# Questions about how cables are made and  how do different cables sound different?



## Prog Rock Man

What are the reasons why two different cables will sound different from each other?
   
  Is capacitance, inductance or resistance the main reason? Is it the way that the cable is made, silver/copper, solid core/litz?
   
  Then, can those differences be correlated, e.g silver has more bass than copper, litz sounds more neutral than solid core?
   
  Then can the way expensive cables are made be repeated with cheaper cables which will make the same sound?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Considering the amount of cable makers, both professional and DIY on this forum and the numerous claims that cables sound different, I am surprised that this thread is not being inundated with answers.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

New question. If I wanted to make a cable that made treble clearer and I was not worried about the bass, what would I make it with?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Taken from the Chord website and 'What should I listen for?' advice on getting cables
   
  http://www.chord.co.uk/news2.php?id=3&phpMyAdmin=H%2CKFxwyL5UycE7miJqts4M28nF4&phpMyAdmin=1f49bfd3cbdaa53c1e4262029d36fe8d
   
  Mention is made of how they make many different cables and the importance of fitting the right cables to get better detail, dynamics and tone. But the advice is very general and has nothing specific like for 'more bass use...' or to 'tame treble use...', 'for a Naim system use....'. Why is it with all the work Chord do, do they not know how their own cables actually affect sound apart from to make them better than 'poor quality' cables? Surely if you actually follow Chords first advice, all you need to do is buy a decent quality cable.


----------



## Slackboy72

No bites???


----------



## GreatDane

Bite this


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Well, since Russ Andrews are not able to imply improved sound by their mains cables rejecting RFI after an ASA ruling, then what about the others who do exactly the same thing?
   
  Yes, this is a fishing expedition, but no I am not flogging a dead horse. I cannot find any other post that actually asks directly, what is it in the making of cables that improves sound quality? (Proof, not implication required!)


----------



## BlackbeardBen

I believe this may be a more adequate description of what's going on here:
   

   
  But I would seriously like to see some responses here.


----------



## Garage1217

To be honest, I have NEVER been able to hear an actual difference in any cables unless there was an issue with the cable design, a break in the cable, cable did not have proper shielding for the environment or the plug itself was seriously damaged and not making proper contact. To me, if I cannot hear a difference when doing back to back a/b comparisons during critical listening then it is just snake oil. I do however have zero issue paying for a well made cable "within reason" as build quality is important to me. For me, unless someone can show scientifically why a cable of equal length made from copper, silver or gold, making proper contact would physically sound different to the human ear then it is all crap and marketing to me. Most would be better plucking a few ear hairs "which is a DIY mod haha" to achieve a different or better sound.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

It's true, build quality is worth paying for...
   
  A crappy pair of banana plugs caused a short at one of my speakers, damaging one of my amps.  I'll be using locking banana plugs from now on.


----------



## Garage1217

Funny story.. I come home and start watching a movie. After 5 minutes the receiver goes into protect. I reset it and watch again for 5 minutes and poof, she shuts down. So I unplug all 22,000 cables from the back of my old school receiver... take it to the shop, blow it out.. test the fan... Make a mini test setup testing each channel and all was good (an hour and a half later). So I put it all back in, plug it in and in 5 minutes it goes into protect. I start troubleshooting each component and then isolated it to one of the speaker channels after another hour... Then the wife walks in the door and says "oh, by the way, I think I knocked one of those gold connector thingies out of the back of that speaker but I put it back in, pointing to the front right. I look behind and she plugged the one banana plugs into the other causing a direct short haha. Lucky no damage to the receiver. Was a fantastic night.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

No argument about build quality. That is a reason why I tend to use ThatCable as I have taken one of their cables apart and opened another up to see how they are made for my own DIY. I also showed a friend whose company make their own cables (not hifi) and he was impressed by how ell they are made.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> No argument about build quality. That is a reason why I tend to use ThatCable as I have taken one of their cables apart and opened another up to see how they are made for my own DIY. I also showed a friend whose company make their own cables (not hifi) and he was impressed by how ell they are made.


 


 I buy mostly from Monoprice myself (I see ThatCable is a UK operation), although their banana plugs are poor and the ones that caused my short (of course, on an amp without a protection circuit).  Their RCA cables also have connectors that are sub-par for good cables (poor QC, too soft an alloy, and cheapish plastic base), but at under $3 for a 6' coaxial interconnect you can't really complain too much.
   
  The rest of their products are of much higher quality - although be weary of the reviews on their site, as they prevent most poor reviews from being posted.  Despite that, their USB, DVI, VGA, etc. cables and adapters are excellent, as is the speaker wire they sell (the cheapest 12 Ga wire I found, although I didn't try Home Depot).
   
  I think I'm going to try the GLS locking banana plugs: http://www.speakerrepair.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BL20
  No worrying about the springs plasticly deforming, which is what happened to the poor Monoprice ones.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I am always wary of plugging in anything for the first time, just in case of faults. Now I have some knowledge of soldering, if I can I will unscrew the connector to have a look, but many cables come with shrink or sheathing that stops that. 
   
  Having spent time reading various makers websites, Nordost, JPS Labs, Russ Andrews/Kimber what does stand out is that there is no connection between how and with what a cable is made, they all improve sound. That is brilliant news for any budding cable maker. It does not matter what you do, you can claim it sounds better and imply that is down to using whatever it is you can get your hands on to make the cable.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I am always wary of plugging in anything for the first time, just in case of faults. Now I have some knowledge of soldering, if I can I will unscrew the connector to have a look, but many cables come with shrink or sheathing that stops that.
> 
> Having spent time reading various makers websites, Nordost, JPS Labs, Russ Andrews/Kimber what does stand out is that there is no connection between how and with what a cable is made, they all improve sound. That is brilliant news for any budding cable maker. It does not matter what you do, you can claim it sounds better and imply that is down to using whatever it is you can get your hands on to make the cable.


 


 What really interests me is finding out how many of them honestly believe their own marketing and how many are just trying to make a buck...


----------



## Uncle Erik

Cable mythology self-contradicts. You'll find entirely different materials and construction claiming to do the same thing. Believers tend to take the position that every claim is valid. However, if you stack up all the thousands of claims, you'll notice that if one were true, it would invalidate the claims made by other manufacturers.

Yet every manufacturer has testimonial evidence to back up their claims.

Either magic abounds or some of those testimonials are nothing but placebo and expectation.

If you want a cable that makes treble clearer, send me $10 and I'll mail one to you. Now, this special treble cable usually goes for $5,000, but someone backed out on the order and I can let it go for $10, but just for you as a special favor to a friend.

I cannot reveal the secrets of my $5,000 treble-enhancing cable. That's a proprietary secret and I'm planning to patent it.

Or you might want to create your own treble-enhancing cable. According to legend and local lore, leaving a cable in the freezer for a week enhances the treble. Apparently, the freezing temperature and darkness brings out treble notes. Not only that, but the process works exactly the same for every material you try it with and produces the same result in every piece of gear. Amazing, isn't it? I swear this is true. I tried it and heard a difference.


----------



## foxesden

I think if you want to answer the question you probably should try building some cables yourself and trying them out. I did this about ten years ago when the kids were small and I had evenings where I was going a bit stir crazy.
   
  My aim was to see if I could detect differences in cables without spending more than about 50 quid. I used various recipes from the TNT-audio website, and to be honest some were too hard for my limited skills.
   
  I won't pretend to understand the physics but I am usually fairly sensitive to BS. When assessing improvements I was looking for something reasonably dramatic. I felt if I needed a DBT or similar than the improvement wasn't worthwhile.
   
  I got a noticeable difference over free stock cables using the tnt-ubyte mains cable; more bass and more dynamic, but I ditched it on safety grounds and replaced with Kimber classic when there was an offer on. I thought the Kimber Classic was about the same as the Ubyte. BTW I have just got this http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370325886382&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT for £35 and it I immediately noticed an improvement over the Kimber and it meets my pretty cheap/solid build criteria. With mains it may simply be a case that lower resistance and better build improves sound.
   
  The first speaker cables that I found that made a significant improvement were the TNT- ubyte cables. A nightmare to build but boy were they good. Massive difference on frequency range and dynamics over cable talk etc. I only replaced them because my wife wanted me to re-route them and this meant I needed longer cables which I couldn't face making again.
   
  With interconnects I couldn't hear any differences with any of the tnt recipes, but i didn't do any of the more exotic designs 'cos I was getting fed up by this time.
   
  But my experience was showing that to me foil; solid core and litz were the way to go. screening only made a difference if near other components. So I then had a go at making some allen wright silver foil interconnects. this was the first time I had noticed a difference over £10 interconnects again better range; more dynamics. It may have been the silver i.e. better connectivity but hey it was better.
   
  Over the last ten years I have replaced all but the silver foils. All my cables are now silver solid core or foil, but I have bought from the small no-name sellers and spend under £40 on mains cables; about £100 on interconnect and about £250 on speaker cables, I was lucky I got mine in dollars when it was $2 to the pound and silver was way cheaper.
   
  Hope this helps


----------



## JRG1990

The mains cable i got rejects interference or keeps it out, there is a big reduction in speaker hiss using this mains cable http://markgrantcables.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=45_18&products_id=47  , over the stock 1 , i don't understand why do some mains cables have 4mm2 cores when the wiring in walls is normally only 3 - 2mm2.


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Cable mythology self-contradicts. You'll find entirely different materials and construction claiming to do the same thing. Believers tend to take the position that every claim is valid. However, if you stack up all the thousands of claims, you'll notice that if one were true, it would invalidate the claims made by other manufacturers.
> 
> Yet every manufacturer has testimonial evidence to back up their claims.
> 
> ...


 

 I prefer having my cables blessed by virgins during a full moon. Works, I swear.


----------



## Garage1217

So wrong, everyone knows it must be the blood of a virgin from Bulgaria that was born on 6-6 of 1986 in order to extract the deepest bass and most pristine treble. You should apply a drop per interconnect and spread evenly with a paintbrush during the full moon.
  
  Quote: 





slackboy72 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





foxesden said:


> I think if you want to answer the question you probably should try building some cables yourself and trying them out. I did this about ten years ago when the kids were small and I had evenings where I was going a bit stir crazy.
> 
> .........


 

 I did and that was the final step in me changing my mind over the effect of cables. It has not mattered what I made them out of, they sound the same and the same as other cables I have. The only change is a slight volume adjustment between cables, which I presume is due to different resistances acting as attenuation. I could see how that could be mistaken for different sound. But if that is different sound, you can get the same result by adjusting the volume control.


----------



## MacT

for me there are 3 factors: topology, purity of material and isolator


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





mact said:


> for me there are 3 factors: topology, purity of material and isolator


 

 How do those factors link to clarity, bass etc with cables?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Taken from the Chord site on their Sarum cables (*my comments in bold*)
   
  We have spent 20 years researching, experimenting, designing and producing interconnects and speaker cables.  We understand the critical elements needed to produce cables that can carry a signal without any loss or interference and we understand how to produce cables that work synergetically to create outstanding performances from the systems to which they are connected.
   
