is a thread about cables, not about other ways to improve a system. There are other threads and forums for that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why does discussion of cables get so much attention then? It's simple._

 

Yes, it is simple. Because this is a cable forum.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If this is a forum where discussion of DBT is forbidden, I get to choose what sort of proof I get to reject out of hand. I choose sales literature. I think my choice is more valid than rejecting scientific testing methods!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

It appears to be quite common here that some people regularly observe the world around them with a padlock on their brain, blinders on their eyes, and their fingers in their ears, and mouth usually wide open. Heck, I've done it myself on occasion. 

 The power of choice.

 BTW, I'm not aware of anyone here outrightly rejecting scientific testing methods. I for one am overtly seeking scientific methods to better understand and substantiate what I hear.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sugarinthegourd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is an interesting topic. Back when I was using a minidisc, I did some A/Bs where I consistently PREFERRED the sound of ATRAC3 to the original CD source. It sounded warmer to me. This is a lossy codec, but one which is far more advanced psychoacoustically than something like mp3._

 


 Here's an interesting clip from that same worthless document. (It's worth reading.)

  Quote:


 Besides the danger of listening to equipment instead of music, the next most fundamental challenge to useful evaluation is overcoming the amazing human ability to adapt. 

 • We are astonishingly capable of “seeing” through distortion. We (generally) don’t feel our clothes, yet we are sensitive to even a single rain drop falling on our clothing. We can wear all colors of sun-glasses and yet still see that the sky is blue. If we use yellow goggles while skiing on a cloudy day, 
 when we take them off the snow looks purple. The “solution” isn’t to get out the yellow paint to fix the snow, the solution is to allow ourselves time to re-calibrate our references. Once we have adjusted to a colored (distorted) reference, we can be fooled into thinking reality is wrong. 

 Have you ever been given a cassette tape and you didn’t know if it was Dolby encoded or not? You probably pushed the Dolby button on and off, while you were playing the tape, in an attempt to decide which way was correct. Odds are that both positions sounded wrong. One way sounded too bright and the other sounded too dull. In this artificial context one is faced with two conflicting references, both of which make the other sound wrong. A common response is to wish there were a middle position, even though one of the existing positions is absolutely correct and the other is absolutely wrong. 

 This is an example of how an instant comparison can be a highly deceptive selling technique and not part of a trustworthy evaluation methodology. Whoever controls the switch can sell whatever they want. This also applies to a lone individual doing an “evaluation” by themselves. Just because a second party isn’t involved doesn’t prevent someone from “selling” themselves whichever component first grabs their attention, whichever one got the good review, whichever one has an attractive story.

 • Another simple opportunity for deception (including self-deception) is the A/B phenomenon: The second time a piece of music is played, the listener is bound to notice something that wasn’t noticed the first time-even with familiar music. This perception feeds directly into the value system which dictates that more information is our most commanding priority. If you want to sell something, always play it second. 

 There are ways around this pitfall: Go back to “A”. No matter which is better, going back to “A” will be a surprise. Since the step from “A” to “B” included the “novelty factor” in addition to the real difference, the step back to “A” will be surprisingly different from the original step to “B”, simply because the novelty factor has disappeared. “A” will seem to be better than when played the first time. Continuing on to play “B” a second time, without the benefit of the novelty factor, then reveals its truer relationship to “A”. After an initial A/B/A/B, it is possible to move to “C” and “D” with far less confusion. 

 • It can be easier to evaluate three products instead of the apparently simpler task of evaluating only two. Even without the deception of an instant A/B, any A/B is subject to a certain amount of the effect described with the cassette tape example-the truth is perceived as somewhere between the two. 
 If two of the three products are relatively similar, probably (but not always) different models from the same manufacturer, then it is quite easy to establish an absolute hierarchy between the two products. 

 When a third and different product is compared to a similar pair, it becomes a comparison between a line and a point, instead of just between two points. It becomes much easier to establish a hierarchy: that the third product is preferable to either member of the pair, inferior to either, or somewhere in-between. 

 • There is almost no way back to the “garden” of complete innocence. It requires great awareness and careful methodology to attain anything like the direct vision available to those who cannot be distracted by misleading details. This view flies in the face of those who declare that people have to learn what is good sound, go to lots of live concerts and study the technology. Bull!

 The only thing that needs to be learned is how not to be misled by the incredibly deceptive process of listening to equipment. People hear real sounds all day long. None of these real sounds has the added layers of distortion which exist in every audio system. Whether or not we have ever heard a particular singer or instrument, we can recognize whether more or less “extra stuff” is in the way. 

 • As for comparisons where there seem to be only “insignificant” differences between components, this is usually proof of a faulty context and/or methodology. This is most obvious in the discussion of ABX testing. 
 In an ABX set-up, the listener does not know whether or not there has been any equipment change at all. ABX testing is not a question of how a fixed but blind “A” compares to a fixed but blind “B”. Because there are too many unknowns, the ABX test becomes primarily an opportunity for embarrass- 
 ment. Context is everything, and the ABX set-up is one very distorted context, much too far removed from the purpose of an audio system. ABX fans believe that a lack of repeatable hierarchy proves there are no valid differences. Others of us believe the same evidence proves that the ABX test is an invalid methodology.

 Does all this mean that trustworthy conclusions are impossible? No. It means a balanced perspective is paramount. It’s a little like shopping for advice (which really is more useful than shopping for equipment): If honesty is the sole criterion, you’ll probably end up taking advice from someone honest, but 
 incompetent. If competency is the sole criterion you get the picture.


----------



## Febs

Why was my post deleted?

 Since my post was deleted, I will repeat my request to tourmaline that he point us to the thread that he referenced above that in a prior thread, some "skeptics" argued that, "the only evidence was a measuring instrument, not what they actually heard." I'm not asking tourmaline for proof of anything. I simply want him to identify the source of the statements that he has paraphrased.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why was my post deleted?

 Since my post was deleted, I will repeat my request to tourmaline that he point us to the thread that he referenced above that in a prior thread, some "skeptics" argued that, "the only evidence was a measuring instrument, not what they actually heard." I'm not asking tourmaline for proof of anything. I simply want him to identify the source of the statements that he has paraphrased._

 

Do it in a non inflammatory and respectful fashion and all is good.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The plain truth is, there are MUCH more efficient and inexepensive ways to improve your system than to plunk down a Benjamin for each wire connecting it. 

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Really? What does a good amp cost ya? What does a good cdplayer cost ya, what does a good cartridge cost ya.

 You of all should know that good equipment don't come cheap.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 For your info, there are also wireless sound systems for sale. So how would you spend all the money on cables in such a system?

 All reports i read say that thiose wireless sytems cannot match a good cabled system.

 Cables are a necessary and i like em as good as they come.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I'm not asking tourmaline for proof of anything._

 

Then why do you need a link. You know the search function on head-fi?


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really though, if the result of a positive result for any reason, it would be a huge step forward. The claim of "cables don't matter" would be bunk, even if the secret was the dielectric._

 

Dielectric & how the conductors are configured will tend to have the greatest effect. This effect is measurable though the effects shown in measurements are usually out of the audio band according to measurements

 Just because the measurements indicate the the effects should be out of band doesn't mean however that the effects can't be heard. A 1500pf silver mica cap bypassing a metalyzed film cap of 8-10uf should be inaudible in a 4 ohm speaker set (these caps were in a passive crossover of a speaker). But let me assure you thier effects were very audible. The sound without the silver mica caps was lacking in highend extension, this is even though metalyzed films typically have excellent high frquency response.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *germanium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dielectric & how the conductors are configured will tend to have the greatest effect. This effect is measurable though the effects shown in measurements are usually out of the audio band according to measurements

 Just because the measurements indicate the the effects should be out of band doesn't mean however that the effects can't be heard. A 1500pf silver mica cap bypassing a metalyzed film cap of 8-10uf should be inaudible in a 4 ohm speaker set (these caps were in a passive crossover of a speaker). But let me assure you thier effects were very audible. The sound without the silver mica caps was lacking in highend extension, this is even though metalyzed films typically have excellent high frquency response._

 

I can tell ya for sure that changing the coupler caps on my tube amp for silver signal caps made a huge difference!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who is advocating spending big bucks on cables? Name one person here and when you do, cite the evidence._

 

Tourmalene. He has said repeatedly that the sound quality of cables improves in direct relationship to their cost. He has also said, "You get what you pay for." When questioned, he resorts to the old line, "it must be your lousy ears or your lousy equipment". It isn't ears or equipment. It's horse sense and professional experience.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *germanium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The sound without the silver mica caps was lacking in highend extension, this is even though metalyzed films typically have excellent high frquency response._

 

There is a difference between frequency response and frequency extension. Something can sound muffled and still have super high frequency content. It's all about the balance of frequencies. Masking, which is the result of relatively minor imbalances in frequencies an octave down the band, can completely change the color of the sound. It's entirely possible that an imbalance in the mids can affect the perceived sound of the high frequencies.

 Masking is a psychoacoustic principle that I've heard is utilized in compression codecs, but I haven't heard many hifi nuts address it in their systems. I suspect that it has a big part in a lot of the observations regarding "veils" and "soundstage". (Two very inexact terms that are thrown around a lot here.)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## dvw

I don't want to dig up my old text book. So I use the lazy man's research Wikipedia for skin effect.
 The formula for 10% increase in resistance in copper is
 D=200mm/sqrt(f)
 For 20KHz, the diameter is 1.44mm and for 100KHz is 0.2mm. You guys can interpret these result.

 Now for interconnect, resistance is not critical because the amplifiers input are usuallly high impedance. So the effect on this skin effect is really where the pole of the filter is. For practical purpose, I don't think skin effect is going to change the flatness of the frequency reponse much unless you are using wire thicker than 1.44mm


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then why do you need a link. You know the search function on head-fi?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You have (1) paraphrased a statement (2) purportedly made (3) by an unidentified person (4) in an unidentified thread. 

 Why are you so afraid to provide a link so that people can read whatever it is that unidentified person *actually* said?


----------



## LawnGnome

So, I'm guessing no headway was made while I was gone?

 The believers still failed to provide evidence, and the skeptics continued with their attempt to have them provide it?

 Since this thread has failed to come up with any supporting evidence in its 17 pages, I consider it safe to conclude it never will. As no thread, on any forum has seemed to come to anything solid.

 Anyone who read those links I provided way back though, most likely have figured out this whole situation them self.

 When, if ever, any sort of even remotely controlled testing is provide, I'll take a look, until then, this is just a repeating cycle of ignored words from both sides.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tourmalene. He has said repeatedly that the sound quality of cables improves in direct relationship to their cost. He has also said, "You get what you pay for." When questioned, he resorts to the old line, "it must be your lousy ears or your lousy equipment". It isn't ears or equipment. It's horse sense and professional experience.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Yeah, but he also said he bought used to mitigate the high cost. That's good advice, no?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, I'm guessing no headway was made while I was gone?

