# Can you tell the difference between different cables?



## badmonkey

Actually that was a rhetorical question intended just to get you to click.

 Which you did.

 So the real raison d'etre of this thread is to link to this article which you may find interesting.

 Comments welcome but please don't start arguing about what you can hear blah blah blah.


----------



## nuhi

Placebo exists, and in that case it fooled that person with the zip-cord.
 But give someone a zip-cord to listen for a week, then switch and ask him after another week was there a difference. If the cable was a lot better there won't be any doubt. If it was the same it can go either way.
 If you playback the same system twice you will always hear something different. At least IME. But after some casual listening when you get in tune with it any change will be heard. Even the power cables.

 Of course if you put a person in some kind of a lab-rat blind test, or even fooling him, what did you expect.

 It is told that we can't hear differences between the amplifiers in a blind test. Doesn't that tell you that there is something weird with that "controlled test".

 Cables are overpriced, that's for sure, but this kind of anti-propaganda is what's raising their price in the first place. Now people who can hear the difference feel even more special and they feel like they have to exploit that advantage and buy even better cables


----------



## jcn3

i will agree that the advertising by cable companies is absurd.


----------



## AC1

The understading of placebo and how it works is as much BS (not that is doesn't exist but peoples claims on what it proves) as what cable manufacturers claim to how their cables work.


----------



## PhilS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually that was a rhetorical question intended just to get you to click.

 Which you did.

 So the real raison d'etre of this thread is to link to this article which you may find interesting.

 Comments welcome but please don't start arguing about what you can hear blah blah blah._

 

 It's rather obvious that you're just trying to start an argument. This topic has been discussed many, many times before on this sub-forum, and nothing new is offered in the article you link to, which you link to solely to present your particular point of view.

 This thread will now reduce itself to three types of comments: (1) arguments by those who agree with you that all cables are "snake oil," (2) arguments from those who disagreee with you, primarily based on what they hear, and (3) arguments from both sides about whether a particular response is off-topic or responsive to the initial post.

 Have at it.


----------



## vcoheda

bottom line. buy cables that are comparable to the rest of your system and at a price that you are comfortable with. the rest is just pointless debate/argument.


----------



## drarthurwells

My headphone system is high resolution and very revealing - any change I make in that sytem is obvious.

 The HD600 with the HD650 cable has some glare to the tone and some glaze over the soundstage - but is a top headphone in spite of these faults. However, if I change to the Cardas cable (with genuine Cardas connectors, not DIY that uses Caradas cable with other connectors) for the HD600, it transforms to a natural sweetness and utterly transparent headphone - the best in my experience.

 The HD650 may be better with the Equinox than the Cardas - the opposite of the HD600 which may be better with the Cardas than the Equinox - from what others have said.


 Changes in my ICs from what I usually use always degrades the sound, however slightly this might be in some cases.

 Any tube change in my system makes a big difference in the sound.


----------



## drarthurwells

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually that was a rhetorical question intended just to get you to click.

 Which you did.

 So the real raison d'etre of this thread is to link to this article which you may find interesting.

 Comments welcome but please don't start arguing about what you can hear blah blah blah._

 

Anyone who can't readily hear the difference between a 100% silver and 100% copper IC, in a really good headphone system, should stick to an Ipod and its supplied earphone.


----------



## Zorander

I can easily hear differences between cables, especially if one is silver and the other is copper (I haven't heard any other metals though). BUT I do not believe in the esoteric prices some cables fetch and find it hard to even spend more than $100 on a cable. That extra amount will only likely become someone else's profit, not so much to your sound.

 Regards.


----------



## Spareribs

From my limited experience, RCA cables were very subtle but it could also be my amp not being too revealing. Headphone cables were more noticable as if a veil being lifted when hearing a better cable like the Cardas Sennheiser cable for example.

 In my amateur opinion, cables are not really important because they are too subtle. However, in some systems, they may give a desirable subtle tone or extra clarity that will be complimentary.

 That said, stock cables are great. Perhaps I'm embarrassed to say that I like them but after market cables sound great too even if it *may* sound identical to the stock cable. Perhaps it may be best to just buy high quality cables that are well reviewed but cheap like the Blue Jeans cables for example or Volex. Or even Signal Cable company. You could also buy a used high quality brand name cable and pay less and get away with a bargain. This way, you will have peace of mind if there is a shadow of a doubt that stock cables are inferior. Plus, those cables can look decorative too. You can also think of them as personal ornaments for your system that you are proud of. A symbol perhaps?


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


 Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a positive score during blind listening comparisons against other cables. 
 

wow its clear this guy doesnt know anything. another "talks about cables without listening to them" sort of guy!!! gosh what an idiot!