*Twenty years and all that is needed to transfer a signal without loss (of what) and the importance of synergy, which is very subjective.*
   
  Years of experience has produced a musically spectacular collection of products; Sarum cables.  Speaker cable, interconnects and mains cables -  conceived, designed and built to deliver a truly exceptional performance.  
  Sarum cables won’t just reveal the real performance capabilities of your hi-fi components.  They will allow you further and deeper into the thrilling emotions within a musical performance and will show the true musical prowess of your favourite musicians and singers. To achieve the extraordinary performance levels that Sarum cables bring to a system, we have reinvestigated and refined almost every element and technique previously used.  From the conductors onward, every component that makes up a Sarum cable has been examined and improved. 
   
*Excellent, so lots of evidence to come.....*
   
  Conductors
  Like many cables in the Chord Company range, Sarum cables use silver-plated multi-strand oxygen free copper conductors.  In the case of the Sarum however, each strand that makes up the conductor has been precision polished to ensure a microscopically smooth surface before being plated with a heavy layer of silver.  This treatment aids accurate signal transfer, particularly in the high frequency region.  The Teflon™ insulation (used throughout the Sarum cable range) contributes to the cables’ extremely high signal speed and its outstanding ability to carry dynamic and micro dynamic information.
   
*Non sequitur. Where is the evidence polishing a cable is linked to accurate signal transfer and dynamics?*
   
  Insulation
  The insulation chosen for Sarum cables is another example of The Chord Company's commitment to refining and improving materials and techniques.
Teflon™ is used extensively throughout the Chord cable range.  It has an extremely low dielectric value and we believe its use is critical when employing silver-plated conductors.  The Sarum cable range uses Teflon™ as insulation but goes a step further.  Sarum interconnects and power cables both employ foamed Teflon™ insulation, whereas the speaker cable uses air-spaced Teflon™. In both cases, this produces an extremely effective insulation with a very low dielectric value.  
  Experimentation shows that reducing the dielectric value of the insulation produces a cable capable of carrying extremely accurate macro and micro dynamic information. The Chord Sarum cable range sets a new standard in its ability to accurately transfer dynamic information, making music more coherent, rhythmically more intelligible and above all, involving and exciting. 
   
*Experimentation shows you say, so show us the experiments please.....*
   
  Shielding
  The Chord Company pioneered the use of high frequency effective shielding on interconnects, speaker cables and power cables.  Chord believes that high frequency effective shielding is critical to the performance of every signal-carrying cable in a hi-fi system. 
   
*Ah, you need a belief to get this one, no experiments then...*
   
  All the cables in the Sarum range are fitted with extremely effective high frequency shields. 
  Existing shield designs were revisited, refined and improved; the shields fitted to Sarum cables offer the highest degree of signal protection available.
  Sarum interconnects and mains cables are fitted with a single over wrap of very heavy gauge silver-plated foil in combination with an extremely dense silver-plated flat braid.  Because of its unusually heavy gauge the silver-plated foil is technically challenging to apply, but when combined with the more conventional silver-plated braid, the results are exceptional.  The shielding offers a higher level of protection than any that Chord has previously used and at the same time produces a flexible cable that is simple to install.
  Sarum speaker cable is fitted with an outwardly simple but technically complex shielding system.  Once again, silver-plated heavy gauge foil is used, but in the case of Sarum speaker cable the foil is applied as a flat woven braid around the Teflon™ insulation.  This complex foil shield is then over braided with a more conventional but extremely dense silver-plated braid, producing a shield with 100% coverage to extremely high frequencies. 
  The shielding systems fitted to the Sarum cables set new standards, both technically and in terms of performance.  The space and silence between individual instruments is astonishing, as is the level of musical information revealed. 
   
*Damn these high frequencies! I presume the shield is to protect the cable from high frequencies? If that is so where do these high frequencies come from? Another non sequitur, highfrequency shielding is linked to spavce and silence how exactly?*
   
   
  Cable geometry
  Once again, we have taken a proven conductor geometry, refined and improved it. Sarum interconnects, like the Chord Indigo Plus, utilise a secondary return path conductor.  This conductor configuration enhances a cable’s ability to accurately carry an audio signal across an extended bandwidth. There is no doubt that the single signal path/dual signal return path configuration brings major benefits to the critical elements that are essential to reproduce an engrossing and involving musical performance.
   
*Ample opportunity to show some comparison graphs of signals with and without the use of Chord's refined and improved conductor geometry. but no....*
   
  The primary and secondary return path conductors used in the Chord Sarum are identical to the signal path conductor.   The sonic advantages of using dual signal return conductors can be improved still further by separately shielding each set of conductors.  The three conductors used for each run of Chord Sarum interconnect cable are fitted with the ground-breaking Sarum shielding system.  The shielding brings improvements to timing and dynamic information, increases the sound stage, imaging and depth and brings greater separation and definition to individual instruments. 
   
*Non sequitur city here. Their shielding improves timing, dynamics, sound stage, imaging, depth, separation and definition. If only Chord would show us how!*
   
  Chord Sarum mains and speaker cables are more conventional in their configuration. Critical however to extracting the full performance potential from any power cable is the wiring configuration within the mains and the IEC plug. The decision to fit Furutech plugs gave us a chance to reconfigure the internal conductors and improve performance still further.
   
*Wiring configuartion? Is that not which wire goes to neutral, earth and positive (depending on your countries mains supply) Internal conductors? Do you mean wires?*
   
  Interconnect
  The technical advances made during the development of the Sarum interconnect make it one of the most flexible and compatible high-performance cables available.  Sarum interconnects can be configured for and terminated with RCA/phono plugs, Din plugs and XLR plugs.  In each case, we experimented with the cable configuration until the best performance was achieved. The
  RCA, XLR and Din connectors fitted to Chord Sarum all feature silver-plated contacts and all connections are made with a high silver content solder to ensure the best possible signal integrity.   Sarum RCA cables are terminated with Chord silver-plated low mass RCA plugs.  These are surrounded by our vibration damping, acrylic RCA plug surrounds, each one of which is machined to exacting tolerances. 
  Sarum XLR cables require a different conductor configuration and in order to accommodate this, we have used a specially produced XLR plug.  The contact pins of the XLR plugs are silver-plated and each plug is fitted with a specially machined aluminium back shell. 
  Sarum Din cables are available in a variety of configurations, including Din to Din, Din to RCA and RCA to Din.  Once again, the conductors have been configured to produce the best possible performance.  Contact pins are silver-plated and the Din back shell has been machined to accommodate the cable. 
   
*Silver plated, but I am sure other companies improve their plugs with gold plating, or is it nickle? How do I know which claim is true? I wish you would show you experimentation with the cable configuration..*
   
  Mains cable
  During the development of the Chord Power Chord we learned how critical the wiring layout within the mains plug was to obtaining the best performance.  After much experimentation we chose to fit gold-plated Furutech connectors to the Sarum mains cable.  In listening tests, the Furutech was consistently chosen and we are extremely impressed with the build quality of Furutech products.
  The decision to fit Furutech plugs also gave us the chance to experiment with revised internal wiring configurations. The internal layout of the Furutech connectors allowed us to use a wiring configuration that would not be possible with a more conventional mains plug.
   
*How many ways are there to wire a plug? I knew gold was best after all....*
   
  Speaker cable
  Sarum speaker cable is based on the award winning Chord Signature speaker cable.  The same twisted pair -  in combination with the low resistance, heavy gauge, multi-stranded conductor configuration -  is used on both cables.  However, Sarum speaker cable uses heavily silver-plated polished high purity copper conductors and the foamed polyethylene insulation used on Signature is replaced with air-spaced Teflon™. 
  Sarum is terminated with an upgraded version of the tried and tested gold-plated 4mm Chord banana plug,  The upgraded version is heavily plated with 24-carat gold.    Despite its apparent simplicity, this plug does consistently well in blind listening tests, offers a secure fit with a high pressure contact point and is extremely reliable.  Sarum speaker cable can also be fitted with spade connectors and if necessary, BFA Camcon connectors.  All connectors are soldered with high silver content solder
   
*No wait, a combination of silver and gold. A blind test as well! Well that is at least science, but sadly, no results, a theme wth all the the references to science so far. There is a known issue with long term reliablity of silver solder and tin whiskers over lead based solder. Chord have to use to comply with EU laws.*
   
  Final link
  We have long believed that replacing the gold-plated links found on the back of most bi-wireable speakers with short runs of cable (developed to match the speaker cable), can bring big improvements to sound quality.  During the development of the Sarum cables, the need to fully exploit the extraordinary improvements to performance led to the development of a purpose designed Sarum speaker link. Sarum speaker links take design cues from other Sarum cables and employ the same extraordinary shielding that is used on Sarum interconnects. Sarum speaker links are the perfect way to complete a Sarum connected system and when compared to the standard links, offer a remarkable improvement, particularly across the higher frequencies.
   
*The final link involves belief, gold is in the dog house again and that shielding is clearly the answer to all cables making improvements.....*


----------



## mtntrance

Prog Man...I like your avatar.


----------



## Happy Camper

I think the key in cables are to eliminate anything not part of the signal. The closer you come, the better they sound. The better cables have tweaked the R/L/C by design of the best material combinations to do this.


----------



## vcoheda

buy some and try.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 
   
   
   
   
  Prog Rock Man, with all due respect, some of your comments strikes me as somewhat "naive". for example the credence that the perceived sound difference with some cables is an increase in volume is... naive (yes, I know some cables can make the sound louder). I use the volume control of the amp extensively on a daily basis: I know exactly how the system sound at different volume controls. let me tell you the difference I hear with some audio cables has nothing to do with increase in volume. but whatever...
   
  fwiw, my experience with Chord's has not being good: I once bought one of their "award winning" speaker cables (quite affordable: I think it was on sale for £12 a metre). compared to the Goertz's it's a piece of junk. never again.
   
   



happy camper said:


> I think the key in cables are to eliminate anything not part of the signal. The closer you come, the better they sound. The better cables have tweaked the R/L/C by design of the best material combinations to do this.


 

 I think you could be in the right direction; I also feel (and I'm treading carefully here...lol) that some of the cheaper made cables somehow fail at delivering a proper signal. the fact that they work (coat hangers work too) doesn't necessarily mean they're doing a proper job, or there aren't better way to transmit the signal. but that's my belief; you're welcome to use whatever you like.


----------



## Todd R

Quote: 





garage1217 said:


> To be honest, I have NEVER been able to hear an actual difference in any cables unless there was an issue with the cable design, a break in the cable, cable did not have proper shielding for the environment or the plug itself was seriously damaged and not making proper contact. To me, if I cannot hear a difference when doing back to back a/b comparisons during critical listening then it is just snake oil. I do however have zero issue paying for a well made cable "within reason" as build quality is important to me. For me, unless someone can show scientifically why a cable of equal length made from copper, silver or gold, making proper contact would physically sound different to the human ear then it is all crap and marketing to me. Most would be better plucking a few ear hairs "which is a DIY mod haha" to achieve a different or better sound


 
   
  Quote: 





garage1217 said:


> Funny story.. I come home and start watching a movie. After 5 minutes the receiver goes into protect. I reset it and watch again for 5 minutes and poof, she shuts down. So I unplug all 22,000 cables from the back of my old school receiver... take it to the shop, blow it out.. test the fan... Make a mini test setup testing each channel and all was good (an hour and a half later). So I put it all back in, plug it in and in 5 minutes it goes into protect. I start troubleshooting each component and then isolated it to one of the speaker channels after another hour... Then the wife walks in the door and says "oh, by the way, I think I knocked one of those gold connector thingies out of the back of that speaker but I put it back in, pointing to the front right. I look behind and she plugged the one banana plugs into the other causing a direct short haha. Lucky no damage to the receiver. Was a fantastic night.