 The believers still failed to provide evidence, and the skeptics continued with their attempt to have them provide it?

 Since this thread has failed to come up with any supporting evidence in its 17 pages, I consider it safe to conclude it never will. As no thread, on any forum has seemed to come to anything solid.

 Anyone who read those links I provided way back though, most likely have figured out this whole situation them self.

 When, if ever, any sort of even remotely controlled testing is provide, I'll take a look, until then, this is just a repeating cycle of ignored words from both sides._

 

Welcome back. Might be something worth reading in the stuff you missed.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome back. Might be something worth reading in the stuff you missed._

 

I skimmed, and seems the bickering still has kept up. I'd rather not get involved again. 

 I may end up reading something and become compelled to share my views, which usually come off pretty harsh.


----------



## dvw

Okay, I finally found some data in Belden's catalog with their audio cable. The insulation is polyethlene. The spec is 14.7 ohm/1000ft and 35pF/ft capacitance. It's not the best stuff in the world compared to Token Ring cable or Cat 5 cable.

 So if the cable is a low pass filter, the high frequency cut off for 3 feet of interconnect is 3.52 GHz. The cable is 22 AWG so there is no skin effect at audio frequency range. If you go 6 feet the cut off is 1.76 GHz. So I think it's safe to say the frequency would be pretty flat for at least 10 meters.

 Let's assume you have a very bad cable at 80 pF. The cut off for 6 feet will be 740 MHz.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tourmalene. He has said repeatedly that the sound quality of cables improves in direct relationship to their cost. He has also said, "You get what you pay for." When questioned, he resorts to the old line, "it must be your lousy ears or your lousy equipment". It isn't ears or equipment. It's horse sense and professional experience.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

He can't even spell my sig right. Go figure.

 I said that in the line of a brand, the high end cables sound better then the cheaper in a line. Simple as that. Yes, in that respect, you get what you pay for.

 At least i heard em all, not you. You just use radio shack and figure no cable can sound better.

 Didn't you forget patrick and a whole lot of others.......bigshot?!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You have (1) paraphrased a statement (2) purportedly made (3) by an unidentified person (4) in an unidentified thread. 

 Why are you so afraid to provide a link so that people can read whatever it is that unidentified person *actually* said?_

 

I am not afraid, i just happen to notice that all you do in threads is pop in and ask for links, not contributing anything, or providing anything. Just commend. That's the easy way.

 If you wanna know, why don't you spend the amount of time to search the threads over the last few months. It was a thread that was closed. I don't need to convince myself, i know what i read.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, but he also said he bought used to mitigate the high cost. That's good advice, no?_

 

And provided dozens of links with "prove' why some cables sound better then others but that is wasted time on bigshot, because he's the only "enlightened" person in the whole world.

 Strange though that any respectable recording studio doesn't use radio shack cables. none worthy mentioning i know of, at least. So, it seems not many really professional recording pro's share his idea and use at least very decent cables.

 He's trying to project his ideas into the whole world.

 There's even a recording pro that makes his own line of cables costing thousands of dollars.

 Even the scientists are not generaly thinking the same way! For links that cables sound the same, i can link dozens to sites that prove cables can sound different or better.

 Even you provided plenty of respectable links about cables, kwkarth.

 I spend 25 years testing and listening to cables, you think you're the only one with "experience"?!


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, I'm guessing no headway was made while I was gone?

 The believers still failed to provide evidence, and the skeptics continued with their attempt to have them provide it?

 Since this thread has failed to come up with any supporting evidence in its 17 pages, I consider it safe to conclude it never will. As no thread, on any forum has seemed to come to anything solid.

 Anyone who read those links I provided way back though, most likely have figured out this whole situation them self.

 When, if ever, any sort of even remotely controlled testing is provide, I'll take a look, until then, this is just a repeating cycle of ignored words from both sides._

 

There is no proof on either side of the equation, Only more questions. Tests can be rigged to support anyones given argument. That is why I believe DBT is useless. The equipment selected can in fact limit the ability to detect the changes. in order for the tests to be accurate they need to have the best possable high resolution setup. Since no one seems to be able to agree on what that might consist of you will never truely have a definative answer eith way.

 To answer your question as far as I'm concerned there is a difference. That is why I make my own cables, because they allow me better resolution on complex instruments like piano sound more real with my cabling. Will they improve all systems ? Absolutely not. They only work well on systems that have good resolution but are saddled with high output impedance. the do not improve low-fi systems at all, nor do they improve sound on systems with low output impedance. There is in fact measurable differences but most test equipment seem too low resolution to too see the real changes that the ear hears in the better cables. You will never actually see them on an oscillascope as the lines are not fine enough & the screens are to small to get the wave form big enough to compensate for the line width. It also takes a complex waveform to reveal the diference & that makes it even harder to see in the test equipment.

 Example; I could look all day long at an oscillascope readout of the filtered DAC output of a mediocre ladder type DAC & not see the poor linearity caused by uneven steps in the bit structure but the distortion was very plainly audable to the ear. They gave a very grainy texture to the sound that most even mediocre delta sigma DACs don't have & that is listening though the same filter.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not afraid,_

 

Then post the link. Seriously. This is ridiculous. If you want to rely on a statement made by someone else in another thread as support for a point that you are trying to make, identify that statement. If you are not willing to do that, then don't rely on that supposed statement to support your position.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Strange though that any respectable recording studio doesn't use radio shack cables. none worthy mentioning i know of, at least. So, it seems not many really professional recording pro's share his idea and use at least very decent cables._

 

How many professional recording studios have you been in? What basis do you have for reaching any conclusion about what "many really professional recording pros" do?

 All of the professional recording studios that I've been in use cables that are sufficiently well constructed so that the connectors don't fail from the rigors of studio use. None of the studios that I've ever worked in have used any sort of esoteric cables at all. For example, Monster instrument cables are fairly popular, but no recording engineer that I've ever worked with would spend thousands or even hundreds of dollars on an interconnect.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How many professional recording studios have you been in? What basis do you have for reaching any conclusion about what "many really professional recording pros" do?

 All of the professional recording studios that I've been in use cables that are sufficiently well constructed so that the connectors don't fail from the rigors of studio use. None of the studios that I've ever worked in have used any sort of esoteric cables at all. For example, Monster instrument cables are fairly popular, but no recording engineer that I've ever worked with would spend thousands or even hundreds of dollars on an interconnect._

 

They don't use radio shack cables, don't beat about the bush!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And i stated:

 "and use at least very decent cables" =there is no word of high end in there........

 Well, there suppose to be one very famous recording engeneer that makes his own cables wich are litterally thousands of dollars and he is installing those cables also in other studio's.

 Wich studio's i dunno. If i can recall the name, i could find the website.

 All recordings of audioquest are made with the high end silver cables of audioquest and there are a few others that i know of for certain use high end cabling! Audioquest cd's state specific in their cd labels that the recordings were made with high end equipment like mark levinson and their own high end silver cables, i have a few of these cd's so i should know!

 And on some cd's i can clearly hear the silvery sound of their older high end silvercables.LOL.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then post the link. Seriously. This is ridiculous. If you want to rely on a statement made by someone else in another thread as support for a point that you are trying to make, identify that statement. If you are not willing to do that, then don't rely on that supposed statement to support your position._

 

I simply don't feel like spending an hour or an hour and a half spending looking for an old thread that was closed because people turned nasty.

 You know how the search tool works on this forum, do you?

 If i happen to stumble across the thread, i will post it!

 I am 100 percent positive that in that thread somebody stated that he only believed the measuring instruments, not his ears.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *germanium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no proof on either side of the equation, Only more questions. Tests can be rigged to support anyones given argument. That is why I believe DBT is useless. The equipment selected can in fact limit the ability to detect the changes. in order for the tests to be accurate they need to have the best possable high resolution setup. Since no one seems to be able to agree on what that might consist of you will never truely have a definative answer eith way._

 

This is a copout, and you're using the word "rigged" incredibly losely.

 People claim to hear dramatic difference between interconnects on a system as cheap as a OnboardSound->Bithead->cMoy->HD580. That's a $300 system. So if you DBT under those conditions, and noone can identify the the interconnects, you still have very valuable data, in that anyone who claims cables matter in such a low resolution system (which blows most $5K speaker systems out of the water) has a much harder case to make. If you can DBT that setup successfully, well, this debate would have been over a long time ago.

 Second, there are much simpler tests that could establish good results. Take two identical cables, have a third one different, obscufate them, send them around and see what happens. People can't tell a difference on their own systems? Well, the reasons that people cite that cables work or not would have to be much narrowed. People can identify them? Break out the oscilloscope and see what's going on and test from there.

 As long as the test is actually blind, there is always some result that can be taken from it. The only real "rigged" test is one where you claim it is blind and is not (see Patrick82) and that is not what anyone here is talking about.


----------



## Chu

Also, I think people are forgetting about that keyword, "audible." Yes there are differences between cables. I've worked with some very esoteric networking equipment where cables were an incredibly concern. The difference between a 20 mile Terrabit fibre run, a 10G over copper run, and connecting your source to your amp though are worlds apart. In many cases, the cables I can use for the former are _cheaper_ then what people hook their systems up with. Orders of magnitude cheaper.

 Even on long distance fibre runs, including Right of Way leases, reimbursements, contractor fees, and equipment rental -- your average fiber run doesn't even approach $4000/m. like some interconnects we have. I don't think some people realize how insanely expensive this stuff really is.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So if you DBT under those conditions, and noone can identify the the interconnects, you still have very valuable data, in that anyone who claims cables matter in such a low resolution system (which blows most $5K speaker systems out of the water) has a much harder case to make. If you can DBT that setup successfully, well, this debate would have been over a long time ago._

 

what if people don't believe in DBT? i for one don't think much of them.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 what if people don't believe in DBT? i for one don't think much of them. 
 

Then you are basically saying that the audible differences in cables are so minute that you do not believe that you could consistently prove that there is a difference in cables without knowing which one you are listening to. 

 Could you reliably tell the difference blind between wine and water? Coke or Pepsi? Why not cables?

 What is a better way to really determine if there is a consistent audible difference in cables? Do you think knowing which one you are listening to is really a good test and would reliably prove that there is an audible difference in cables? Anyone could say they hear differences if they knew which one they were listening to.

 Sorry, but blind is the only way to take placebo out of the equation. What is wrong with not knowing which cable you are listening to? What other reason does one not believe in blind testing if it is not feeling confident enough to choose cables consistently?

 I have heard the argument that everyone's ears are different, but that doesn't hold water. I would like to see anyone's ears reliably prove that cables make an audible difference and I have not seen it.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The believers still failed to provide evidence, and the skeptics continued with their attempt to have them provide it?_

 

I don't know about the rest of the 'believers', but I could care less. If you want to prove me wrong, you collect the evidence. If you want to blind test my cables, come to one of my meets and set it up. I will be happy to oblige, but I'm not wasting my weekend doing tests [that you will likely invalidate for some small reason] just to make you feel better.