----------



## dura

Some people 'know' cables don't make a difference, they studied long and hard for it. 
 These are the same people that back there in the 70th 'knew' cheap japanese amps sounded better then tube amps, because you could measure it. CD was better then vinyl, they could measure that too.
 And if someone dared to hear different, it was simple selfdelusion.

 Others just take the time to sit back and listen, not short AB-burst but just relax and enjoy the music, and they hear cables can make a difference, sometimes small, sometimes not so small, sometimes related to price, sometimes not.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Zorander* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can easily hear differences between cables, especially if one is silver and the other is copper (I haven't heard any other metals though). BUT I do not believe in the esoteric prices some cables fetch and find it hard to even spend more than $100 on a cable. That extra amount will only likely become someone else's profit, not so much to your sound.

 Regards._

 

I agree, i have allready refernece series of IC's but come on 18.000 euro's for a meter of IC is quite insane, no matter how much i like my cables and the brand. I am however curious about the differences.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone who can't readily hear the difference between a 100% silver and 100% copper IC, in a really good headphone system, should stick to an Ipod and its supplied earphone._

 

Agree.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My headphone system is high resolution and very revealing - any change I make in that sytem is obvious.

 The HD600 with the HD650 cable has some glare to the tone and some glaze over the soundstage - but is a top headphone in spite of these faults.

 If I change to the Cardas cable (with genuine Cardas connectors, not DIY that uses Caradas cable with other connectors) for the HD600, it transforms to a natural sweetness and utterly transparent headphone - the best in my experience. The HD650/Cardas is not as good though.


 Changes in my ICs from what I usually use always degrades the sound, however slightly this might be in some cases.

 Any tube change in my system makes a big difference in the sound._

 

Yep, there's no going back with my current IC's. Tubes make a hell of a lot of difference. I just changed some combo's and you bet the changes are far from suttle, ranging from nice, to unbalanced to balanced, dark sounding, fresh and airy sounding, you name it, the tubes do it.

 I don't agree with you about the 650 and 600. I also used the 600 with the original cardas cable and while it has better stage , it looses quite a bit in the tonal correctness department. The notes are light and less bodied compared to the hd650.


----------



## Ampersand

I've hear differences between IC's.

 When I made DIY IC's with Mogami/Canare starquad and LOK connectors, I REALLY wanted them to sound better than the Cardas. According to this article and others like it, I should have convinced myself that the DIY sounded better. Unfortunately, they didn't. It wasn't even close. I was disappointed as I dropped a lot of $$ on those connectors.

 Just my .02


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow its clear this guy doesnt know anything. another "talks about cables without listening to them" sort of guy!!! gosh what an idiot!_

 

Actually, it appears from the article that his company has conducted a number of listening tests. It seems highly unlikely that he would conduct such tests without ever listening himself to the cables that are the subjects of the test. Do you have any support for your claim that he doesn't base his comments on listening?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ampersand* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've hear differences between IC's.

 When I made DIY IC's with Mogami/Canare starquad and LOK connectors, I REALLY wanted them to sound better than the Cardas. According to this article and others like it, I should have convinced myself that the DIY sounded better. Unfortunately, they didn't. It wasn't even close. I was disappointed as I dropped a lot of $$ on those connectors.

 Just my .02_

 

Connectors are important, low resistance is important but the cable itself makes the biggest difference! In this case, the diy cable was inferieur to the cardas cable. Are there better cables then cardas, yes, but it will cost ya.


----------



## drarthurwells

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't agree with you about the 650 and 600. I also used the 600 with the original cardas cable and while it has better stage , it looses quite a bit in the tonal correctness department. The notes are light and less bodied compared to the hd650._

 


 I find the HD600 with Genuine Cardas and the Bada 12 with two Chinese and one EH Gold 6SN7 and the Saturn with my rebadged Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II ICs, and Tice power conditioner and good power cables:

 great clarity, sharp imaging with 3-D tones and plenty of empty space between tones, compact tones with no blurry or muddy bloating of the tones, sweet natural timbre, great tone body resolution with subtle nuances revealed, excellent inner detail and instrument separation in complex passages, and well balanced

 The HD650 with stock cables falls just slightly short for me than the HD600 with HD650 cables, in terms of balance, inner detail, 3-D imaging with air between tones. Some prefer the strong bass of the 650.

 I understand the HD650 with Equinox is better than the HD650 with Cardas - don't know from actual experience. 

 Cables do make a difference to me.

 The K701 with stock cable has expansive tones that fill out the soundstage but these tones are bloated in a subtle way compared to the HD600/Cardas and its smaller but sharply delineated tones (which are focused in empty space as palpable and transparent).