 

 Seriously?
  Can't hear any differences between cables, so upgraded cables must be "snake oil".
  YET...
  Can't tell that the front right speaker on his HT system isn't working until his wife tells him she messed with it?
  Hilarious


----------



## Uncle Erik

If the less-expensive cables don't transmit the entire signal, then why doesn't that show up in measurements?

Since high-end cables are all built with different materials and different design philosophies, then how come all of them "work"? Shouldn't it be that some designs work while others don't? Yet you get testimonial "evidence" that all of them, purportedly, "work." How can that be?

If every design "works," then the cheap cables ought to work the same as any design, since it appears that any design - even ones contradictory to other designs - "works." Which actually seems to bear out with testing. There is no difference, as far as anyone can tell.

If testing and measurements are, somehow, inadequate, then why do they bear out with cables for high power or high frequencies? Those cables behave according to known physics and prove to be measurable and predictable. Why do measurements and testing work for these applications, but not for audio frequencies?

Also interesting is that - supposedly - unmeasurable differences can be "heard" in cables. The odd part there is that the resistors and caps in your amps aren't perfectly matched. You might have a 100.79 Ohm resistor on the left channel and a 100.12 Ohm resistor on the right channel. These slight variations are in _every_ amp and can be measured accurately with a $10 DMM. Not only that, but you'll be able to measure slight differences in output due to that, as well. By the way, that example is within a 1% tolerance, which is excellent. You'll commonly find tolerances in the 10%-15% range for lots of parts. You might very well have a 96 Ohm and a 103 Ohm resistor mirroring each other in an amp's channels. That's within the tolerances of lots of gear out there. You'd be surprised if you actually knew what was inside most amps.

If a believer's ears are so golden to notice unmeasurable differences in cables, then why are they unable to hear the _measurable_ differences between the channels in their amp? Why aren't people hooting and hollering because of the _measurable_ differences between channels? The differences are unquestionably there. I can prove it with any amp, and so can anyone else.

If you people are saying that you can hear unmeasurable differences in cables while not being able to hear a 5% variation between channels in your amp, you've got your heads screwed on funny. If you don't believe me, go get a $10 DMM and start measuring what's inside your amps. Measure your sources, too. You'll be lucky if you have 5% or less of variation between channels. You'll probably find a 10% variation or larger between parts in each channel.

Yet I've never seen a single cable believer who notices this _measurable_ difference between left and right. Not once.

By the way, you can get tight tolerances between channels. Most of us DIY'ers have gear like that. For the crossovers in my ProAc Response 2.5 clones, I bought extra parts for careful hand-matching. It cost me about $100 more and took a few hours to sort through and label the measurements of everything. Since I had to unwind the inductors for certain unmanufactured values, I was able to measure them myself and got them very close in each channel. I spent a couple of hours doing this, as well.

If you think hours of very careful hand-matching and a bunch of wasted caps and resistors went into your $500 DAC or amp, I have news for you. Again, go measure for yourself. There's a lot of variation between components marked with the same value. I invite all of you to pick up a meter and start measuring your own gear.

When the reality of 10%-15% variation sinks in, ask yourself how it's possible to not hear that unquestionable variation while also "hearing" a variation with cables that have no measurable differences.

The differences you think you hear aren't really there.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> If the less-expensive cables don't transmit the entire signal, then why doesn't that show up in measurements?
> 
> Since high-end cables are all built with different materials and different design philosophies, then how come all of them "work"? Shouldn't it be that some designs work while others don't? Yet you get testimonial "evidence" that all of them, purportedly, "work." How can that be?
> 
> ...


 

 Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I knew of the relatively large tolerances in crossovers and amps (DC voltage bias, anyone?) but for some reason it never occurred to me to bring that up with the cable debate...
   
  That reminds me - scroll down about half way here until you see the giant four-tower Infinity speakers:
  http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/roadtour13/roadtour13.html
   
  It's worth a read - he unglued and replaced 480 magnets for the EMIM midrange drivers (each has 20!), and measured the resistance of each of the 72 (!) EMIT tweeters and spent the time matching drivers between the sides.  I can't even begin to imagine how long that took...


----------



## TheAttorney

> uncle erik said:
> 
> 
> > Since high-end cables are all built with different materials and different design philosophies, then how come all of them "work"? Shouldn't it be that some designs work while others don't? Yet you get testimonial "evidence" that all of them, purportedly, "work." How can that be?


 
  Uncle Erik, you increasingly repeat this particular point these days, but it doesn’t make sense to me. It seems fundamentally illogical thinking..
   
  In all walks of life, there are different ways of achieving the same end. There’s no right or wrong, it’s a matter of balancing the different characteristics of different designs to get to the designer’s objectives.
   
  Take car engines. There’s petrol, diesel, turbo charged, super charged, piston, rotary, etc. They all get the car from A to B in a broadly similar manner, but each design has characteristics which affect the way that’s achieved.
   
  Take amplifiers. There’s solid state, tube, hybrid, class A, class B, Class AB, etc. There’s no one right design. 
   
  Back to cables. Take something relatively non controversial like RFI. It can be reduced by, for example, conductor weave, or shielding, or filtering via network boxes, etc. Designers go down the path they think will be most effective. In all cases, the end result is some level of RFI reduction, but each method has its own characteristics which MAY affect the listening experience.
   
  By all means, continue your cable bashing posts, but I suggest you stick to measurements, DBT, profit margins, placebo and marketing claims. I don’t always agree with your conclusions on these either, but at least your logic is on firmer ground


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Uncle Erik, you increasingly repeat this particular point these days, but it doesn’t make sense to me. It seems fundamentally illogical thinking..
> In all walks of life, there are different ways of achieving the same end. There’s no right or wrong, it’s a matter of balancing the different characteristics of different designs to get to the designer’s objectives.
> 
> Take car engines. There’s petrol, diesel, turbo charged, super charged, piston, rotary, etc. They all get the car from A to B in a broadly similar manner, but each design has characteristics which affect the way that’s achieved.


 
  Analogies work for a while but eventually fail, like cars.
   
  Of course: I could actually answer an analogous question about cars ("If I wanted more torque and didn't care about MPG, how would I get it" or the like). Can you please do the same for cables?


----------



## TheAttorney

JerryLove, the car engine was not an _analogy_, it was an _example_ to back up my point that,_ in all walks of life_, different designs can be successful at achieving a similar objective. The RFI was an example to show that this "rule" applies equally well to cables. I didn't understand your question at the end.


----------



## Nightslayer

Eh. Instead of constantly theorizing, hasn't there been someone with equipment who took different cables and measured the frequency output for differences? If cables affect signal transmission then by all rights this should be the most obvious (and measurable) independent variable, isn't it?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





lenni said:


> .....
> 
> Prog Rock Man, with all due respect, some of your comments strikes me as somewhat "naive". for example the credence that the perceived sound difference with some cables is an increase in volume is... naive (yes, I know some cables can make the sound louder). I use the volume control of the amp extensively on a daily basis: I know exactly how the system sound at different volume controls. let me tell you the difference I hear with some audio cables has nothing to do with increase in volume. but whatever...
> 
> ....


 

 It is not my 'naivety', I am saying that others are 'naive' to hear slight differences in volume and use that as a sign that cables are different in terms of night and day improvement to sound and other such claims. Can you relate the differences you hear to different types of cable construction?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





theattorney said:


> > uncle erik said:
> >
> >
> > > Since high-end cables are all built with different materials and different design philosophies, then how come all of them "work"? Shouldn't it be that some designs work while others don't? Yet you get testimonial "evidence" that all of them, purportedly, "work." How can that be?
> ...


 
   
  Yes there are different ways of achieving the same end. What UE and I and others are arguing is that all those different cables are achieving the same end, so whist it may appear they are different, in fact they are not, as in terms of audibility (the same) they are the same.


----------



## Garage1217

Nope. Sure did not notice it when I flipped it on and walked into the office while it was playing each time *LOL*
   
  To the point and to be brutally BLUNT.... Like freaking lemmings to a cliff people constantly shell out hilarious amounts of cash on things that literally DO NOTHING for them. But I totally understand that _ridiculous_ things like electrical testing, signal testing, proof, facts, reality and physics will not keep one from shelling out countless hard earned dollars for something they think they can hear as they get emotionally attached to the new piece of fancy cord they just purchased. After all, it cost a ton, has a lot of fancy speak in the brochure and some guy in the internet says they will give you a sonic orgasm. The hard facts are when it comes down to it, so called hardcore audiophiles have a hard time telling the difference between a garbage swap meet amplifier with a circuit board that looks to have been made using scissors and a pie tin and an audiophile $10,000 amplifier. If the measurements are flat and distortion is within reason that is. Back to the point, us so called believers in the evil cult of science are just trying to snap all of the 10/6th loons on the planet back into this dimension. Literally makes me sick to see companies making insane claims only to watch countless people follow them saying OMG WOW! I can hear it also! $500 is soo worth it for that piece of 5' wire that will deliver me to sonic nirvana that cost $10 to produce! For god sakes, cat 6 copper can carry a perfect signal to 550mhz and a 7' length costs $3. Yet somehow our narrow audible range of around 20-20Khz which is the electrical equivalent of having one turning a light switch on and off it is so slow, somehow needs a cable costing more than a mortgage payment. Use that hard earned cash to buy some new gear, items that DO make a difference like a new set of cans, new speakers for the house... anything that does make a difference.
   
  One day I truly hope that all of these boutique style rip off wire peddlers get sued or told to take the BS off of their sites and stop misleading people with wacko claims. I see one power cable provider was told to do so, hope there is a WAVE to follow!
   
  Ok time to end my tequila slushy filled rant. If I even get through to ONE person, writing the above was SOOOO worth it.
  Quote: 





todd r said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Garage1217

Quote:


jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  See that is what cable worshipers fail to understand.... PHYSICS. That torque is not going to be made from someone replacing their non corroded / factory electrical system with all polished copper with silver plated, purple painted super wire with gravitational field altering jacketing infused with moon dust. Nor will it bring out the highs in the exhaust note. But I guarantee if someone did it, you would have a testimonial from hundreds of others that tried it claiming they picked up another second in the 1320.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


theattorney said:


> JerryLove, the car engine was not an _analogy_, it was an _example_ to back up my point that,_ in all walks of life_, different designs can be successful at achieving a similar objective. The RFI was an example to show that this "rule" applies equally well to cables. I didn't understand your question at the end.