----------



## LowPhreak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flargosa* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was browsing around head-fi last night and read somewhere that Copper is warmer than silver because more information is lost on transit compared to silver. This information loss smoothens out the naturally harsh digital audio. No one seemed to disagree, is this a fact? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Back to the OP's question, here's one of the better explainations I've yet seen for copper vs. silver, (from Roger Skoff of XLO Electric):

  Quote:


 First of all, the question "Why doesn't XLO use silver?" is misleading because, until just recently, XLO did use silver conductors. These were the silver conductors at the very center of the "Precious Metal Composite" conductor array in XLO's least expensive speaker cables, XLO/VDO models ER-15 and ER-16.

 Both of these cables used multiple layers of conducting wire, each layer of a different effective resistance, as a cheap and efficient way of controlling "skin effect phase shift". Because of its low DC resistance, silver worked very well in that application, but we would never use it in any of our better cables.

 Which brings us to the second part of the question "Doesn't silver work better?". Many people think that because of silver's low resistance (it has the lowest internal resistance of any natural metal) it ought to be more conductive than other metals. They also think that its presumed better conductivity ought to make for better cables. In fact, that's just not the case.

 For one thing, in an audio or video application, silver isn't consistently more conductive than copper. Conductivity is the ability to pass a current. For a DC current, conductivity is exactly the opposite of resistance, and if we were dealing with DC, silver's lower DC resistance (it's 11% less resistive to DC current flow than copper) really would make it a better conductor. Music or video signals aren't DC, though, they're AC, and that makes a huge difference!

 With AC currents, inductance becomes an important consideration. Silver is inherently more inductive than copper, and, when an AC current is passed through it, its greater inductive reactance creates a steeper AC resistivity gradient between the center and outside of a silver conductor than would be the case in a copper conductor of exactly the same physical characteristics. This results in, among other things, significantly higher "skin effect" phase shift as compared to a copper conductor, and it is an important contributor to the characteristic "silvery" sound of most silver-conductor cables.

 If the issue were just resistance, it would be easy to make silver and copper cables equal: Copper has 11% more (DC) resistance than silver, so just using copper cables that are 11% shorter would make the resistance exactly the same. The fact, though, is that resistance simply isn't the issue!

 Another thing that isn't the issue is cost. People sometimes assume that because silver coins are generally more valuable than pennies, silver must be more expensive than copper. That's not necessarily true: While ETP copper (the stuff that pennies and household electrical cables are made out of) is certainly cheaper than silver (at about $0.68 as compared to $4.65 per ounce), Laboratory Grade copper (the specially processed high-purity copper specified by XLO for use in all Reference2, Signature2, UnLimited Edition and Limited Edition cables) currently sells for as much as $12.21 per ounce . _This is more than 2 ½ times the price of silver, so if silver really were any better than copper, we would rush to use it._

 Which brings us finally to the question of "Doesn't silver sound better?" We don't think so, but that's because we don't think that cables should have any sound at all!

 Even people who like silver cables agree that they have their own characteristic sound. Silver cables tend to give everything that passes through them a "shiny" or "silvery" quality that might be quite seductive, but that's NOT part of the music or the sound that's actually on the recording. That isn't what XLO is all about. We believe that cables should just pass signal from one point to another, without adding, subtracting, distorting, coloring, or in any other way imposing their own voice on what you hear - even if the change are, as with silver's characteristic coloration, something that some people might like better.

 "Hi-Fi" is a contraction for "High Fidelity", a term which originally referred to a philosophy of sound recording and reproduction that held to "a high degree of fidelity (faithfulness) to the actual sound of the original music. That's still what XLO believes in, and that's why we don't use silver in our cables. 
 

http://xloelectric.com/technicalsupport.php#a1


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I simply don't feel like spending an hour or an hour and a half spending looking for an old thread that was closed because people turned nasty.

 You know how the search tool works on this forum, do you?

 If i happen to stumble across the thread, i will post it!

 I am 100 percent positive that in that thread somebody stated that he only believed the measuring instruments, not his ears._

 

What's the point of looking up an old thread? We have people in this thread who seem to be saying essentially the same thing. I think it's best to let this one drop.

 As I mentioned earlier, [size=large]there are many in this world who seem to go through life with a padlock on their brain, blinders on their eyes, fingers in their ears, and their mouth wide open.[/size] 

 It would seem that many refuse to listen/observe for themselves, refuse to try and understand any perspective other than their own, twist and wrangle everything other people say, in order to justify themselves desperately clutching to their pet theories. I say to you, there are people like this on both sides of the fence. Let's see who denies the truth of this, human nature, which I've stated belongs to both sides of the camp. (for those who insist upon division)


----------



## LowPhreak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 As I mentioned earlier, [size=large]there are many in this world who seem to go through life with a padlock on their brain, blinders on their eyes, fingers in their ears, and their mouth wide open.[/size] 
_

 

Ah! The Knuckle-Draggers! I know a few of them myself.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LowPhreak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah! The Knuckle-Draggers! I know a few of them myself._

 

Really? I've been one of them, from time to time! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 With regard to DBT, I, and others have clearly stated in this thread that a true DBT is not at all easy to construct because virtually any switching apparatus could obscure the sound to the point as to obfuscate the sonic differences between cables.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really? I've been one of them, from time to time! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 With regard to DBT, I, and others have clearly stated in this thread that a true DBT is not at all easy to construct because virtually any switching apparatus could obscure the sound to the point as to obfuscate the sonic differences between cables._

 

And as I have repeatably said, you don't have to use one.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, but he also said he bought used to mitigate the high cost. That's good advice, no?_

 

Bargain priced used snake oil is no more effective than brand new list price snake oil.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Didn't you forget patrick and a whole lot of others._

 

Patrick isn't serious. He's joking around and doesn't really believe everything he says. He is an entertaining troll who sparks fun discussion of wacky tweaks. I've decided that you aren't a troll. You believe in what you say.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

LowPhreak,
 Good blurb from XLO!
 Thanks,
 k


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All of the professional recording studios that I've been in use cables that are sufficiently well constructed so that the connectors don't fail from the rigors of studio use. None of the studios that I've ever worked in have used any sort of esoteric cables at all._

 

I'll second that. That's been my experience as a recording/post production supervisor for nearly 20 years.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bargain priced used snake oil is no more effective than brand new list price snake oil.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Thank you for clarifying that for us.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They don't use radio shack cables, don't beat about the bush!_

 

I already addressed that. When specifically asked about Radio Shack cables a respected mixining engineer told them that when he installed his board, he made his own cables from spindles and connectors. But the reason gave for that was that buying cables of stock lengths would be much more costly. It had nothing to do with quality. He said that if he came across a patch that he didn't have a cable for, he wouldn't hesitate to send a production assistant to Radio Shack to pick one up... and he would use that cable in daily work until it wore out.

 Recording engineers don't use esoteric high end cables. They spend their money on what counts. Microphones and mike pres.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you want to prove me wrong, you collect the evidence._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what if people don't believe in DBT? i for one don't think much of them._

 

irony.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LowPhreak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Back to the OP's question, here's one of the better explainations I've yet seen for copper vs. silver, (from Roger Skoff of XLO Electric)_

 

This is sales pitch. (The color scheme on their webpage is hideous!)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_With regard to DBT, I, and others have clearly stated in this thread that a true DBT is not at all easy to construct because virtually any switching apparatus could obscure the sound to the point as to obfuscate the sonic differences between cables._

 

If two identical systems were set up side by side, you'd probably say that the variation between individual components in the same product line would introduce differences too, right?

 You're stacking your criteria for judging to guarantee a result.

 If preamps aren't transparent enough to reveal the differences between cables, no home system is going to reveal the differences. Every home stereo system I've ever seen includes a preamp with switching capabilities.

 Therefore, cables don't make an audible difference in sound quality.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I already addressed that. When specifically asked about Radio Shack cables a respected mixining engineer told them that when he installed his board, he made his own cables from spindles and connectors. But the reason gave for that was that buying cables of stock lengths would be much more costly. It had nothing to do with quality. He said that if he came across a patch that he didn't have a cable for, he wouldn't hesitate to send a production assistant to Radio Shack to pick one up... and he would use that cable in daily work until it wore out.

 Recording engineers don't use esoteric high end cables. They spend their money on what counts. Microphones and mike pres.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

There are many engineers and studios who do care about the cables they use and do use, at the very least, Canare quad or better, cables. Most profitable engineers and studios realize their time is worth more than minimum wage and don't build their cables, but have them custom built and installed. (we're talking about wiring the bones of the studio here.) If I recall correctly, George Cardas used to mention a number of big studios using his cables for their bones.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If two identical systems were set up side by side, you'd probably say that the variation between individual components in the same product line would introduce differences too, right?_

 

Absolutely

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're stacking your criteria for judging to guarantee a result._

 

You can choose to interpret my motives for saying what I said in any way you choose, however, I know my motives are pure. How about yours?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If preamps aren't transparent enough to reveal the differences between cables, no home system is going to reveal the differences. Every home stereo system I've ever seen includes a preamp with switching capabilities._

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. The preamps and sources I've used where I heard cable differences were basically source direct into headphone amp, with essentially no switching in between. The only exception is with my Max which has a two way source selection. That apparently is cleanly enough implemented that I could still hear cables.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I recall correctly, George Cardas used to mention a number of big studios using his cables for their bones._

 

Sales pitch.

 I've supervised recording and mixing at dozens of studios. I'm telling you something I know here from first hand experience. Sound studios do not use high end cabling. They buy spindles of the same sort of cabling that Radio Shack uses and put their own connectors on it. They spend money on high end microphones, mixing boards mike pres and compressors. The patch cables they use to connect the electric guitars and the wiring under the board is plain vanilla. Only audiophools spend money on expensive wires.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can choose to interpret my motives for saying what I said in any way you choose, however, I know my motives are pure. How about yours?_

 

I'm talking about logical thought process and arguing on point. When I point out a fallacy in your argument, I'm not disparaging your intent.

 If a high end preamp is too noisy to reveal the differences between cables, the difference is totally inconsequential. Most people use equipment with volume pots and switching ability.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Then you are basically saying that the audible differences in cables are so minute that you do not believe that you could consistently prove that there is a difference in cables without knowing which one you are listening to. 

 Could you reliably tell the difference blind between wine and water? Coke or Pepsi? Why not cables?

 What is a better way to really determine if there is a consistent audible difference in cables? Do you think knowing which one you are listening to is really a good test and would reliably prove that there is an audible difference in cables? Anyone could say they hear differences if they knew which one they were listening to.

 Sorry, but blind is the only way to take placebo out of the equation. What is wrong with not knowing which cable you are listening to? What other reason does one not believe in blind testing if it is not feeling confident enough to choose cables consistently?