----------



## meat01

Febs, I think Gotchaforce was being sarcastic


----------



## Febs

Heh. That's what I get for not having had enough coffee this morning.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spareribs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You could also buy a used high quality brand name cable and pay less and get away with a bargain. This way, you will have peace of mind if there is a shadow of a doubt that stock cables are inferior._

 

I saw an old 50s TV commercial that showed a housewife with a worried expression on her face. The announcer was saying over the top, "Worried that your husband's shirts may not be as white as they could be? Use new and improved Dreft for the WHITEST WHITES POSSIBLE!" I'm sure the soap flakes in the box were exactly the same as in any other brand on the shelf, but just *knowing* that their whites were the whitest gave millions of housewives "peace of mind".

 I really don't need my wires to help me feel more confident or give me peace of mind. All I need them to do is conduct electricity efficiently. Radio Shack cables have worked perfectly in my system for many years, and I've never had cause to lay awake at night and worry about them.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_great clarity, sharp imaging with 3-D tones and plenty of empty space between tones, compact tones with no blurry or muddy bloating of the tones, sweet natural timbre, great tone body resolution with subtle nuances revealed, excellent inner detail and instrument separation in complex passages, and well balanced_

 

A veritable dictionary of vague romantic terms to describe sound!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## voxr3m

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A veritable dictionary of vague romantic terms to describe sound!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Isn't that always the case? I listen mostly to my speakers, and tbh, their placement in the room and height off the floor makes more of a difference than even swapping between quality amplifiers. I've spoken with the designer of the timewindow 3's I own and even he couldn't justify rewiring the speaker with 'better' quality wire for improvments in sound. He did stress the importance of reliable connections in the circuit and even recommended redundant wiring. 

 I never bother trying to argue the point anymore. Cable believers will believe what they want. All you can do is respect their decisions and continue saving yourself money.


----------



## Logistics

Let's not forget the _possibility_ that a persons cables are not the bottle-neck. It may not be as useful to change cables if you haven't cleaned things up elsewhere in the system. If, from a component level stand-point, your amplifier or source are lacking, then it's not going to be as useful to change cables, because garbage in, garbage out. People usually suggest that cables are the last thing which should be changed.

 Of course, this becomes an entirely different matter if you're dealing with a cable that should be a specific impedance, and things such as the quality of termination can affect said impedance. (like video cables)


----------



## Spareribs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Radio Shack cables have worked perfectly in my system for many years, and I've never had cause to lay awake at night and worry about them.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Radio Shack cables are excellent these days.


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I saw an old 50s TV commercial that showed a housewife with a worried expression on her face. The announcer was saying over the top, "Worried that your husband's shirts may not be as white as they could be? Use new and improved Dreft for the WHITEST WHITES POSSIBLE!" I'm sure the soap flakes in the box were exactly the same as in any other brand on the shelf, but just *knowing* that their whites were the whitest gave millions of housewives "peace of mind".

 I really don't need my wires to help me feel more confident or give me peace of mind. All I need them to do is conduct electricity efficiently. Radio Shack cables have worked perfectly in my system for many years, and I've never had cause to lay awake at night and worry about them.

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 Yet another inciteful [sic] post by our resident audio expert


----------



## morphsci

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spareribs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Radio Shack cables are excellent these days._

 

Your definition of excellent is my definition of adequate


----------



## vcoheda

if all cables are the same, then where does it end. do all CDs players sound the same. does a $50 DVD player sound as good as a $2000 CD player. is a $100 amp the same as one costing 5x as much. at some point, you have to be more critical and admit that there are differences which even if not siginificant, although sometimes they are, are worth the additional cost.


----------



## bigshot

Adequate is a great description for a cable that is functioning properly.

 There is a heirarchy of difference...

 More differences from model to model
 Speakers
 Headphones
 Amplifiers
 CD Players
 Cables
 Less differences from model to model

 Leading causes of bad sound...

 Inadequate speakers/cheap earbuds
 Poor room acoustics/speaker placement
 Encoding compressed audio at too low a bitrate
 Lack of headroom/overdriving
 Overprocessing/Digital manipulation
 Lousy miking/mixing/mastering
 Imbalanced frequency response

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Spareribs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *morphsci* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your definition of excellent is my definition of adequate_

 

That's probably true. My system is not on the level of hi fi so perhaps it is not very sensitive to ICs. In my system, a Radio Shack cable competed well with a more expensive cable and the difference was pretty small. That said, in my system, the stock Sennhesier headphone cable was not desirable compared to the Cardas, so I do not favor the stock cable at all for the Sennheisers, unless if it's for portable reasons because it is pleasingly very flexiblle.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spareribs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ In my system, a Radio Shack cable competed well with a more expensive cable and the difference was pretty small. That said, in my system, the stock Sennhesier headphone cable was not desirable compared to the Cardas, so I do not favor the stock cable at all for the Sennheisers, unless if it's for portable reasons because it is pleasingly very flexiblle._

 

But are you saying that you could certainly hear a difference between the cables? What difference?