 

 You cannot, by example, establish that *all* cases are true.
   
  "All animals have four legs: for example a dog, a cat, a horse".
   
  If that's what you were attempting to accomplish, to prove that all things have multiple paths for identical outcomes you've failed several levels of logic.
   
  Are you saying that, like automobile engines, cables have that trait? Then (since you skipped the word "like", which would make it a simile), you have a metaphor.
   
  Regardless, as pointed out, it's not a useful metaphor. Those technologies are different in understood, describable, and measurable ways... and the analogous question, also as pointed out, could be answered.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


nightslayer said:


> Eh. Instead of constantly theorizing, hasn't there been someone with equipment who took different cables and measured the frequency output for differences? If cables affect signal transmission then by all rights this should be the most obvious (and measurable) independent variable, isn't it?


 

 Of course. Plenty of people have. A sensitive instrument can find differences in basically every cable. If nothing else, length changes affect delay (an electric wave travels at around 180,000 miles / second).
   
  But then we need to qualify those changes (measurements quantify). Is there any indications of changes in the audio bands meeting a reasonable threshold of human hearing? No. Can we show that people can actually tell cables apart by sound? No.


----------



## Wulvy

Uncle Erik - You make some solid and convincing points. Out of curiosity, do you think correctly made silver speaker/headphone cables sound different to correctly made copper cables? From my understanding of your post, you imply that you don't think it makes a difference.
   
  I'm aware its a pretty common held belief that silver adds treble and copper is "warmer". but  haven't had the opportunity to test it myself yet.


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





wulvy said:


> Uncle Erik - You make some solid and convincing points. Out of curiosity, do you think correctly made silver speaker/headphone cables sound different to correctly made copper cables? From my understanding of your post, you imply that you don't think it makes a difference.
> 
> I'm aware its a pretty common held belief that silver adds treble and copper is "warmer". but  haven't had the opportunity to test it myself yet.


 

 If you believe that crud then have I got something for you:


----------



## Uncle Erik

wulvy said:


> Uncle Erik - You make some solid and convincing points. Out of curiosity, do you think correctly made silver speaker/headphone cables sound different to correctly made copper cables? From my understanding of your post, you imply that you don't think it makes a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 
All that seems part of the folklore and mythology here. I haven't heard a difference between copper and silver. Neither do I see measured differences or anyone being able to tell the difference in listening tests.

It isn't up to end users to demonstrate the difference, either. If I were selling silver cables, I'd want to put up measurements and/or listening tests to confirm that my product worked. Not only that, but it would make for excellent marketing. If I could demonstrate that my product was better than the competition, I'd open fire on competitors with that. Thisnis Marketing 101. What's surprising is that not one single manufacturer does this. Do you really think that manufacturers haven't considered this? I'm sure every one has.

But every other sector of audio has no problem going head-to-head with competition. Headphones, speakers, amps, and sources all give you technical reasons to buy their products. Cable manufacturers don't. Weird, becuse they'd be able to get sales and marketshare if they did - just like all other products do.

It doesn't make any business sense. Unless, of course, you know you're selling a product indistinguishable from every other product in the market. In that case, you'd market based on reputation and testimonials, which they do.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


wulvy said:


> Uncle Erik - You make some solid and convincing points. Out of curiosity, do you think correctly made silver speaker/headphone cables sound different to correctly made copper cables? From my understanding of your post, you imply that you don't think it makes a difference.
> 
> I'm aware its a pretty common held belief that silver adds treble and copper is "warmer". but  haven't had the opportunity to test it myself yet.


 

 You forgot the brown cables and their chocolaty sound!


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> wulvy said:
> ...


 


 Personally I think brown cables sound crappy.


----------



## Wulvy

Haha thanks Uncle Erik for your response and to JerryLove and Slackboy72 for pointing out my horrendously blind oversights.
   
  The fact that there have been no scientific tests proving cable makers "technologies" make a difference and no cable manufacturer provides any experimental results showing it does make a difference is pretty massive sign of a scam.
   
  Of relevance - here is quote from Rick of Warren Audio in some correspondence I had with him recently -
   
  Quote: 





> I actually just ordered some rather expensive test equipment from Tektronix today, which I will be using to officially prove that vibrations affect the frequency response of a signal being transmitted via a conductive medium (a cable), as well as to prove that our cables are not subject to this. Will be quite exciting to have actual proof of our concepts.


 
   
  Obviously he hasn't published these results yet and I won't believe them until I see them, but it will be interesting to see if they do come out and what they are. Could be one of the first cable manufacturers to offer some sort of scientific credence to his cables, which is a great step forward.
   
  Then again your mention of the typical 5%+ variation in channels is likely going to far outweigh this.


----------



## bdr529

That is interesting. Does this mean he admitted to blindly developing the cable without testing that it works first?
  
  Quote: 





wulvy said:


> Of relevance - here is quote from Rick of Warren Audio in some correspondence I had with him recently -
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





bdr529 said:


> That is interesting. Does this mean he admitted to blindly developing the cable without testing that it works first?
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 


  I think it's akin to developing a hydrocarbon fuel injector cleaner cocktail that you theorize will work, and then begin to sell it commercially without ever testing it to see if it actually does - only relying on perceived improvements in power output as testimonial evidence.
   
  Keeping with the auto theme, that is...


----------



## Wulvy

Quote: 





bdr529 said:


> That is interesting. Does this mean he admitted to blindly developing the cable without testing that it works first?


 

 Well clearly there is currently no scientific evidence to back up his theory of vibrations impacting on frequency response or else they'd be on his site, so its blind in that sense. But he seems pretty confident in the idea and he only told me that 5 days ago so I'll give him some time to put his results out. But of course seeming confident in it is going to boost his cables sales so I'm sure everyone will take that with a grain of salt.
   
  He said what he said 5 days ago so personally I'm going to give him some time to prove himself which I think should be very encouraged. I don't want to jump to the conclusion that he's making everything up just so later I can proclaim how awesome I am because I predicted he'd be wrong. I don't think that's a progressive mind frame. He said he's going to test it, I'm not an electrical physicist and my guess as to whether he's right isn't based on anything I really know, so I'm giving him a chance to perform his experiment, which apparently hasn't yet been scientifically tested.
   
  That doesn't mean I'm buying all my cables from him. In fact I went with Norse Audio after he sent me that email because their aesthetics are far superior not to mention the cable was cheaper.


----------



## Wulvy

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I think it's akin to developing a hydrocarbon fuel injector cleaner cocktail that you theorize will work, and then begin to sell it commercially without ever testing it to see if it actually does - only relying on perceived improvements in power output as testimonial evidence.
> 
> Keeping with the auto theme, that is...


 

 Kind of. That applies to every single cable manufacturer out there. And probably a lot of audio gear period.
   
  As a consumer, did you rigorously scientifically DBT every possible bit of equipment you've purchased or have you relied on perceived superior components and testimonial evidence? Do you really expect the manufacturer to do all that for you? This is what places like head-fi are for right, to try and get external testimonials and discussion on gear. Cables fall into an awkward category on here as mileage varies so considerably, which I think casts a slight shadow of doubt on things that are more agreed on e.g. headphone a superior to headphone b)


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





wulvy said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Of course not; no one does.  It's not possible - certainly not with headphones.  I entirely get your point.
   
  But when I listen to gear, I do try to approach it without preconceptions.  I think that lets me get as close to an unbiased opinion as is feasible for a consumer with only limited means of testing.  Of course, that's not even always possible.  I bought my HD 600s based on reviews and the fact that the frequency response curve matched up with what I wanted in a pair of headphones, since there's no hi-fi dealer in my hometown of 300,000 people.
   
  There's no frequency response curves for cables - there should be, shouldn't there?  Certainly if people are claiming that silver cables are "brighter" and copper are "warmer" sounding.  Other than that single claim, I haven't heard any claims as to specific cable designs having certain specific distinguishing characteristics of any sort (other than just doing things "better", or perhaps improved bass response and control - which very easily could be an issue with using too long or too thin-gauged wire (a problem for very low impedance and high current speakers like my Infinitys).
   
  Anyway, I switched out the cable on my HD 600s to the HD 650 cable purely for the weighty feel and the required (for me) 1/4" female to 1/8" male adapter - which means that I'll always have a way to listen to 1/4"-only cabled headphones on my own equipment, or the HD 600s on a 1/4" socket amp.  I still have the original cable and switch it out when I want or need something lightweight.  Actually, if I could get a reasonably priced (under $20, like the 650 cable) 4' cable for them (for portable use; with an 1/8" termination of course), I would.  Maybe I'll make one by splicing my old cable.


----------



## Wulvy

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Of course not; no one does.  It's not possible - certainly not with headphones.  I entirely get your point.
> 
> But when I listen to gear, I do try to approach it without preconceptions.  I think that lets me get as close to an unbiased opinion as is feasible for a consumer with only limited means of testing.  Of course, that's not even always possible.  I bought my HD 600s based on reviews and the fact that the frequency response curve matched up with what I wanted in a pair of headphones, since there's no hi-fi dealer in my hometown of 300,000 people.
> 
> ...


 

 For sure. If I had a silver based and a copper based cable in front of me for comparison I wouldn't try and listen for the increased treble in the silver and increased warmth in the copper as it would probably cause me to hear that they exhibit said properties whether they did or not. I'd think a number of people posting impressions across all sorts of audio gear would fall into this trap. And it's probably harder to avoid it than one might imagine.
   
  Very true, other than silver/treble and copper/warmth its just all around better using every descriptive of sound - soundstage imaging extension impact clarity detail - things I imagine a million dollar cable would struggle to improve much upon than a $100 cable.
   
  That's one of the other very common things I've seen here, upgrading the HD600 cable to the HD650 cable to supposedly improve sound quality. Interesting you've done it for other reasons. And it would seem you notice no audible sound difference.
   
  Based on reading people's widely different impressions on cables in this forum it sure is difficult to judge their effectiveness. Logically (via science) the supposed positive effects of cables doesn't quite add up... It's kind of hard to believe so many people are psychologically conditioned enough to believe there is a significant difference. Then again it's not [stares at religions].
   
  I can't wait to test myself to see what I hear... That's 100% of what matters in terms of me. I know what team my wallet is playing for.


----------



## Syan25

I'm really glad I read this thread. It is really useful to those about to spend lots of cash on cables that just don't need to be absurdly overpriced. If I hadn't had experience with this already, I could quite easily have been duped into buying interconnects costing thousands of dollars instead of finding a good quality built interconnects at well under $100US.


----------



## Nightslayer

Double post.


----------



## Nightslayer

Quote: 





			
				JerryLove said:
			
		

> /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 

 You said length changes affect delay, but in any sensible scientific test that would be the first controlled variable considered, nothing else withstanding. By right if the lengths/cross sectional area and any other variables affecting resistivity are kept equal and all the cable needs to do is to transfer an electrical signal from point a to point b then there should be no differences in any cable regardless of the sensitivity of the instrument, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I myself am a believer in cable upgrades for purely aesthetic purposes only (DIY ^^) but I have yet to find anything substantive to prove my POV right (and vice versa, most obviously). Has anyone done a comparative test of any kind with better measuring instruments than their golden ears?
   