*I have heard the argument that everyone's ears are different, but that doesn't hold water.* I would like to see anyone's ears reliably prove that cables make an audible difference and I have not seen it._

 

Because you haven't "seen" it, does not make it untrue. 

 Yes, everyone's ears are different. As is everyone's training on what to do with what they hear. The differences are real, sometimes profound, and substantial. The Military recognizes and uses it to tactical advantage where instrumentation alone does not cut the mustard. The audio industry recognizes and uses this to their advantage. The music industry recognizes this and uses it to their advantage.

 Hey, why is everybody so intent on "proving" to anybody else whether or not they can hear differences in cables or not? Just go listen for yourself and make up your own mind! If you hear differences, fine, if you don't, fine.

 If you want to stop exploring the world around you and click the padlock shut for yourself, that is your prerogative.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sales pitch.

 I've supervised recording and mixing at dozens of studios. I'm telling you something I know here from first hand experience. Sound studios do not use high end cabling. They buy spindles of the same sort of cabling that Radio Shack uses and put their own connectors on it. They spend money on high end microphones, mixing boards mike pres and compressors. The patch cables they use to connect the electric guitars and the wiring under the board is plain vanilla. Only audiophools spend money on expensive wires.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Canare does not make cable for Radio Shack. Canare and Belden are probably two of the most widely used cables in the industry. Please don't tell me this isn't true. I would be crushed.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm talking about logical thought process and arguing on point. When I point out a fallacy in your argument, I'm not disparaging your intent.

 If a high end preamp is too noisy to reveal the differences between cables, the difference is totally inconsequential. Most people use equipment with volume pots and switching ability.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You seem to be selectively ignoring what I said. Please reread my posts. It happens to me too sometimes...Information overload.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Hey, why is everybody so intent on "proving" to anybody else whether or not they can hear differences in cables or not? Just go listen for yourself and make up your own mind! If you hear differences, fine, if you don't, fine. 
 

I have listened to various cables and come to the conclusion that they sound the same. I have blind tested silver, copper and even paper clips and they all sound the same. If I suggest that someone buy any cable instead of paying a lot of money for silver or ALO, I get called a troll who doesn't know what he is talking about, just because my opinion is different from the norm.

 If someone recommends to others to pay $100 for ALO or Grover cables, I would just like some proof that they will sound better than any other cable. There has never been proof, so why recommend them? What is wrong with getting answers?


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have listened to various cables and come to the conclusion that they sound the same. I have blind tested silver, copper and even paper clips and they all sound the same. If I suggest that someone buy any cable instead of paying a lot of money for silver or ALO, I get called a troll who doesn't know what he is talking about, just because my opinion is different from the norm.

 If someone recommends to others to pay $100 for ALO or Grover cables, I would just like some proof that they will sound better than any other cable. There has never been proof, so why recommend them? What is wrong with getting answers?_

 

To everyone: Try recommending others listen to different stuff and to help them make up their own mind. Facilitate their experience, not your opinion.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Try recommending they listen to different stuff and make up their own mind. Facilitate their experience, not your opinion._

 

Why should he tell people to reinvent the wheel? He is offerring solid advice based on personal research to help others go beyond what he knows, not to recreate it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why should he tell people to reinvent the wheel? He is offerring solid advice based on personal research to help others go beyond what he knows, not to recreate it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Because ultimately we're listening to music, not opinions.


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 Hey, why is everybody so intent on "proving" to anybody else whether or not they can hear differences in cables or not? Just go listen for yourself and make up your own mind! If you hear differences, fine, if you don't, fine. 
 

The point is that most people will probably "hear" a difference between cables purely due to placebo. What I think the sceptics are saying is that despite the fact you might think you do there is in fact no difference. You can find this out with a bit of blind testing (or not).


----------



## LowPhreak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LowPhreak,
 Good blurb from XLO!
 Thanks,
 k_

 

No prob.


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LowPhreak* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Back to the OP's question, here's one of the better explainations I've yet seen for copper vs. silver, (from Roger Skoff of XLO Electric):



http://xloelectric.com/technicalsupport.php#a1_

 

This XLO explanation is truely inventive. "Skin effect phase shift" and inductiveness of metal?

 The inductance of cable is so low they are usually not even specified in cables. Usually the inductance are too low.

 In telephone application, after a couple of Km, the high frequency are attenuated more than the low frequency. So loading coil (inductance) is added to reduce this attenuation (maybe a better word is equalize).

 If you pass by a telephone pole next time, you can see a long metallic box in the middle of the cable and that's the loading coil.

 Skin effect has to do with current density. It does not change the phase. In any case, if you see my calculation, skin effect is not going to do anything to the characteristic of the wire unless you're using 10 AWG or larger cable. I doubt anyone will be using interconnect that thick.

 Also, we need to put things in perspective. We are dealing with less than 6 feet of wire not 1000 feet. IMO, under 10 meters most variance are too small to impact sound quality.

 However, I do have cable that sound different. One time I pushed my amp to close to the wall and crimp the cable at the connector. And somehow it made a difference in the soundstage. I kept the cable as a demo. Still, most people don't notice the difference until I point out what to look for.

 Another point, some time ago RIAA tried to use a low frequency beat as a watermark in the music to prevent copying. Because of all the audiophile's objection, they cancell that technology. I read that one Stereophile editor actually listened to the watermarked music and can't tell the difference. It wasn't until he was informed what to look for that he can tell the difference.

 The brain can do some remarkable things.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have listened to various cables and come to the conclusion that they sound the same. I have blind tested silver, copper and even paper clips and they all sound the same. If I suggest that someone buy any cable instead of paying a lot of money for silver or ALO, I get called a troll who doesn't know what he is talking about, just because my opinion is different from the norm.

 If someone recommends to others to pay $100 for ALO or Grover cables, I would just like some proof that they will sound better than any other cable. There has never been proof, so why recommend them? What is wrong with getting answers?_

 

You don't hear a difference between cables in your system, so it would be a waste of money for you personally to buy anything other than stock cables. On the other hand, I do hear differences between cables in some of my systems. For those systems, I build or buy better cables to the point that I'm satisfied with the overall sound. What's the problem here? Why should I have to prove to anybody that there is a difference? It's my money, my system, my ears, and my enjoyment.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To everyone: Try recommending others listen to different stuff and to help them make up their own mind. Facilitate their experience, not your opinion._

 

Wonderful suggestion!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why should he tell people to reinvent the wheel? He is offerring solid advice based on personal research to help others go beyond what he knows, not to recreate it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Ears are different, systems are different. Simple.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The point is that most people will probably "hear" a difference between cables purely due to placebo. What I think the sceptics are saying is that despite the fact you might think you do there is in fact no difference. You can find this out with a bit of blind testing (or not)._

 

What you are saying is pure conjecture. Please, don't go out and buy spendy cables. Just stick with coat hangers and you'll be better off.

 If you want to come to Portland, I'll let you hear my system and you can make up your own mind... But that wouldn't tell you anything about your system. I've done blind testing with my system and I'm happy with it. I hear the difference in a statistically significant fashion. That's all I need for me. You do what you want. Don't denigrate my testing or ability to hear just because you have never heard any difference.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because ultimately we're listening to music, not opinions._

 

I wish I'd said that...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Because ultimately we're listening to music, not opinions._

 

I sure appreciate the opinions of the guys who put me on the right path early on. They saved me a bundle of money. All opinions are not created equal, however. Some people know what they're talking about and can offer constructive suggestions for getting bang for the buck. That's what I'm trying to do. When people say "well, it's good for me, it may not be for you- it all depends I guess." that pretty much means that they don't have much to say about it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I sure appreciate the opinions of the guys who put me on the right path early on. They saved me a bundle of money. All opinions are not created equal, however. Some people know what they're talking about and can offer constructive suggestions for getting bang for the buck. That's what I'm trying to do. When people say "well, it's good for me, it may not be for you- it all depends I guess." that pretty much means that they don't have much to say about it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The "right path" sounds like the religious belief of someone who as an acolyte was taught the dogma many years ago. A fixed belief is not an opinion. You proudly eschew trying to discern differences or treating the reports of others as possible indications of difference. So of course your tenets of quality debunking are unaffected. This makes you of no use to someone looking for greater buck bang because that requires distinguishing when more money helps and when it doesn't. You just flatly and blindly say it doesn't.

 Someone who says something sounds good or different but others must judge for themselves is being non-omniscient, non-arrogant and respectful of the complexities of the subject and the differences among systems and people. It is a lot likelier that that person is worth listening to when they say the little they have to say than someone who has much to say in your sense.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The "right path" sounds like the religious belief of someone who as an acolyte was taught the dogma many years ago. A fixed belief is not an opinion._

 

That's a fallacy of extension. I've never said that my beliefs are fixed. Come up with arguments to support your position objectively and don't resort to logical fallacies and I'll read your post all the way though next time.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## LowPhreak

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This XLO explanation is truely inventive. "Skin effect phase shift" and inductiveness of metal?
_

 

Skin effect does exist, as does inductance. 

 But I've been down this debate road about 8,000 times before, and I'll not engage it here again. I have A/B'ed cables in my system blind, and hear a difference between some but not others. Some I've had were obscenely expensive and some cheap as dirt. 

 I've considered myself an audio enthusiast since my early teens, and I'm now 46, so I think I've sorted through most of the marketing BS. I've kept the cables that sound best to me on my components, and sold the ones that do not. 

 YMMV.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I sure appreciate the opinions of the guys who put me on the right path early on. They saved me a bundle of money. All opinions are not created equal, however. Some people know what they're talking about and can offer constructive suggestions for getting bang for the buck. That's what I'm trying to do. When people say "well, it's good for me, it may not be for you- it all depends I guess." that pretty much means that they don't have much to say about it.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Yea, right. Troll elsewhere. I fear your voice hath lost its charm. I'm done with you.


----------



## chesebert

*Why do you all argue and waste your time with threads like this? *

 What's the point of justifying your cheap cable if you can't afford the expensive ones?

 Instead of wasting your time quibble over the technicality of cables, you should concentrate on making more money so you can buy one of each cable from $10 to $50,000; pick the ones you like and sell the rest. 

 OR

 you can just buy several of those $50k cable; so instead of wasting your time comparing different cables, you use that time more efficiently to make more money. 

 Rich people don't comparison shop because its is not in their best interest; buy the best then go back to make more money instead of wasting time they could have otherwise used to make more money than they could have saved 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you are poor, you shouldn't even wasting your time on this site or any other audio related sites.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a fallacy of extension. I've never said that my beliefs are fixed. Come up with arguments to support your position objectively and don't resort to logical fallacies and I'll read your post all the way though next time.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

You demonstrate that they are fixed over and over in countless threads you clog with the same attempts to debunk...over and over again regardless of what is being presented. And not reading me thru--oh, I'm so hurt--demonstrates the closed mindedness I was describing.

 Once again so perhaps you might get it this time, logical fallacies have meaning only in regard to attempts to formally prove something. I don't need to try to prove what you have demonstrated ad nauseum, namely, that you are a troll who is stuck on one note: to claim about certain categories of audio equipment that none are worth more than the basic versions of them and that we are all fools who hear differences, that you by repeating endlessly this incantation of dogma can remove the veils from our ears and save of us bucks. What we want to be saved from is you.
 __________________


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*Why do you all argue and waste your time with threads like this? *

 What's the point of justifying your cheap cable if you can't afford the expensive ones?

 Instead of wasting your time quibble over the technicality of cables, you should concentrate on making more money so you can buy one of each cable from $10 to $50,000; pick the ones you like and sell the rest. 

 OR

 you can just buy several of those $50k cable; so instead of wasting your time comparing different cables, you use that time more efficiently to make more money. 

 Rich people don't comparison shop because its is not in their best interest; buy the best then go back to make more money instead of wasting time they could have otherwise used to make more money than they could have saved 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you are poor, you shouldn't even wasting your time on this site or any other audio related sites. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Now *you* I like! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, the "rich" have their own games.


----------



## LowPhreak

Audio arguments I've been involved in (ad infinitum, ad nauseum):

 ~ analog vs. digital
 ~ tubes vs. transistors
 ~ MOSFET vs. bi-polar
 ~ horns vs. dynamics vs. electrostatics vs. ribbons
 ~ acoustic suspension vs. ported
 ~ moving magnet vs. moving coil 
 ~ subwoofer vs. no subwoofer
 ~ low power vs. high power
 ~ triode vs. pentode vs. ultralinear
 ~ what's most important: the recording, the source, the amplification, the speakers, the room?

 And more.

 At some point in all of the above topics - and for various reasons - further discussion becomes as useful as pissing up a rope.


----------



## bigshot

Now THERE'S a flurry of wonderfully informative posts.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now THERE'S a flurry of wonderfully informative posts.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

At last, you're finally seeing real value for what it is...


----------



## germanium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At last, you're finally seeing real value for what it is... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think he was being sarcastic. Though I noticed not much is going on in this thread for a little while. I think everyone has concluded that they are not really affecting anyone elses opinion on the matter.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At last, you're finally seeing real value for what it is... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Gee, I wish I'd said that.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am 100 percent positive that in that thread somebody stated that he only believed the measuring instruments, not his ears._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's the point of looking up an old thread? We have people in this thread who seem to be saying essentially the same thing._

 

Saying that instruments are capable of measuring what our ears are capable of hearing is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments." Saying that blind testing is the necessary to avoid the influence of perceptual biases is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments."

 What I truly don't understand is why the "I trust my ears" people are so averse to blind testing, since the whole purpose of blind testing is to eliminate all other influences _but _the ears from the comparison.

 In any event ...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you want to come to Portland, I'll let you hear my system and you can make up your own mind._

 

I have no plans to be anywhere near Portland in the foreseeable future. However, we are in the process of organizing a Philadelphia-area meet for late October. If there is anyone in the Philadelphia are who has a system which they believe demonstrates a clear difference between cables, I would be very interested in the opportunity to hear it and I would encourage you to attend the meet.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Saying that instruments are capable of measuring what our ears are capable of hearing is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments." Saying that blind testing is the necessary to avoid the influence of perceptual biases is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments."

 What I truly don't understand is why the "I trust my ears" people are so averse to blind testing, since the whole purpose of blind testing is to eliminate all other influences but the ears from the comparison.

 <snip>
 I_

 

For the record: I do not trust my ears (nor my brain). Nor am I adverse to blind testing (sounds like fun!). I do hear the differences I hear. Sometimes its immediate. Sometimes its cumulative (i.e., after a few hours). The trick is figuring out what it means to me.

 But this applies mostly when I'm in analytic mode (listening to the equipment). Mostly, I'm just listening-- immersing myself, surrendering myself--to the music.


----------



## tourmaline

As long you have fun listening to the music, money isn't into the equation.
 No matter what the quality of the sound is. Quality of sound is for audiophiles.
 It is a hobby, like any hobby, people are more likely to dive into the specifics of making more out of it, taking into the equation that it might have costs to optimize your hobby. How much money you are willing to spend is personal.

 I know people that have plenty of money but don't give a darn about quality of the sound. They could afford very expensive rigs, but they are happy with mediocre sound. It's not their hobby or priority.

*Instruments cannot measure how happy somebody can be to hear his favourite song or bring back certain memories when he/she is hearing music or a specific song/cd!*

 I recognize that people have different needs; if somebody is pleased with what they got, who am i to argue. But if somebody is asking my opinion on sound/audio, them i am willing to "spill" my experience.

 On this forum i recon they are all audiophiles in search to make the most out of their rigs! since people that are happy or not really into audio, wouldn't spend much time on head-fi or any other audio site.

 I for one don't argue for the sake of argueing about cables, but to learn and understand why my cables sound the way they do, why sacd sounds better then cd etc.

 A hobby is mostly split into two parts, knowledge and practice.
 In order to get knowledge you either need to read, or ask more experienced buddies. This, i think is the main part that makes head-fi indispensable!

 I have about 25 years of experience, listening to and testing cables. I depend heavally on my ears and brain, since this is the last station between soundwaves and what i percieve as music. Reading threads like these made me understand why i heard what i heard, a real eye or in this context, a real ear opener.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 The trick for musical bliss is that you need practice and knowledge to come to the part that makes you enjoy the music the most! As general in life, to get to the final station, you have gone through several steps of trial and error!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Saying that instruments are capable of measuring what our ears are capable of hearing is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments." Saying that blind testing is the necessary to avoid the influence of perceptual biases is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments."

 What I truly don't understand is why the "I trust my ears" people are so averse to blind testing, since the whole purpose of blind testing is to eliminate all other influences but the ears from the comparison.

 In any event ...



 I have no plans to be anywhere near Portland in the foreseeable future. However, we are in the process of organizing a Philadelphia-area meet for late October. If there is anyone in the Philadelphia are who has a system which they believe demonstrates a clear difference between cables, I would be very interested in the opportunity to hear it and I would encourage you to attend the meet._

 

Only thing you can do nothing about is the ability TO hear! Ears are not the same. As no individual in real life is the same.

 I don't see much in dbt's since there are alot of variables.

 The only right way to do a test is at home, when you're rested, feeling relaxed and have a clear mind. 

 Stress can do strange things to you, making the ability to hear clear less good, people get influenced, lot of noise, equipment,switchboxes etc. at those dbt's in general. NOT the best envirement!

 We all know that it is much better to buy a new couch for instance when you're rested, had a good nights sleep and feel relaxed, otherwise you could end up with a couch that did feel right the first time, but at home, when you're feeling relaxed doesn't give you the comfort you thought it would!

 So, in that respect, i for one only test new cables or equipment on a relaxed day, quiet envirement and at home!

 And in this relaxed envirement, i always heard differences between cables, either for the good or bad, equipment etc.

 For this reason, i never will participate in dbt's.


----------



## Patrick82

It is common knowledge that the skill level decreases if you are nervous or tired. It happens in every sport. But skeptics like to ignore it like everything else, they just tell the test subject to make a 10 hour blind test, and then they think it is accurate because they want to believe it is accurate because it makes them feel better about themselves (damaged hearing). It is also common knowledge that old engineers are half deaf, but they don't believe it themselves because instead of using their ears to listen to music, they are using their measurement tools instead.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Stress can do strange things to you, making the ability to hear clear less good, people get influenced, lot of noise, equipment,switchboxes etc. at those dbt's in general. NOT the best envirement!

 We all know that it is much better to buy a new couch for instance when you're rested, had a good nights sleep and feel relaxed, otherwise you could end up with a couch that did feel right the first time, but at home, when you're feeling relaxed doesn't give you the comfort you thought it would!

 So, in that respect, i for one only test new cables or equipment on a relaxed day, quiet envirement and at home!_

 

So you agree that your perception of your cables' sound is influenced by psychological factors.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is common knowledge that the skill level decreases if you are nervous or tired. It happens in every sport._

 

Putting aside the fact that listening to music is not a sport, you also agree that your perception of the sound of your cables is affected by psychological factors. 

  Quote:


 But skeptics like to ignore it like everything else, they just tell the test subject to make a 10 hour blind test, and then they think it is accurate. 
 

They do no such thing. Can you point me to even one instance on Head-Fi where "skeptic" has "told a test subject to take a 10 hour blind test"?


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They do no such thing. Can you point me to even one instance on Head-Fi where "skeptic" has "told a test subject to take a 10 hour blind test"?_

 

Skeptics tell everyone to make 20 trials in the test. And it takes 10+ hours. If I switch a cable it takes 35-45 minutes to accurately decide which cable it is.


----------



## Febs

So what? No one has ever said that you need to conduct the trials in one sitting. You could do them over the course of six months if you wanted to.


----------



## Quaddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you agree that they way you perceive how your cables sound is influenced by psychological factors.



 They do no such thing. Can you point me to even one instance on Head-Fi where "skeptic" has "told a test subject to take a 10 hour blind test"?_

 

wow - just shows there must be something in this argument - as there is no smoke without fire.

 any of you guys ever looked at the signal noise ratio produced by your copper dls/adls lines, pretty prone to attenuation and atmospherics.

 long lengths involved i know, but it still factors in, even on a short run. this kind of shows that the material used, can indeed affect the end product/service. the quality of the line.

 most telecoms dont actually guarantee data down the line only voice, when you question them stringently. i wonder why that is?

 so it doesnt take much of a leap of the imagination to realize that material used in audio cables will affect signal and signature of the sound, even if at a low level.

 ---

 be interesting to see who has to have the last word here

 i have my bets placed.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So what? No one has ever said that you need to conduct the trials in one sitting. You could do them over the course of six months if you wanted to._

 

Tell that to the skeptic who is breathing behind your neck and telling you to "hurry up".


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Quaddy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_most telecoms dont actually guarantee data down the line only voice, when you question them stringently. i wonder why that is?_

 

Distance mostly, and environmental factors that can affect the quality of the actual copper line for the transmission of the data signals, both upstream and downstream. Oxidation/deterioration, mechanical strain, interferance from nearby factories/engines/powerlines and from other phone lines along the path of the copper line, and so forth. All of those can deteriorate the effective bandwidth achievable. The longer the distance from your home to the Central Office, the lower the bandwidth achievable. If the upstream bandwidth is too small, the modem might not synchronize. And if the downstream bandwidth is too low, the service isn't really good enough.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Putting aside the fact that listening to music is not a sport,_

 

Audiophilia is a sport to me. But for the skeptic it's the same as reading a newspaper in the morning, they are half asleep and sitting on the toilet.


----------



## Fairbanks

Wow,20 pages and we havn't even got to power cords and speaker wire yet.


----------



## Black Stuart

kwkarth,
 firstly, nearly excellant moderating with one exception - that's right, bigshot. He continually insults those who do not accept his views but that only shows what he's really all about.