  And has anyone noticed..
  Quote: 





> I actually just ordered some rather expensive test equipment from Tektronix today, which I will be using to officially prove that vibrations affect the frequency response of a signal being transmitted via a conductive medium (a cable), as well as to prove that our cables are not subject to this. Will be quite exciting to have actual proof of our concepts.


 
  The equipment he ordered was meant to prove that a cable experiencing vibration (microphonics, anyone? Though I may have misinterpreted this point) would have a different frequency response, which would mean that his cables, which are completely vibration-free (!?) are hence superior? I see that as pretty pointless, IMHO. Not to mention far fetched with minimal differences to show for anything, even if he somehow does succeed. Why not just show that his cables have a greater frequency response than a coathanger transmitting a signal, which would be so much more clear cut and far easier to understand?
   
  Quote: 





wulvy said:


> For sure. If I had a silver based and a copper based cable in front of me for comparison I wouldn't try and listen for the increased treble in the silver and increased warmth in the copper as it would probably cause me to hear that they exhibit said properties whether they did or not. I'd think a number of people posting impressions across all sorts of audio gear would fall into this trap. And it's probably harder to avoid it than one might imagine.
> 
> Very true, other than silver/treble and copper/warmth its just all around better using every descriptive of sound - soundstage imaging extension impact clarity detail - things I imagine a million dollar cable would struggle to improve much upon than a $100 cable.


 
   
  I believe the term used is placebo.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





wulvy said:


> .....
> 
> Of relevance - here is quote from Rick of Warren Audio in some correspondence I had with him recently -
> 
> ...


 

 That is quite an admission that Warren Audio sell a concept. Read other cable makers descriptives of their products and they appear very conceptual as well.
   
  However, Warren Audio are only half way there, as even if they show vibrations (from what?) affect frequency response, they then need to show that affect is audible. Otherwise you need to add suggestion to their concepts.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

You know, given the widespread availability of the HD 600 and both stock cables for it, it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a large set of blind tests for it, would it?  If someone could come up with a procedure, perhaps multiple owners could test it.


----------



## Syan25

I read up somewhere once that cables could sound quite different if impedance mismatching was a problem between components.
   
  For instance,  if I bought new equipment without the foresight of checking the input or output impedance of these components, then I would probably end up having serious impedance mismatching between my amplifier’s power output and the speaker impedance, sensitivity and power rating. There would be an increase in distortion and loss of sonic information. 
  There would be dramatic changes when different cables were introduced to the system as the impedance characteristics of the cables would be having a more pronounced effect on the signal.
   
  Surely - this is one reason why cables sound different to some audiophiles...


----------



## BlackbeardBen

But how are the cables, as long as they're of sufficient gauge, going to have a significant impact on the output/input impedances?  Again, we run into the "channel imbalance is going to be many order of magnitudes larger than the impact of the cables" thing.
   
  For example, say we're running 12 Ga wire into 4 ohm speakers.  That's what I have set up on my speakers; in 10 foot lengths.  I'd say that's a typical setup for high end stereo speakers.
   
  The resistance of 12 Ga copper wire is 0.00187 ohms per foot - for a total of 0.0187 ohms.  (The inductance is negligible and the capacitance is small as well; and at the incredibly low frequencies in audio [compared to electrical frequencies], capacitance isn't an issue anyway - for this scenario there's only about 620 pF of capacitance, assuming a 5 mm center-to-center distance.  You can use this calculator to see that the -3 dB cutoff is over 40,000 Hz...)
   
  With my 4 ohm (nominal) speakers, that's all of 00.4675% of an increase - and with 5% tolerances in the crossover components, you can bet that the resistance of the cable is entirely insignificant in comparison.


----------



## Syan25

I think what I read was referring to the impedance mismatching of say a source component to an amp -  I was reading it in reference to Burson Audio Buffer. There is mentioned that impedance mismatching can cause cables to sound different.
   
http://www.thehifijournal.com//full-reviews.php?2010_08_26_15_10_00_a5fad393b53cf64df61d5a4b68b940c2
   
  It would be interesting to know more about that though


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





syan25 said:


> I think what I read was referring to the impedance mismatching of say a source component to an amp -  I was reading it in reference to Burson Audio Buffer. There is mentioned that impedance mismatching can cause cables to sound different.
> 
> http://www.thehifijournal.com//full-reviews.php?2010_08_26_15_10_00_a5fad393b53cf64df61d5a4b68b940c2
> 
> It would be interesting to know more about that though


 


 I'm still skeptical, because the cable impedance (again, assuming sufficient gauge cables) is still going to be tiny in comparison with the load (amp) impedance, whether we're talking about impedance bridging or impedance matching (but obviously much more so when talking about impedance bridging).
   
  The only time I've heard of verifiable difference in interconnect cables is for phonographs, which have a much lower signal than normal line level. That's why you need a dedicated phono amp or input on your receiver/preamp.  I've heard, but can't substantiate, that RFI can occasionally be a problem on unshielded cables.  But that's unrelated to the cable impedance - just to the very low power of the signal and the ability of the interconnect to act as an antenna.


----------



## Syan25

That makes sense to me.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


nightslayer said:


> You said length changes affect delay, but in any sensible scientific test that would be the first controlled variable considered, nothing else withstanding. By right if the lengths/cross sectional area and any other variables affecting resistivity are kept equal and all the cable needs to do is to transfer an electrical signal from point a to point b then there should be no differences in any cable regardless of the sensitivity of the instrument, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I myself am a believer in cable upgrades for purely aesthetic purposes only (DIY ^^) but I have yet to find anything substantive to prove my POV right (and vice versa, most obviously). Has anyone done a comparative test of any kind with better measuring instruments than their golden ears?


 
   
  I'm confused. A scientific test of what? The delay added by 950ft of wire would introduce a 1/1,000,000 second delay. The best a human ear could hope to catch would be about 1/1,000 delay. It had been asked what instruments could measure, and the answer is "a lot".
   
  Now, what can we hear? We can here distortions in excess of 1%, so we would want to avoid wire with more than 5% of the resistance of the speaker they were connected to (this is the problem with low gauge wire).
   
  We can hear delays over 1ms (though unless we are discussing bi-wiring with very different lengths wire: it's not clear to me that this would be relevant as a Left-Right difference), so we should avoid cable lengths that vary by more than 950,000 ft.
   
  Actually: given the electrical loss that 180miles of cable would have, and the resistance of even very large wire over that distance: let's just avoid wire that long at all when it comes to speakers.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> nightslayer said:
> ...


 


 To compound things, a cable that long acts as a transmission line...
   
  Interesting about the biamping/biwiring thought - I think the answer is something along the lines of, "Bass frequencies are so low that a 1 ms delay (or 1 ms too soon) is very small in comparison with the wavelength (on a decent set of floorstanders, a max of 200 Hz or so), so a 1 ms delay on both sides will have a negligible effect on human perception."  Oh, and that's not even accounting for the time that it takes the woofer cone to start moving.  Considering that some loudspeaker designs correct for the time delay in driver response of the woofers by staggering higher drivers to the rear (although not by enough to make much of a difference), a minor 1 ms delay in the woofer signal isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Thus, an early signal might be bad - but on the other hand the bass frequencies are more readily transmitted through the floor and furniture (where the speed of sound is higher) to the listener.  You don't hear of people complaining about feeling their bass before they hear it, do you?
   
  Biwiring, now that's a whole 'nother can of worms...
   
  Biamping, too, at least the passive kind.  It's funny how some of the naysayers (and I'm not talking two channels from a receiver, which is more or less nearly useless) don't understand the basic concept behind how joining two electrical circuits work.  There are people who say that passive biamping is useless because both amps are amplifying the whole signal - but they forget that the load presented to the amplifier matters just as much.  The upper range amplifier sees the high frequencies as being of low impedance, and the low frequencies - those below the crossover, which dissipates their energy into heat - as being of very high impedance.  Thus, it doesn't amplify the frequencies below the crossover to any significant degree (only what is dissipated through the crossover).  Vice versa, with the lower amplifier, it works the same.  So in terms of getting more power, it still makes sense to passively biamp.  Of course, there's other benefits to passively biamping - like gain control between the amps - and even greater benefits to active biamping (getting rid of the crossovers, for one).


----------



## JerryLove

I *would* be concerned about phase delay on a single speaker on two levels.
   
  1) Something being some multiple of 180-degrees out-of-phase and causing cancelation.
  2) Delays approaching 1ms between two drivers (let's set a not-quite-arbitrary delay at 0.5ms). For example, if the midrange and tweeter were 1ms apart, that's far enough for the later one to be perceived as an echo at the crossover point. In short: it would be bad.
   
  My point being, however, that none of this is realistic in regards to cables. A properly low-impedance cable will transmit with far greater fidelity than the human ear can hear.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

I did a quick calculation to see how far sound travels in 1 ms - at sea level, a mere 13.5".  Now, some of the best loudspeakers ever made use staggered, separate bass towers that are normally located further than that behind the mid/high towers.
   
  "Time alignment" (that's actually a registered trademark, but I'm referring to the generic concept) of the drivers would suggest that the woofer towers should be located in front - but the reverse is recommended (for the Infinity IRS).
   
  "Time alignment" can be done in the crossovers (using inductors, I imagine), but I'm not sure what speakers, if any, use that.  And then we get back to the sound conducted through the floors/walls/furniture that I already mentioned.
   
  Of course, Jerry, I'm just talking about traditional woofers in a three or more -way speaker; I can see midrange drivers posing an entirely different problem.  But none of them are an issue in the real world, as you mentioned.  Only reflections are going to be a whole 180 degrees out of phase; that is unless you've wired the top or bottom with the wrong polarity and not the other half of the speaker.
   
  Anyway, how many people are biwiring or biamping (there's a whole 'nother potential area for time delays and such there), anyway?  It's not even an issue for headphones...


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I did a quick calculation to see how far sound travels in 1 ms - at sea level, a mere 13.5".  Now, some of the best loudspeakers ever made use staggered, separate bass towers that are normally located further than that behind the mid/high towers.


 
   In that case, a sound which came out of multiple towers would have a "room effect"-type echo (this, BTW, is one deliberate point of omni-polar speakers, which use the room to create these echos.
   
  Where we *really* run into trouble is when the is <1ms difference and a different FR curve together (this is what happens when a speaker with poor off-axis performance gets first-order reflections to us within 1ms of the original sound.
   
  This is not an issue with different sounds. If the bass drum arrives 2ms later than trombone, it makes no difference.
   


> Anyway, how many people are biwiring or biamping (there's a whole 'nother potential area for time delays and such there), anyway?  It's not even an issue for headphones...