 Riboge - you have to be awarded the prize for best quip of the year re. bigshot - what we want to be saved from is you. 

 Thanks to your moderating kwkarth, this thread has remained very interesting. You have made serious and rational comments about your listening experiences, along with others and this is precisely why forums like this are so important for newbies to eyeball.

 I remember well the thread that Tourmaline referred to in which some android said that he bought his cables according to the information supplied by a measuring instrument, because he 'did'nt trust his ears'. He disappeared from that thread when I asked him who listened to the music 'his ears or the measuring instrument'.

 Is copper warmer because of signal loss - I don't think copper is warmer, I have found it lacks detail at both ends of the spectrum compared to either silver or silver/plated copper, perhaps this 'sounds' like warmth to some.

 I was a total skeptic until about 18 months ago and used to agree with bigshot, that was until I bought a h/amp and was underwhelmed with what I heard.

 There was at that time a thread about power cords and so I decided to make one for myself and tried it with the h/amp. Within a couple of days it just opened up the sound of the Bada h/amp and let it breathe - I did'nt want to believe it but I had to.

 This started my investigations into power cords and very quickly into I/Cs. I have done a load of experiments with I/Cs since then, the only measuring instrument I use are my ears, since this is the conduit that conveys sounds to my brain and which it interprets as 'music'.

 Quality pays in all things, none more so than in materials. I take full advantage of the American taxpayer and buy ex US mil. spec wire - there is none better and it's damn cheap.

 Dialectric is very important - is Teflon better? yes but my results say when it is not in close contact with the conductor, bare wire used inside an overlarge tubing give the best results.

 Tried Litz and like kwkarth I have found better sounds from different construction techniques.

 Seperating signal and return wires yields a big increase in detail and soundstage.

 Sheilding is something about which there is so much 'received wisdom'/BS. sheilding will mar all the detail and close down the soundstage. With phono outs from a TT, sheilding is nec. but that's not really relevant to this thread.

 I've used copper/silver and s/plated copper - by a big margin I prefer s/plated copper. Perhaps I should have tried some CCC from Chimera Labs.

 I refuse to spend serious money on commercial I/Cs when it is so easy to make excellant I/Cs for yourself. Attention to detail, using quality connectors - I use LOK at the moment but if I can prise my wallet from my pocket (difficult for Scotsmen to do) I may just try some Furutech.

 Using science as a crutch, spewing out theory, whilst not actually using any of it in the real world is pathetic. Put the theories to the test, actually make some I/Cs and see if your theory works - but wait a minute what happens if your theory turns out to be a pile of crap, maybe that frightens some and would destabalise them - that maybe the reason they stay hidden behind their theories.

 I have absolutely no respect for those who only talk from theory and not from practice, whilst I'll happily engage with those who conduct their own experiments and disagree with my views because hey, we maybe can learn from each other.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This started my investigations into power cords and very quickly into I/Cs. I have done a load of experiments with I/Cs since then, the only measuring instrument I use are my ears, since this is the conduit that conveys sounds to my brain and which it interprets as 'music'._

 

Have you done 'for real' blind tests?


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Black Stuart* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seperating signal and return wires yields a big increase in detail and soundstage._

 

I also have the conductors separated from each other. I don't like when they are wrapped together. That's why I didn't like the Nordost Vishnu power cord. When I separated them and wrapped them in ERS Paper there was less muddiness and more low-level detail.
 Having less dielectric contact with the conductor gives more clarity as well.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For the record: I do not trust my ears (nor my brain). Nor am I adverse to blind testing (sounds like fun!). I do hear the differences I hear. Sometimes its immediate. Sometimes its cumulative (i.e., after a few hours). The trick is figuring out what it means to me.

 But this applies mostly when I'm in analytic mode (listening to the equipment). Mostly, I'm just listening-- immersing myself, surrendering myself--to the music._

 

Well said! 

 Febs, seems like we're back to overstating things in an attempt to score "points." I don't need to score any points with anyone. The only things I'm trying to persuade people of is to have a little respect for one another and the value of interacting with civility. 

 I am convinced that if and when we do that, we will all advance in our enjoyment of this hobby. I can't think of a single poster here who has actually said they're against blind testing. They're simply against poorly designed blind tests.

 Like ingwe said, none of us can trust our ears in the absolute sense. Our auditory system, like our visual system, is a miss match detector. Our brain allows us to adapt to things, making absolute measurement difficult at best, and in many cases, impossible to determine absolutes. 

 Detecting differences, though, is where our we, as humans, shine. 

 We all seek to aid this difference detection capability with instrumentation, which does excel at absolute measurement. If we're serious about realism, we also need to continually refresh for our ear/brain system, the standard of the live performance. 

 I, for one, would like to push the state of the art in High Fidelity ahead, not keep it mired in the past. As with so many other aspects of our world, we need to continually find new ways to measure and quantify the world around us if we are to further our understanding of it. Some of us believe that by furthering our understanding, we further our sense of wonder and enjoyment of our hobby.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Febs, seems like we're back to overstating things in an attempt to score "points." I don't need to score any points with anyone. The only things I'm trying to persuade people of it to have a little respect for one another and the value of interacting with civility._

 

I'm not sure what you're responding to. I don't think that there is anything in my last post responding to one of your earlier points that was either overstated or less than civil.

  Quote:


 I can't think of a single poster here who has actually said they're against blind testing. 
 

Tourmaline did.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure what you're responding to. I don't think that there is anything in my last post responding to one of your earlier points that was either overstated or less than civil._

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were being anything less than civil. I was referring to the tone of this entire thread, particularly the first two thirds of it.

 WRT your post, this was what I was referring to:
  Quote:


 Saying that instruments are capable of measuring what our ears are capable of hearing is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments." Saying that blind testing is the necessary to avoid the influence of perceptual biases is not the same thing as saying that one "only believes the measuring instruments."
 What I truly don't understand is why the "I trust my ears" people are so averse to blind testing, since the whole purpose of blind testing is to eliminate all other influences but the ears from the comparison.
 In any event ... 
 

The statement that the "I trust my ears" people are so averse to blind testing... Gee whizz man, that's an awful broad brush you've just painted all of us tweeners with. I trust my ears, but I don't trust my ears. If my ears tell me something is wrong, I immediately trust them that some thing's not right, but then I start looking for other substantiation to validate and quantify what I hear. 

 Some things I have yet to "measure" objectively that I can hear, but I can hear those things in a statistically significant fashion. Some day we will learn to measure and quantify those things. Plausible theories abound, pseudo science and snake oil also abound. I still hear what I hear, and will continue to try and separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## peelax

Quote:


 because you have never heard any difference. 
 

Kwkarth, I have most definitely "heard" a difference, and that is what I consider to be the problem really.

 If anyone wanted to lend me some cables to enlighten me....


----------



## LawnGnome

It's pretty sad that people keep attacking bigshot.

 They say they don't care about proving anything to him, but yet the continually attempt just that. Well, it could be they are try to convince someone, just not him. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seems he is taken a good beating for having opposing views.

 As for the stuff about DBT not being good enough. If it can repeatedly prove valid for the entire scientific community, especially the pharmaceutical research. Why do you think it isn't good enough for some Joe Blow on an internet forum?

 Some of the arguments people are coming up with mirror those of ESP, Faith Healing, and other paranormal things. Which reject scientific testing since they have repeatedly failed at it, and then claim it's the entire scientific community out to get them.

 End this discussion, do a true blind test. Because claims are weightless without evidence to back them up.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...Because claims are weightless without evidence to back them up._

 

DITTO. You have no substantiation for whether or not I can hear cable differences in my system. I really don't care if you believe me or not. It's your business what you choose to believe. You seem to be saying that a truly valid DBT would be an easy thing to put together for testing for cable differences. If it is, go for it! I'll be first in line to participate. I only have to validate that I can hear the differences through all of your equipment first in a non blind listen, then we can move forward with the DBT. Sign me up my friend!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *peelax* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Kwkarth, I have most definitely "heard" a difference, and that is what I consider to be the problem really.

 If anyone wanted to lend me some cables to enlighten me.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I agree, it's a problem! You're in good company. I want to be able to objectively measure the differences I do hear. I haven't figured out that part yet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I do have some cables I would be willing to lend under the right circumstances, between which I've heard differences, that I'm not currently using in my system. Even if I loan them to you and you hear differences, we still haven't proved anything. We've simply added another data point of anecdotal evidence. 

 Remember, also, that not all preamp/amp or source/headamp combinations are sensitive or revealing of cable to cable differences.

 With my Bose earbuds I can listen to my iPod shuffle with everything downconverted to 128kbs AAC and it sounds every bit as good as plugging it into the MAX driven by a nice SACD source. From time to time I do that very thing and I still enjoy the music immensely. Not listening critically there, just enjoying the music....


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Fairbanks* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow,20 pages and we haven't even got to power cords and speaker wire yet._

 

And what is even worst the same arguments repeated time after time: I heard this and that, with no evidence to back them off, other than you want others to believe that you have better superior ears, that of course are just yours, and nobody can't argue about that....then the other side, you can not hear because I can not, with no evidence neither of that all should sound alike (well indeed is really hard to prove what others claim to hear, because of the same reason...see above)

 Later the same information we know of, about cables, dielectrics, material, plugs, for more than 20 years in a row, with nothing new to add, that does not prove neither why the differences (otherwise we would not have this discussion now, what is a fact, is not discussed...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) posted time after time...IMO a total waste of web space for more than 20 pages!!!

*Guys if there is nothing new to post, a real new info, a real new evidence, something that could make things "a fact", I really and strongly encourage this thread to be closed, you will not get any positive result, nor any agreement this way. It is simple as that, for both parties, or you find the evidence or you will never convince anybody of what you hear or not...*


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's pretty sad that people keep attacking bigshot.

 They say they don't care about proving anything to him, but yet the continually attempt just that._

 

I think most people are simply responding to the unsubstantiated potshots Bigshot repeadedly takes at so many things said, taken out of context.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really don't care if you believe me or not. It's your business what you choose to believe._

 

That is exactly what I wrote in another thread some time ago. The burden of proof is (methodologically speaking) in the person making the claim. Well that is, if that person cares about other people believing his claim. If he doesn't care, he can simply ignore that burden.

 For the record, I do understand the skeptics point of view and comments, even though some of them might appear denigrating to some people.

 The mind can be deceitful to ourselves. They are not saying you don't hear differences because I can't, so you shouldn't be able to either; the brain does think it is hearing differences. But the brain can be deceitful, that's their main point. That's why someone said _"I don't trust my brain."_ There is true substance to that comment.

 We do think the Moon looks bigger whenever it is near the horizon than when it is high up in the sky. It is easy to prove it isn't any larger when at the horizon, and every astronomer knows that it looks no larger there than high in the sky. Yet whenever we see the moon near the horizon, our cognitive machinery makes us think once again that it looks larger there. No matter how well we know it shouldn't look larger, our brain tells us it does, every single time.

 This is why I am interested myself in checking whether I can differenciate my two HD650 cables, the Zu and the aftermarket I made. I don't think I would need 30-40 minutes in each comparison to distinguish the cables. In fact just playing the right music, and waiting for specific moments, I think I would need 3-4 minutes for each comparison. Yet, noone I've asked so far shows any interest in helping me on this. Basically because it is understandably boring for someone to go switching cables for about an hour or two behind my back while I listen to some stuff and take notes.


----------



## kwkarth

I will be happy to close this thread if the majority of you want it so.

 The original poster's question has been addressed by a number of posters in this thread. Thank you for that effort to be helpful.

 As for the rest of you who seemingly wanted only to convince others of your hobby horse, well.... I think we're all fortunate that storage space it real cheap these days, otherwise, the truly useful material in this thread could easily be reduced to one page or less.

 Actually, I will gladly let flargosa, the original poster make the call if he wishes to. What's your pleasure dude?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think most people are simply responding to the unsubstantiated potshots Bigshot repeadedly takes at so many things said, taken out of context._

 

That is completely out of line. I argue on point.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is exactly what I wrote in another thread some time ago. The burden of proof is (methodologically speaking) in the person making the claim. Well that is, if that person cares about other people believing his claim. If he doesn't care, he can simply ignore that burden._

 

For the record, from my first post in this thread, my intent was never to make any claims for others to believe or not, other than to show respect for one another's opinions. Some people keep hashing things up, demanding proof of this or that...rubbish! The original poster's question had nothing to do with proving anything, at least from the way it was worded. It seemed to me like he was asking if his supposition of signal loss was responsible for the difference in the sound of copper and silver cables.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flargosa* 
_I was browsing around head-fi last night and read somewhere that Copper is warmer than silver because more information is lost on transit compared to silver. This information loss smoothens out the naturally harsh digital audio. No one seemed to disagree, is this a fact?_

 

The next thing you know, as a matter of fact, in THE VERY NEXT POST, someone was riding their hobby horse instead of attempting to answer this guy's question. Who's insecure here? Who feels compelled to "prove" something to anyone else? Good grief people. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For the record, I do understand the skeptics point of view and comments, even though some of them might appear denigrating to some people. The mind can be deceitful to ourselves. They are not saying you don't hear differences because I can't so you shouldn't; the brain does think it is hearing differences. But the brain can be deceitful, that's their main point. That's why someone said "I don't trust my brain." There is true substance to that comment._

 

Absolutely! Many, many posters who do hear differences, myself included, have heartily agreed with that statement, yet those riding hobby horses, seem to repeatedly miss that fact and steam roller on with their hobby horse monologue, covering the same well trampled ground over and over again. That's not dialog, that's monologue. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is why I am interested myself in checking whether I can differenciate my two HD650 cables, the Zu and the aftermarket I made. I don't think I would need 30-40 minutes in each comparison to distinguish the cables. In fact just playing the right music, and waiting for specific moments, I think I would need 3-4 minutes for each comparison. Yet, noone I've asked so far shows any interest in helping me on this. Basically because it is understandably boring for someone to go switching cables for about an hour or two behind my back while I listen to some stuff and take notes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I find it pretty easy to identify difference between the stock HD-600 cable and the Cardas smurf blue after market cable. I'm not sure if the HD-650 would show as much difference or not. Supposedly, Sennheiser improved the quality of the stock cable for the 650's. The thing for you to do would be to buy a cable from a company that offers a reasonable return policy, and try the new cable yourself. If you hear an improvement, keep it. If not, send it back. If you want to come to Portland, I will gladly let you listen to the Cardas vs the stock cable on your 650's.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is completely out of line. I argue on point.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Thanks, you made my point for me.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing for you to do would be to buy a cable from a company that offers a reasonable return policy, and try the new cable yourself. If you hear an improvement, keep it. If not, send it back._

 







 Don't see why I'd need to do that, I already have two cables that I think sound rather different, and I like the Zu. What I want to do is to convince myself that I do hear the differences between the Zu and that other cable; that my brain is not being deceiftul to me despite all my conscious attempts to not let it. That's why I'd like to do the blind test myself.

  Quote:


 If you want to come to Portland, I will gladly let you listen to the Cardas vs the stock cable on your 650's. 
 

Thanks! Will keep that in mind whenever I'm near Portland.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So you agree that your perception of your cables' sound is influenced by psychological factors.



 Putting aside the fact that listening to music is not a sport, you also agree that your perception of the sound of your cables is affected by psychological factors. 



 They do no such thing. Can you point me to even one instance on Head-Fi where "skeptic" has "told a test subject to take a 10 hour blind test"?_

 

No, sorry, as usual you misread my post. I said, that when i want to audition anything new, i make sure the conditions are the best possible! That's all.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


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





 Don't see why I'd need to do that, I already have two cables that I think sound rather different, and I like the Zu. What I want to do is to convince myself that I do hear the differences between the Zu and that other cable; that my brain is not being deceiftul to me despite all my conscious attempts to not let it. That's why I'd like to do the blind test myself.


 Thanks! Will keep that in mind whenever I'm near Portland. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

So, you do eventually believe in better cables then since the zu is NOT the standard cable yet you decided it is the best for you! If this is not clear to you, then what is?!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


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





 Don't see why I'd need to do that, I already have two cables that I think sound rather different, and I like the Zu. What I want to do is to convince myself that I do hear the differences between the Zu and that other cable; that my brain is not being deceiftul to me despite all my conscious attempts to not let it. That's why I'd like to do the blind test myself.


 Thanks! Will keep that in mind whenever I'm near Portland. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I would be glad to help facilitate the blind test for you as well.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is exactly what I wrote in another thread some time ago. The burden of proof is (methodologically speaking) in the person making the claim. Well that is, if that person cares about other people believing his claim. If he doesn't care, he can simply ignore that burden.

 For the record, I do understand the skeptics point of view and comments, even though some of them might appear denigrating to some people.

 The mind can be deceitful to ourselves. They are not saying you don't hear differences because I can't, so you shouldn't be able to either; the brain does think it is hearing differences. But the brain can be deceitful, that's their main point. That's why someone said "I don't trust my brain." There is true substance to that comment.

 We do think the Moon looks bigger whenever it is near the horizon than when it is high up in the sky. It is easy to prove it isn't any larger when at the horizon, and every astronomer knows that it looks no larger there than high in the sky. Yet whenever we see the moon near the horizon, our cognitive machinery makes us think once again that it looks larger there. No matter how well we know it shouldn't look larger, our brain tells us it does, every single time.

 This is why I am interested myself in checking whether I can differenciate my two HD650 cables, the Zu and the aftermarket I made. I don't think I would need 30-40 minutes in each comparison to distinguish the cables. In fact just playing the right music, and waiting for specific moments, I think I would need 3-4 minutes for each comparison. Yet, noone I've asked so far shows any interest in helping me on this. Basically because it is understandably boring for someone to go switching cables for about an hour or two behind my back while I listen to some stuff and take notes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 I don't have that at all, if i have anything new, i hear the differences immediatly within minutes, for the good or bad and it stays the same all the way down. So, the effect is permanent, either good or bad. Means the new cable, IC or whatever new is either better or worse then the equipment or cables i currently use. It is as simple as that.


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, you do eventually believe in better cables then since the zu is NOT the standard cable yet you decided it is the best for you! If this is not clear to you, then what is?!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Maybe you didn't read a previous post of mine. See again the example with the apparently larger Moon when it's at the horizon.

 I do hear differences, but I'm also aware of the fact that the brain can be deceitful (I studied some Cognitive Science after all.) I'd like to make sure the differences I hear are actual differences, not my brain playing its sophisticated tricks, making me think the input has some differences that aren't actually there, as in the moon example.

 I'm also aware of the fact that there could be room for both camps to be right. The brain could be playing tricks, yet there might also be some perfectly perceivable differences, at least by some.


----------



## LawnGnome

Like it was already pointed out (by myself before, and several others) the burden of proof lies SOLELY on the person making the claim.

 If the believer's say they are not trying to prove anything, why do they continue to post their ideas and "theories" that cables do make a difference?


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the believer's say they are not trying to prove anything, why do they continue to post their ideas and "theories" that cables do make a difference?_

 

We could talk about experiences of perceiving the Moon to look so much larger today at the beach than yesterday at the city, things like that. Why would you have to assume that comments on such perceptual experiences are attempts to convince anyone that the Moon does look larger at the horizon than when high up in the sky?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is completely out of line. I argue on point._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like it was already pointed out (by myself before, and several others) the burden of proof lies SOLELY on the person making the claim.
 If the believer's say they are not trying to prove anything, why do they continue to post their ideas and "theories" that cables do make a difference?_


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not sure what you're responding to. I don't think that there is anything in my last post responding to one of your earlier points that was either overstated or less than civil.



 Tourmaline did._

 

And i also gave my reasons why.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And i think, the more experienced audiophiles would agree with me. I have done blind testing before and i clearly could hear the differences and tell exactly what they did to the system. So, clearly i don't have to prove anything for myself. Do i have to prove anything for somebody else? certainly not.

 Would i be willing to do a blind test in the envirement i posted about earlier, certainly. And as i stated before, i have done my share. Even to a point that an owner of an audio shop got pissed and told that i heard everything in a system. He couldn't take the bad news of systems or new equipment that didn't cut the cake.

 On another event i came in an audioshop and the owner let me hear his amplifier, you have to know that i auditioned it before, so i pretty much knew how it sounded at that time, and played some music. Within minutes i told him he had done something to the amplier, since it sounded quite different! He then told me that he replaced the internal wiring! You cannot go blinder then that situation, unexpected test!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And i also gave my reasons why.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And i think, the more experienced audiophiles would agree with me. I have done blind testing before and i clearly could hear the differences and tell exactly what they did to the system. So, clearly i don't have to prove anything for myself. Do i have to prove anything for somebody else? certainly not.

 Would i be willing to do a blind test in the envirement i posted about earlier, certainly. And as i stated before, i have done my share. Even to a point that an owner of an audio shop got pissed and told that i heard everything in a system. He couldn't take the bad news of systems or new equipment that didn't cut the cake.

 On another event i came in an audioshop and the owner let me hear his amplifier, you have to know that i auditioned it before, so i pretty much knew how it sounded at that time, and played some music. Within minutes i told him he had done something to the amplier, since it sounded quite different! He then told me that he replaced the internal wiring! You cannot go blinder then that situation, unexpected test!_

 

Don't ask me to cite references, because I can't off the top of my head, but I think it's something like less than 5% of the population have unusually acute hearing abilities like this. It's like any other gift, you can use it, abuse it, ignore it, or loose it. Like any other innate abilities we're born with, it doesn't make one person better than another person overall. That's why we're stronger together than alone. The whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Teamwork my friends. A true "Team" will always go farther than a band of indiviruals doing their own thing, no matter what their individual talents. In some endeavors, teamwork is obviously mandatory. In audiophillia, it's not a necessity, but we will all go much farther, much faster, together, than we will on our own. We can all learn from one another.