 Neither is likely to do any harm. BiWiring does no good (unless your cable was mismatched to begin with), and passive bi-amping is of dubious usefulness.
   
  and this is the section of head-fi that covers speakers


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Ahem:

  
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Biwiring, now that's a whole 'nother can of worms...
> Biamping, too, at least the passive kind.  It's funny how some of the naysayers (and I'm not talking two channels from a receiver, which is more or less nearly useless) don't understand the basic concept behind how joining two electrical circuits work.  There are people who say that passive biamping is useless because both amps are amplifying the whole signal - but they forget that the load presented to the amplifier matters just as much.  The upper range amplifier sees the high frequencies as being of low impedance, and the low frequencies - those below the crossover, which dissipates their energy into heat - as being of very high impedance.  Thus, it doesn't amplify the frequencies below the crossover to any significant degree (only what is dissipated through the crossover).  Vice versa, with the lower amplifier, it works the same.  So in terms of getting more power, it still makes sense to passively biamp.  Of course, there's other benefits to passively biamping - like gain control between the amps - and even greater benefits to active biamping (getting rid of the crossovers, for one).


 

 Passive biamping is not of dubious usefulness.  Once it's clear how an amplifier responds to a load (see above), it's easy to see in terms of available power how it still has benefits.  Like I said, there's also the ability to control the gain to each section of the speaker, and the ability to vary your amps.
   
  You can come over to my place when I get back to the US in June/July and I can show you, if you'd like.  (I think I'm going to try to host a mini-meet.)  You'll also get the chance to hear speakers that the HD 800 and T1 could only dream of being even in the same league of, performance wise...


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *BlackbeardBen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Passive biamping is not of dubious usefulness.  Once it's clear how an amplifier responds to a load (see above), it's easy to see in terms of available power how it still has benefits.  Like I said, there's also the ability to control the gain to each section of the speaker, and the ability to vary your amps.
> 
> You can come over to my place when I get back to the US in June/July and I can show you, if you'd like.  (I think I'm going to try to host a mini-meet.)  You'll also get the chance to hear speakers that the HD 800 and T1 could only dream of being even in the same league of, performance wise...


 
   
  Of course passive bi-amping is of dubious usefulness.
   
  Are we talking 2-way or 3-way? I'll assume 2 since we aren't mentioning tri-amping.
  Where's the crossover? Given that and the music being listened to, on a second-to-second basis: what percentage of the power is being drawn by the tweeter? What does the ohm curve look like on the tweeter?
   
  It's unlikely that your load is 50/50, so you won't see a 3db advantage to bi-amping. You'll see the heavier-load driver get the power the lighter-load driver was eating.
  Or if the issue is the ohm load, that's almost entirely an issue from the lower driver. You add nothing there by splitting off the tweeter.

 And once we leave the technical discussion that the *best case* is 3d (and real case isn't that much), we discover that in almost all cases a more powerful single amp is cheaper than two lesser amps used for bi-amping (and even that has assumed the best case dual-amp bi-amping. If you are just using a multi-channel amp to bi-amp, then you are also still dealing with the limits of the (smaller) shared power supply).
   
  Gain control already assumes that the crossover is mis-set (and remember that using amps in passive bi-amp for gain control divides in two blocks, with no slope, at wherever the crossover point is). No, far better frequency control can be had at the EQ than with something so crude.
   
  No. Passive bi-amping isn't entirely ineffective but, in the vast bulk of situations this discussion happens under, will have no signifigant advantage over having not bi-amp'd and will actually be inferior to having spent the same money on a single larger amps.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  The best case scenario for getting a twice as powerful _single_ amp to run your speakers is 3 dB, too...

 Okay, I'm talking the Infinity Renaissance 90, a four-way speaker, passively biamped two ways with the dual-coil woofer being powered by an Adcom GFA-555 and the mid-bass, mid, and tweeter driven by a Carver TFM-15CB.
   
  First of all, find me an amp that's as powerful as the triple nickel (200 W/ch into 8 ohms, 325 W/ch into 4 ohms, very stable into 2 ohm loads (probably around 450 W/ch), and capable of handling 1 ohm transients) plus that Carver (100 W/ch into 8 ohms, 150 W/ch into 4 ohms) for less than the combined price I paid for them ($300)...
   
  The Ren 90s are nominal 4 ohm speakers, and because of the dual voice coil for the woofer (that lowers the impedance at the woofer's resonance frequency), its impedance curve is close to flat at 4 ohms down to 20 Hz.  The mid-bass/mid/tweeter impedance rises as at higher frequencies, but I don't know exactly how much - there's no technical review for them online, although another speaker using the same planar midrange and tweeter (but different mid-bass) goes from just about 3 ohms at the mid-bass to mid transition (600 Hz) to just shy of 9 ohms at about 35 kHz.  I'm just going off the white paper Infinity put out for them and its small graph (of dubious accuracy) that only goes up to 2000 Hz.
   
  Note that I've put the more powerful amp on bottom - that woofer eats current like there's no tomorrow, thanks to the dual coils.  It also puts out tighter bass than I thought was possible.  The Adcom drives the woofer absolutely flawlessly by itself. 
   
  However, when I try to use _just_ the Adcom to power the whole speaker, the bass just isn't there.  Hardly at all, anyway.  It's either a crossover issue (which I haven't had time to investigate for bad caps), or an issue where the Adcom just can't provide enough current to the woofer when it's driving the mids/highs to a given level - at low levels I would guess that's hardly the case.  It's not like I have a pair of 900 W into 4 ohms Krell monoblocks laying around to test that theory.   The Ren 90s _are_ known for having light bass when underpowered.  Anyway, when it's hooked up just to the woofers, the Adcom has no problem whatsoever.
   
  The Carver has no problem keeping up with the Adcom.  I don't know their respective gains, unfortunately.  However, for balanced highs/mids with the fixed output of the Adcom to the woofer, the gain controls on the Carver go to somwhere around 2 o'clock.  Like I said, gain control is one of the reasons to passively biamp, regardless of the other benefits or lack thereof.
   
  I don't know how accurate they are, but the power meters on the Carver average around maybe -10 dB when playing at my limit of short-term hearing comfort.  Transients go higher, of course - big bass spikes, like in, say _Angel_ by Massive Attack, go pretty high - but that's just energy dissipating into the crossover.  I've never seen the meters peg out at +3 dB, which is what I presume to be the safe maximum transient output (averaged over the time it takes the needle to move).  So - running out of power isn't close to being an issue for me with the Carver on top.  _But_, that's _exactly_ what's important.
   
  The planar midrange and tweeter drivers are extremely delicate (_very_ thin Kapton diaphragms and aluminum traces) - bad clipping will destroy them almost immediately.  (This is one reason soft clipping tube amps were recommended by Infinity for running the top half of their speakers.)  The tweeter does have a self-resetting circuit breaker, which is good because they're usually the first driver damaged - but the midrange does not.  That's bad news if I were to run one amp for the whole speaker and the amp were to current clip the signal at midrange frequencies.  With separate amps, the current draw for the bass frequencies on the mids/tweeter amp is much lower thanks to the high impedance of the bass frequencies below the crossover - so the probability of current cliping is reduced to very small levels - not to mention that I can now monitor the amp's output with the meters.  The Adcom does have handy distortion level indicators that will light up as clipping begins to occur, however.
   
  So I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.  There's more to it than just "MOAR POWER!".  Then again, we're not talking about the vast bulk of situations - we're talking about big vintage Infinitys and their insatiable appetite for power.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *BlackbeardBen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> The best case scenario for getting a twice as powerful _single_ amp to run your speakers is 3 dB, too...


 
   
  When discussing wattage: it's not the best case, it's the only case. Twice the power will *always* be available, where in a bi-amp configuration, twice the power will usually not be available (unless the load is exactly 50/50 split). (obviously this assumes that all amps involved have power supplies capable of powering RMS at max wattage)
   
  Quote: 





> First of all, find me an amp that's as powerful as the triple nickel (200 W/ch into 8 ohms, 325 W/ch into 4 ohms, very stable into 2 ohm loads (probably around 450 W/ch), and capable of handling 1 ohm transients) plus that Carver (100 W/ch into 8 ohms, 150 W/ch into 4 ohms) for less than the combined price I paid for them ($300)...


 
   
  Since $300 is nowhere near retail for those two amps you must be discussing "price I found them for". In that case, my McIntosh, found at a garage sale for $150, has more power for less money.
   
  And since the crossover on your speakers matches their sensitivity, you are now limited (in SPL) to whatever the weaker of the two amps can do. If your speakers are (say) 80db sensitive and 4 ohm, by using the Carver you've reduced your max SPL from about 104db (325W) to 101db (150W).
   
  You've actually worsened your performance (from a wattage standpoint).
   
  Now if you rip out your crossover we can have an entirely different discussion.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, I know 3 dB is the _only_ case for doubling the power with a single amp.  I realize my wording wasn't right there.
   
  Yes, that would be the "price I found them for" - and, yes, there are occasionally better deals to be had, if you spend long enough looking or get lucky enough (the two being intrinsically related of course).  What Mac do you have?  MC 2500?  MC 2600?  That's a heck of a deal, if it has more power than the Adcom and Carver together (465 W/ch RMS into 4 ohms - sorry, I was mistaken, the carver is 140 W/ch into 4 ohms, not 150).  The kind that some guys have wet dreams about...
   
  Okay, I did some little math about the gains on the amps.  I said that around 2 o'clock (ranging 360 degrees from 6-6 o'clock) makes the Carver balanced with the Adcom.  The Adcom has a gain of 27 dB, and the Carver 39 dB (maximum).  So 39 dB /12 hours (max) * 8 hours = 26 dB.  Pretty damn close to balanced; 1 dB is barely perceptible.  So yes, it appears that the two halves are balanced in gain at that point.
   
  But that doesn't explain how the Adcom alone puts out almost zero bass.  1 dB more gain on the highs was not the difference.  It was more like 20 dB or more, and at all levels, from very quiet to the limits of the amp.  It's not the terminal bridges - I checked them and also tried plugging the Adcom into the bottom terminals, and it resulted in the same performance.  It doesn't make sense that the Adcom was current limited, because then it wouldn't have any problems at low volumes (it did).
   
  For the record, when listening to bass heavy music, with the Carver's gain set as I indicated, the Adcom's 1% distortion lights (at or just before clipping, well above the maximum rms power of the amp) light up before the Carver's meters indicate I'm approaching its transient maximum.  Just because this amp combo wouldn't allow me to play white noise as loud (as having a second 555 on top) or any given waveform above the bass/mid-bass crossover as loud (with just the single 555) doesn't mean that its practical available power isn't as high or higher (than the single amp) based on the energy content of the music being played.  Again, none of this precludes the benefits of having separate gain controls for the top an bottom, either.
   
  The combined power of the amplifiers - minus the minor losses into the crossover - is still available.  (An active crossover and eliminating the bass/mid-bass crossover would only remove the small load of the crossover itself to the amplifiers, so the difference in power is quite small, notwithstanding other benefits.)  It's just not distributed evenly, which is exactly what Arnie Nudell and Gary Christie at Infinity recommended in the '70s, '80s, and early '90s for their speakers - a powerful solid state amp powering the woofers (or woofer columns), and less powerful Audio Research (or similar, but they used AR) tube amps for the midrange and tweeter planars.
   