 Some equipment is more revealing of differences than others. Some individuals' hearing better able to identify subtle sonic differences than others. Some of the ability can be learned, but some is innate. You either have it or you don't. If you have it, you can train it to be of further value to you.

 A good spotter can, by natural hearing alone, identify range, direction, and elevation of a report or other sound sometimes better than any instrumentation in adverse field conditions. You're born with that ability, but then you have to train and develop it.

 As a photographer, in the old days, I learned how to develop my ability to accurately judge distances. We were shooting with wire frame 4x5 cameras. You could get awesome action/spontaneous photos by setting your distance and exposure values before hand, then in a large venue you could hang out on the sidelines, and when your gut told you that action might be about to take place, you could start walking towards it and when your preset distance exactly coincided with the developing action you could fire away, and you were all set. No fiddling with focus and exposure values, you could just concentrate on the action and framing it properly, etc.

 Much of that technique was taught/learned, but if I didn't have stereophonic vision to start with, there would no use training for that skill. It just wouldn't happen.

 So we have to be aware of our abilities and limits and work within that envelope to maximize benefit. 

 Then if we work together/cooperate with one another and rely on someone else who has strengths where we have weaknesses, and they, us, our combined effort is far more powerful than all of us working as individuals. Ego's have no place in this sort of co-op society. Honor and personal integrity do.


----------



## bigshot

No one is forcing anyone to read my posts. Feel free to cheerfully skip on by them. But whether you want to read my posts or not, it doesn't change the fact that my participation here has a value. Just because it doesn't have value to you, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value to others.

 I always try to comment on the merits of someone's points, not comment on the merits of the person themselves. Respect begets respect. If you want to keep civil discussion going, you'll want to do the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't ask me to cite references, because I can't off the top of my head, but I think it's something like less than 5% of the population have unusually acute hearing abilities like this. It's like any other gift, you can use it, abuse it, ignore it, or loose it. Like any other innate abilities we're born with, it doesn't make one person better than another person overall. That's why we're stronger together than alone. The whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Teamwork my friends. A true "Team" will always go farther than a band of indiviruals doing their own thing, no matter what their individual talents. In some endeavors, teamwork is obviously mandatory. In audiophillia, it's not a necessity, but we will all go much farther, much faster, together, than we will on our own. We can all learn from one another.

 Some equipment is more revealing of differences than others. Some individuals' hearing better able to identify subtle sonic differences than others. Some of the ability can be learned, but some is innate. You either have it or you don't. If you have it, you can train it to be of further value to you.

 A good spotter can, by natural hearing alone, identify range, direction, and elevation of a report or other sound sometimes better than any instrumentation in adverse field conditions. You're born with that ability, but then you have to train and develop it.

 As a photographer, in the old days, I learned how to develop my ability to accurately judge distances. We were shooting with wire frame 4x5 cameras. You could get awesome action/spontaneous photos by setting your distance and exposure values before hand, then in a large venue you could hang out on the sidelines, and when your gut told you that action might be about to take place, you could start walking towards it and when your preset distance exactly coincided with the developing action you could fire away, and you were all set. No fiddling with focus and exposure values, you could just concentrate on the action and framing it properly, etc.

 Much of that technique was taught/learned, but if I didn't have stereophonic vision to start with, there would no use training for that skill. It just wouldn't happen.

 So we have to be aware of our abilities and limits and work within that envelope to maximize benefit. 

 Then if we work together/cooperate with one another and rely on someone else who has strengths where we have weaknesses, and they, us, our combined effort is far more powerful than all of us working as individuals. Ego's have no place in this sort of co-op._

 

BUT, on a headphone rig, you can enjoy or critically listen to music on an individual basis.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 i also find it easier to hear "subtle" differences on a good headphone rig then with speaker setups( accoustical problems etc.) Only on very expensive speakers rig, you also can hear differences quite easally, but let me assure you, they are a magnitude more expensive then a good headphone rig!

 One other thing; you can only learn something IF you are willing to learn!


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like it was already pointed out (by myself before, and several others) the burden of proof lies SOLELY on the person making the claim.

 If the believer's say they are not trying to prove anything, why do they continue to post their ideas and "theories" that cables do make a difference?_

 

"They." "Them." "Believers."

 Lots of generalizations. Lots of negativity (in most of your recent posts). 

 What are your intentions here? What are you trying to prove?

 You probably couldn't care less, but I'm beginning to think you're a troll.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 definitions snipped..._

 

Can you post one for "sophist"?


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BUT, in a headphone rig, you can enjoy or critically listen to music on an individual basis.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 i also find it easier to hear "subtle" differences on a good headphone rig then with speaker setups( accoustical problems etc.) Only on very expensive speakers rig, you also can hear differences quite easally, but let me assure you, they are a magnitude more expensive then a good headphone rig!

 One other thing; you can only learn something IF you are willing to learn!_

 

I totally agree on all points. I've never owned a speaker based system good enough to reliably resolve subtle cable differences, but have heard other systems that good.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BUT, in a headphone rig, you can enjoy or critically listen to music on an individual basis.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 i also find it easier to hear "subtle" differences on a good headphone rig then with speaker setups( accoustical problems etc.) Only on very expensive speakers rig, you also can hear differences quite easally, but let me assure you, they are a magnitude more expensive then a good headphone rig!

 One other thing; you can only learn something IF you are willing to learn!_

 

x2 on all your points (except possibly using "magnitude" as a multiplier 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). 

 My system is capable of resolving differences in cables (including power), but the system's interaction with the room--the weak link in the system--often gets in the way. I have used my hd650's to help me identify and address main rig room issues, effecting reasonable improvement.

 __________________________________________________ ___
 And now, a few Bruce Lee quotes applicable to just about anything:

_“I am learning to understand rather than immediately judge or to be judged. I cannot blindly follow the crowd and accept their approach. I will not allow myself to indulge in the usual manipulating game of role creation. Fortunately for me, my self-knowledge has transcended that and I have come to understand that life is best to be lived and not to be conceptualized. I am happy because I am growing daily and I am honestly not knowing where the limit lies. To be certain, every day there can be a revelation or a new discovery. I treasure the memory of the past misfortunes. It has added more to my bank of fortitude.”

 "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."

 “A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.”

 “Real living is living for others.”

 “I am not teaching you anything. I just help you to explore yourself”

 "To know one's self is to study one's self in action with another person."

__“Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.”

_And finally,

_“If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you”
_


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you post one for "sophist"? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Always glad to oblige when I can.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_x2 on all your points (except possibly using "magnitude" as a multiplier 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). 

 My system is capable of resolving differences in cables (including power), but the system's interaction with the room--the weak link in the system--often gets in the way. I have used my hd650's to help me identify and address main rig room issues, effecting reasonable improvement.

 __________________________________________________ ___
 And now, a few Bruce Lee quotes applicable to just about anything:

“I am learning to understand rather than immediately judge or to be judged. I cannot blindly follow the crowd and accept their approach. I will not allow myself to indulge in the usual manipulating game of role creation. Fortunately for me, my self-knowledge has transcended that and I have come to understand that life is best to be lived and not to be conceptualized. I am happy because I am growing daily and I am honestly not knowing where the limit lies. To be certain, every day there can be a revelation or a new discovery. I treasure the memory of the past misfortunes. It has added more to my bank of fortitude.”

 "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."

 “A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.”

 “Real living is living for others.”

 “I am not teaching you anything. I just help you to explore yourself”

 "To know one's self is to study one's self in action with another person."

“Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.”

And finally,

“If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you”
_

 

Wise words. To bad the master died so young. i still enjoy watching his movies!


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Always glad to oblige when I can. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






_

 

Thanks! I also like this one from Wikipedia:
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism)

*Sophism* can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the _sophists_ were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No one is forcing anyone to read my posts. Feel free to cheerfully skip on by them. But whether you want to read my posts or not, it doesn't change the fact that my participation here has a value. Just because it doesn't have value to you, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value to others.

 I always try to comment on the merits of someone's points, not comment on the merits of the person themselves. Respect begets respect. If you want to keep civil discussion going, you'll want to do the same.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Maybe you should include a warning label to start your posts:
*Warning. You may want to skip this post. My posts are irksomely smug and intended to provoke dissension, rankle and with artful indirection insult those who differ with me and make the incivility they incite seem to be their doing. Read at your own risk!*
 Then perhaps one could "cheerfully skip on by" before the barbs grab them.
 No one doubts your posts have value. Would that the value one day became positive. You would think you have a lot to offer given your professional and personal experience with audio, if you would get to what you DO observe rather what you don't and insist others don't either.


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."

 “A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at.”

 “Real living is living for others.”

 “I am not teaching you anything. I just help you to explore yourself”

 "To know one's self is to study one's self in action with another person."

 “Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.”

 “If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you”_

 

Gee, I wish I'd said all that too! That's good stuff.


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kwkarth* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gee, I wish I'd said all that too! That's good stuff._

 

Just add it to your "bank of fortitude."


----------



## ingwe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...
*Warning. You may want to skip this post. My posts are irksomely smug and intended to provoke dissension, rankle and with artful indirection insult those who differ with me and make the incivility they incite seem to be their doing. Read at your own risk!
 ...
*_

 

You, sir, talk prettier than a three-dollar ____!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just add it to your "bank of fortitude." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Indeed! Will do!


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"They." "Them." "Believers."

 Lots of generalizations. Lots of negativity (in most of your recent posts). 

 What are your intentions here? What are you trying to prove?

 You probably couldn't care less, but I'm beginning to think you're a troll. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

So when someone posts opinions which differ from your own or those of others it is negativity?

 With all the effort you put into calling people negative and trolls, you could be researching. 

 By the standards of which you consider someone a troll, you too would be consider a troll.

 Posts that all the do is call someone a troll add no value to this thread, and only incite more bad blood should be left out.

 The way that people are back and forth calling people trolls should be stopped by a mod.


----------



## kwkarth

Before another outbreak of sophism ensues, how many of you want to close the thread?


----------



## meat01

I vote we close it


----------



## dvw

close it


----------



## rsaavedra

I see hardly any true dialog going on. People on both sides are mostly on monologue mode, not paying attention to what the other side says. People is also seemingly skipping posts, or ignoring some posts/replies.

 My vote also goes for closing it.


----------



## Quaddy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ingwe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 “Real living is living for others.”
_

 


 wow i finally disagree with the great mr lees sentiment.

 in my book "Real living is living for yourself"

 all you youngsters will not understand that now i am sure.


----------



## kwkarth

Yup, I think she's pretty much run her course.
 Thank you so much to all of you who have honestly tried to edify one another.
 Thank you to all of you who actually tried to answer the OP's original question.
 Regards to all.


----------