  I don't really want an AR (I wouldn't turn one down if it fell in my lap, like your Mac did) - in fact, what I really want is another original 555.  That'll give me exactly what I need to power a pair of RS-1Bs (or any other big Infinities) when I have the money and space for them.


----------



## JerryLove

Deals are, always, deals; and "the equipment I already got" has made you and me both create some... interesting configurations.
   
  Looking at a purchasing decision, for less than the retail price of either I could get a more powerful Emotiva XPA-2.
   
  More importantly, the XPA-2 costs about the same as a pair of UPA-2's, whose combined power is lower. I'd sooner buy a singe XPA-2 than a pair of UPA-2's.
   
  As I'm sure you are aware: one cannot simply go by the max the gain dial will turn to in order to figure out where the limits of an amp are.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Well, neither the GFA-555 (original version) or the Carvers have been available new for some time...  And yeah, I had them both when I got the speakers.  Previously I had gotten the 555 to power my Infinity Kappa 8s, which it does fine by itself.  The first of the three Carvers I've got (all the TFM-15CB) was to power the smaller RS-5s I inherited from my dad.  The second one was an accident (won two auctions I where I only meant to win one), and the third was just a deal I found at the local record store.  Honestly, I'm likely to get rid of the two that have iffy meters - I just don't need this many amps...
   
  That Emotiva XPA-2 looks like a great amp at a great price - a modern version of the 555.  I must say I don't really like its looks though, the front panel looks like a computer component...
   
  But considering that even at low levels the Ren 90s aren't properly balanced with the Adcom power them, I think there's something more to this than just the available current.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So far, no actual answers to the original question. I am adding that to the proof that cables do not make any difference.


----------



## vert

[size=medium]Funny thread. I've been swapping interconnects in my seutp, so I know first hand the effects. I recently picked up a pair of ASI Livelines, and my jaw dropped to the ground when I first listened to them. They sound nothing like any other ICs I've ever heard.
   
  Interestingly, they also double as a digital connect, and I replaced a Nuforce digital cable between my Chord dac and Off Ramp usb converter. Bits are bits, right? Well, no. The Chord dac has massive resolution, and for whatever reason, there was a lot of music/details/definition I wasn't hearing through the Nuforce cable. Nevermind that the ASI cable is more musical and organic sounding.
   
  I can't explain, and it's frustrating when you reach a certain level where every little change makes a difference. There are even users/designers reporting differences through computer playback with different brand hard drives & bit for bit perfect rips sounding different when ripped from different brand CD-ROM drives.
   
   ​[/size]


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





vert said:


> Funny thread. I've been swapping interconnects in my seutp, so I know first hand the effects. I recently picked up a pair of ASI Livelines, and my jaw dropped to the ground when I first listened to them. They sound nothing like any other ICs I've ever heard.
> 
> Interestingly, they also double as a digital connect, and I replaced a Nuforce digital cable between my Chord dac and Off Ramp usb converter. Bits are bits, right? Well, no. The Chord dac has massive resolution, and for whatever reason, there was a lot of music/details/definition I wasn't hearing through the Nuforce cable. Nevermind that the ASI cable is more musical and organic sounding.
> 
> ...


 


  Could you give us more specifics of _exactly_ what sounds so different with each interconnect - and perhaps tie it in with how they are constructed?
   
  Also, have you tried any unsighted tests?


----------



## Happy Camper

*DBT-Free Forum.*


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





happy camper said:


> *DBT-Free Forum.*


 
   
   
* Did I ask about double blind tests?** *
   
   
Nope, just unsighted (blind) tests of any sort.  No reference to the aforementioned _double_ blind tests.


----------



## Nightslayer

What's with the stigma on DBTs?
   
   
  And on another (not quite unrelated) note, take a look at this.


----------



## Xymordos

Funny how everyone here thinks cables don't affect the sound, but all Chinese people think cables affect the sound quite a bit, but still less than amps. They do believe, however, that the cable only affect sound on expensive IEMs. 
   
  On a personal experience, I tried the Transwarp cable with my ER4P. I didn't know what it was before hand. I asked for a cable for ER4 that is clear and detailed and the store guy just gave me that cable without telling me what it does. I tried it, and EWW. ER4 became quite a bit warmer with more bass. Not a good try. But after that I realized that the cable does affect the sound. (Thats why all the people on the Chinese headphone forum told me not to change the ER4 cable, they said its the soul of that IEM)


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Nope, just unsighted (blind) tests of any sort.  No reference to the aforementioned _double_ blind tests.


 


  changing a word with their synonym that means exactly the same thing is neither smart nor proper. fact is, you're deliberately ignoring the _aforementioned_ rule, and if you cannot respect a simple forum rule I question if you should be allowed to post here at all.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





lenni said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 No, no, a double blind test is only one specific form of blind test.  "Unsighted test" and "blind test" would be synonyms, yes, but "double blind test" is definitely not.  It is a subset and by no means is it directly implied when referring to "blind tests".  So no, I'm not ignoring the rule.
   
  However, if the intent of the rule is to re-route discussion on any sort of blind tests (even if just asking if one has tried any) to the "Sound Science" forum, then it should be re-written to reflect that.  Semantics is very important when it comes to rules and laws; that's why we've got lawyers and politicians getting paid large sums of money to deal with them in the real world.
   
  Regardless, the reason this thread is in the tweaks/cables forum and not the sound science forum is because if it were posted there, it would not have gotten the level of response from readers as it has/will here.
   
  Perhaps it is best if we stay on topic.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

, yes, on topic and anyone who reports hearing a difference should post the specs of their cables and describe in detail as to what difference the cables have made to see if there is a consistent link.


----------



## Xymordos

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> , yes, on topic and anyone who reports hearing a difference should post the specs of their cables and describe in detail as to what difference the cables have made to see if there is a consistent link.


 
  Isnt it proved that ER4BSP - the only difference is the cable? They use the same driver and housing.


----------



## Lenni

yeah right ... lol
  
  Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> No, no, a double blind test is only one specific form of blind test.  "Unsighted test" and "blind test" would be synonyms, yes, but "double blind test" is definitely not.  It is a subset and by no means is it directly implied when referring to "blind tests".  So no, I'm not ignoring the rule.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





xymordos said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Proved enough for you, but to be really sure we would have to find out if everyone has the same experience. The issue is that people's experience of cables is inconsistent, which suggests subjectivity, which suggests it is all in the mind.


----------



## Xymordos

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well physics proves that if two cables, only the material was different, we shouldn't be able to hear a 0.001% difference in current flow. But the ER4 cables have resistors built into them (confirm me please), so thats why they sound different.


----------



## Nightslayer

Quote: 





xymordos said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Purposely adding impedance to the cable through the use of an added resistor isn't exactly what we're trying discuss here, I think.


----------



## Xymordos

But have you tried different cables yourself. I think you can actually hear a difference. But its very slight. I know that on the chinese headphone forum they recommended me not to change cable unless i got a RC IEM or a really expensive one with perfect amp and source and I had too much money to spend...LOL


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


xymordos said:


> Funny how everyone here thinks cables don't affect the sound,


 

 You mean people here like BlackBeard Ben?
   
  You may want to re-evaluate your statistic.
   
  Quote: 





> But have you tried different cables yourself. I think you can actually hear a difference.


 
  Of course. Early in my buying, many years ago, I bought as expensive a cable as I could afford (these very pretty, highly shielded, contraptions). I still have them (tend to use them as subwoofer cables because they are long, but their flexability is lower that is convenient for component interconnects). I've used the generic ones that come with equipment, I've picked up quite a few of the mainstream "better" cables because they were on sale (when hhGregg had flat AR component interconnects for $5 a pair, I picked up a few to replace the monoprice ones which were too stiff and had a tendancy to unplug themselves). monster, BJC, AR. Sometimes I buy a speaker or amp off craigslist from a cable believer and the cable comes with it.
   
  Outside my house I've listened to some very esoteric cables (the local B&W dealer sells high priced cables indeed).


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> xymordos said:
> ...


 

 Hey, I'm not the only one...  And there's certainly ways to put cables on that _will_ impact performance.  Like using a cable that has a significant resistance in comparison to the impedance of your speakers/headphones.
   
   
   
  That reminds me of when I bought my GFA-555 - the guy was a real audiophile nut - in ways both good and bad.  He builds his own speakers, including the cabinets - which is definitely cool.  He also had amps and other components lying all around - including a beefy 90 lb Mac he had just sold.  He was quite eclectic and definitely an interesting guy.
   
  His main system, on the other hand, was honestly not that impressive.  He had fancy-schmancy cables, a power conditioner, a big Krell, Levinson, or something similar for an amp, and it was all powering a pair of Mirage M3s (I think, based on the size.  It could have been an M1 or perhaps an M5).  They weren't bad, per se, but they just don't match either of my big Infinities in pretty much every way.  Seems like he ought to have spent more on speakers and less on everything else...
   
  Then, he brought out the cake.  Erm, CD de-static-ing spray.  Which he proceeded to tell me he was going to start selling it, as it makes everything smoother sounding with the static removed.  Uhh, yeah...  He used it on one of my CDs, which I had been auditioning the 555 with.  When I put it in, he asked me if I heard how much smoother and less harsh everything sounded.  I can't remember if I humored him by agreeing, or just said I didn't hear a difference (I didn't, of course...).
   
  I occasionally see stuff listed by him on Craigslist - I might have to pay him another visit just to chat.  I think I can endure CD-spray proselytising to chat about other audio stuff.  Even (rather, "Of course") sharing music is great.
   
   
   
  Well, I seemed to have strayed off topic again...   Sorry.   :-/


----------



## vert

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> Could you give us more specifics of _exactly_ what sounds so different with each interconnect - and perhaps tie it in with how they are constructed?
> 
> Also, have you tried any unsighted tests?


 

 Hi, there's a huge review on 6moons about the Livelines and how they're constructed. I would personally love to speak to Franck Tschang (the designer) myself, but I think there's enough information in the review by Srajan Ebaen. Supposedly Franck uses a sequential mix of alloys to achieve the sound.
   
  I didn't mean to say that the sound was my cup of tea. I used the Livelines between my Chord dac and integrated amp. The sound is very forward and lively, as in what you would hear in a live venue. The treble harshness that you hear in other cables isn't there. Also the haze that you're so familiar with hearing from other cables is gone.
   
  I'm not sure sure what Franck did in designing these cables, but they do something I've never heard in other cables.
   
  When I used the cable as a digital connect in between my dac and usb to spdif converter, it easily outperformed the Nuforce digital cable. It seems as though the Nuforce wasn't conveying all of information, o_r it may have been conveying it, but it was smeared_. The Chord dac is highly resolving, and once I installed the ASI Liveline, there was no looking back. Details and definition in music I'm very familiar with appeared in a manner that I've never heard before in any of my setups.
   
  For example, on the track "It's a Sin" by the Pet Shop Boys, there is a synthesizer line that goes throughout the song in the background. I can probably hear it faintly, but once the Liveline was installed as a digital cable, it's very easy to make out and quite shocking to realize it was always there, but I never heard it before!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I think that what Frank Tchang did was excellent sales and marketing
   
  http://www.francktchang.com/liveline.html
   
  using cheap components modified to create an impression of having affected the sound. At $1000 for a metre of IC he has a massive mark up. A Neutrik phono of the type he uses is $10.


----------



## Xymordos

Actually, It seems to me that the cables that perform worse are a lot more noticeable...When I tried a cheaper cable for my ER4P, it was an instant before I realized that the sound went all wrong and warm...
   
  Then I got my silver cable yesterday. Overall, not a big difference, except the ER4 trebles seemed to have gotten another boost


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *vert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I'm not sure sure what Franck did in designing these cables...


 

 It's called quackery.
   
  se


----------



## vert

Quote:


steve eddy said:


> It's called quackery.
> 
> se


 

 Won't be the first or last time he's called that.
   
  I'm keeping the interconnect as a digital cable though. It maintains the integrity of the music - the timing and structure. If this is done right, everything syncs up and snaps into place. No going back after you hear this.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





vert said:


> Won't be the first or last time he's called that.


 

 I should hope not.
   
  se


----------



## Xymordos

Hey Guys, 
  I just burned in my new silver cable for around 50 hours.
  Changed my ER4P sound quite a bit i think (not sure if its good or bad though). Treble is now overpowering. Cymbals are covering the singing, and I can hear literally everything. Sound stage is slightly bigger, causing the vocals to recess a little, and isn't as sharp anymore. More bass and extension, but very fast.


----------



## JRG1990

I don't understand how does a cable burn in it doesn't even have moving parts, speaker and headphone burn in works because the drivers loosen up.


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> I don't understand how does a cable burn in it doesn't even have moving parts, speaker and headphone burn in works because the drivers loosen up.


 

 The only things being burnt are Xymordos' credibility and wallet.


----------



## Xymordos

^Well when I compared to my original cables, they do make a difference (a different sound signature). I trust my ears.


----------



## beachgeek

Funny how some people know how all other people think & feel.  Do *ALL *chinese people really believe cables make a difference?  Even if all Chinese people believed they did, it does not make the argument any more true!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





xymordos said:


> ^Well when I compared to my original cables, they do make a difference (a different sound signature). I trust my ears.


 

 What do you think it is about the way the cable is made that changes the sound?


----------



## Syan25

Quote: 





beachgeek said:


> Funny how some people know how all other people think & feel.  Do *ALL *chinese people really believe cables make a difference?  Even if all Chinese people believed they did, it does not make the argument any more true!


 


  It does seem to be the case that most people I have talked to here in Taiwan about cables feel that cables are a serious part of the audio experience..I remain skeptical that cables need to be terribly expensive and personally though I want quality cables myself - I do not want said cables to _*colour*_ the sound as some audiophiles seem to want to perfect their audio experience. I prefer to hear my amp and source as they are...but presented to me in the clearest and detailed way as possible....if I have to spend lots of money to enhance my audio experience of my amp and source - than maybe I bought the wrong amp/source in the first place..
   
  I do believe cables can make a small qualitative difference. But I would be looking for ones that only present what the amp/source is doing in clarity and neutrality...


----------



## buffalowings

Quote: 





syan25 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  interesting, also, it seems like it's a taboo for speaking against the benefits of expensive cables vs cheaper ones, head-fi member 3602 was banned for speaking against overpriced cabling if I remember correctly


----------



## JRG1990

How does a piece of wire colour the sound?, i've never heard a cable add bass, reduce midrange etc, slight sonic differences i can belive but actually eqing the sound i can't, and if i want netruel cable what kind of design/construction should i look for?.


----------



## Xymordos

I believe its the change in resistance that changes the sound.
   
  And I know that a lot of people on the Chinese forum believe that most cables only CHANGE the sound signature, not necessarily make it better.


----------



## Uncle Erik

xymordos said:


> I believe its the change in resistance that changes the sound.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 
If it is resistance, then you can measure that with very precise testing equipment.

Further, changing the resistance also alters the capacitance and inductance.

It's the law. Ohm's Law.

And if anyone wants to disprove Ohm's Law, well, go right ahead.

Keep in mind that Ohm's Law has held up through - literally - hundreds of millions of measurements and at least an equal number of electronic products.

Very odd that a fundamental law of physics only comes into "dispute" in audio cables. Even more curious that every listening test has failed and that the perceived differences are explained by placebo and expectation.


----------



## Xymordos

^So wouldn't that change the sound? Since silver and copper have different resistances


----------



## Nightslayer

Quote: 





xymordos said:


> ^So wouldn't that change the sound? Since silver and copper have different resistances


 

 So you're arguing that lower conductivity = more trebles and bass, larger soundstage as well as the ability to hear everything? Naiseee. But anyway, why argue with each other over what HE hears; if placebo can bring him as much satisfaction as changing a DAP or an amp would us skeptics, why deprive him of it? When looking at the cable industry and attempting to criticize it, we should consider the utility of perceived effects vs proven actual effects and whether it justifies the buying of cables. Not to mention the large amount of jobs created by this niche


----------



## Xymordos

Well I trust my ears thats all I can say. I did compare both cables a few times.


----------



## Wylie Williams

One company, Analysis Plus, goes beyond measuring inductance, resistance and capacitance individually.  They use computer simulations of complex signals for their measurements and have come up with a new cable geometry. On their website they show comparisons of the difference between their cable and competing cable geometries.
  I am a believer that the Analysis Plus difference is in a positive direction because I have heard their Black Oval 9 speaker cable make a dramatic improvement in my system. There is a "Design" section of their website that is quite complete in explaining and illustrating their cables design.


----------



## Syan25

That sounds like a good read. That is what I like about the Blue Jeans website - they get into explanations that help cable buyers made informed decisions


----------



## tlniec

Impedance is what really matters (more so than DC resistance, unless you're using hair-fine wire, in which case even resistance can get you into trouble).  Impedance, which includes capacitance and inductance as mentioned above, is frequency-sensitive.  So in theory, cables with certain impedance characteristics COULD cause some EQ effects.  But in practice...
   
  I've seen some measured data for a short length of pretty thin copper hookup wire (22 gage)... extrapolating that data for length [should be fair enough, you'd need thousands of feet of length to be considered "electrically long"], a 10-foot cable made of this thin wire would present an impedance of a few tenths of an Ohm from DC to nearly 10 KHz.  Between 10 and 20 KHz, impedance would climb by about another tenth of an Ohm.  There are probably some additional impedances associated with your connectors [it'd actually be REALLY interesting to look into this -- the geometry of a 1/4" TRS plug might cause it to have a larger reactive component than the conductors]. 
   
  But to get to the point, your cable is a series impedance with your headphone.  Headphone impedances range from what, 30-ish Ohms to about 600-ish Ohms (with some dips and spikes, granted)?  I just find it hard to fathom that the tiny little tenths-of-an-Ohm cable impedance (which varies very little within the audio frequency band) could produce notable sound differences.  Even if you change from a skinny lil' copper wire to a big fat superconducting wire... I'd expect the difference in cable attenuation would be SO minimal as to be inaudible.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





wylie williams said:


> One company, Analysis Plus, goes beyond measuring inductance, resistance and capacitance individually.  They use computer simulations of complex signals for their measurements and have come up with a new cable geometry. On their website they show comparisons of the difference between their cable and competing cable geometries.
> I am a believer that the Analysis Plus difference is in a positive direction because I have heard their Black Oval 9 speaker cable make a dramatic improvement in my system. There is a "Design" section of their website that is quite complete in explaining and illustrating their cables design.


 
   
  Quote: 





			
				Syan25 said:
			
		

> /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> That sounds like a good read. That is what I like about the Blue Jeans website - they get into explanations that help cable buyers made informed decisions


 
   
   
  It's surprisingly easy to trick people with deliberately misleading "science".  Read this for perspective on what skin effects (much of what "Analysis Plus" talks about) _actually_ mean in terms of cabling:
  http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/skin-effect-relevance-in-speaker-cable.
   
  In other words, essentially nothing at all at audio frequencies and when actually driving a loudspeaker.  The resistance increase at higher frequencies in comparison to the transducer is minuscule; two orders of magnitude below even an audible level in the exaggerated example shown (solid core wire).  It's easy to trick people into thinking that there's significant levels of attenuation by ignoring the load of the transducer - that's what they're doing at Analysis Plus, and they're not the only ones doing it.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





xymordos said:


> Well I trust my ears thats all I can say. I did compare both cables a few times.


 

 What the greater effect on your ears? Your brain or a cable?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





wylie williams said:


> One company, Analysis Plus, goes beyond measuring inductance, resistance and capacitance individually.  They use computer simulations of complex signals for their measurements and have come up with a new cable geometry. On their website they show comparisons of the difference between their cable and competing cable geometries.
> I am a believer that the Analysis Plus difference is in a positive direction because I have heard their Black Oval 9 speaker cable make a dramatic improvement in my system. There is a "Design" section of their website that is quite complete in explaining and illustrating their cables design.


 

 The Analysis Plus "white papers" are nothing more than a misleading dog and pony show.
   
  The "Bogey Men" they use to strike fear into the hearts of audiophiles are skin effect and proximity effect (what they call "current bunching").
   
  While no one, including Analysis Plus, has demonstrated that skin and proximity effect are of any particular significance at audio frequencies, neither of these phenomenon are anything new and the solution to dealing with them has been around for nearly a century. It's called litz wire.
   
  Of course they make no mention at all of litz wire. Instead they only compare to a 12 gauge solid core conductor as if everyone's using Romex to hook up their speakers.
   
  And while I could go on about half a dozen other misleading bits in their literature, the one that bothers me the most is last section of their design white paper where they talk about the sensitivity of the human ear, namely that we're capable of hearing at levels down to the thermal noise limit of the air itself.
   
  Based on this they write: "What this means is that the human audio system is extremely sensitive, and that small things like cable design are important to maximize the listening pleasure."
   
  It is true that we can hear things down to the thermal noise limit of the air itself (indeed, we can hear the thermal noise of air as the air molecules randomly bang against our eardrums). However you can't hear the air molecules banging against your eardrum at the same time you're listening to a piece of music.
   
  In order to hear anything at those levels, you have to be seated in an anechoic chamber and left to acclimate for 15-20 minutes. That's because being exposed to higher level sounds makes our ears less sensitive to lower level sounds. That's also why we can't really hear things going on much more than 70dB below the main signal level.
   
  If these guys are as smart as they claim to be (they're not just some DIYers who decided to start making cables, they claim to have done engineering work for NASA and large corporations) they should know better. So I can only conclude that they're using their dog and pony show to intentionally mislead people.
   
  se


----------



## JerryLove

Roger Russell has a pretty good description of how/why high impedance cables (more than 5% speaker impedance IIRC) can cause distortion. It's not a set of measurements I've ever taken myself, but it seems very reasonable.
   
  Other than too high an impedance, I've never seen a convincing case made that properly constructed wire does anything to sound.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





xymordos said:


> Well I trust my ears thats all I can say. I did compare both cables a few times.


 


  My limited knowledge of the science involved, plus my experience in this hobby has convinced me to place limited trust in my ears.  Unassisted, human senses are weak measuring instruments.


----------