----------



## infinitesymphony

In response to the topic, yes, I could definitely tell the difference between a $6 stock-quality cable (think the sort of semi-decent cabling a cable company would give you to hook up your new box to the TV) and BJC LC-1s. When I upgraded, I was using my college system, which ends with a pair of Bose bookshelf speakers (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





), so the difference was very subtle. On a better system, the change was more apparent. The whole frequency range seemed better-represented, it was clearer, and maybe even a bit louder, which could also contribute to my impression. Basically, better all-around.

 Either way, I don't have the urge to spend more than $50 on a pair of cables, and I've never felt the need to upgrade after receiving the LC-1s. Changing other components has been far more worthwhile than trying to add or subtract coloration with "audiophile" cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But are you saying that you could certainly hear a difference between the cables? What difference?_

 

I've used the cardas on the hd600 and it has extended top and bottom and better soundstage. Also controlls bass better.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've used the cardas on the hd600 and it has extended top and bottom and better soundstage. Also controlls bass better._

 

It seems to me that if a cable is "controlling" bass, there is something wrong with the cable.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It seeming to me that if a cable is "controlling" bass, there is something wrong with the cable._

 


 The previous cable, which allowed uncontrolled, loose, slow bass?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It seems to me that if a cable is "controlling" bass, there is something wrong with the cable._

 

Nope, coppercable has less extension in the ultra highs as silverplated or pure silver cables. So choosing either can improve or slightly dampen the bass responce.


----------



## Febs

How does a difference in the "ultra highs" "dampen" the bass response?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How does a difference in the "ultra highs" "dampen" the bass response?_

 

 it should read: in the ultra highs and lows. Silverplated or pure silver wire has in general just a bit more extension and detail in the highs and lows compared to copper cable. So, this way you can choose to dampen the bass a bit by using a copper cable.


----------



## Spareribs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But are you saying that you could certainly hear a difference between the cables? What difference?_

 

A veil was lifted and the bride was beautiful.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spareribs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A veil was lifted and the bride was beautiful._

 

I believe you, even if others don't


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it should read: in the ultra highs and lows. Silverplated or pure silver wire has in general just a bit more extension and detail in the highs *and lows* compared to copper cable. So, this way you can choose to dampen the bass a bit by using a copper cable._

 

Why would copper have more "extension" in the lows than silver? I understand that there differences between copper and silver may have some affect in very high frequencies, but can you point me to any credible source that suggests that copper attenuates low frequencies?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Spareribs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A veil was lifted and the bride was beautiful._

 

Because she had better extension in the highs and lows?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Mandatory reading for cable lovers and haters everywhere, direct from cable assembler (not manufacturer), Blue Jeans Cable:

Does Wire Matter?
What Wire Does With All Those Electrons

 Bonus: Hum Rejection in Unbalanced Audio Cables


----------



## Prozakk

More so for car audio, than for home audio.


----------



## Logistics

One of the troubles is that people seem to think a cable has more effect than it often does. For instance, I swapped out my 16ga Monster Cable for some 16ga solid core and alot of the bass went away. But due to the lack of bass, a person may feel that it bettered the highs, when in reality, there simply isn't that shroud of bass which may have otherwise distracted them from hearing things in the background. You(and I) can experience the same thing by simply adjusting the volume when listening. At lower volume, you may hear details you don't remember, while at the higher volume you may normally listen at, you may miss them.

 As always, I defenitely can speak for the difference in changing gauges, even when only dealing with inches worth of cable. However, this is most likely to occur in something which was wired with an inadequate gauge to begin with.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why would copper have more "extension" in the lows than silver? I understand that there differences between copper and silver may have some affect in very high frequencies, but can you point me to any credible source that suggests that copper attenuates low frequencies?



 Because she had better extension in the highs and lows? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

read carefully, it's quite the other way around.

  Quote:


 Silverplated or pure silver wire has in general just a bit more extension and detail in the highs and lows compared to copper cable. So, this way you can choose to dampen the bass a bit by using a copper cable.


----------



## keyid

just found out how much of a difference a minute ago. Got my zhaulo dac 2.5c and some silver plated coaxial. Sounds good without any mods, did bypass and the highs were too glaring, esp sss and ccc when people sing, with alot of albums. I let it run for couple days hoping it will go away, but didnt. 

 I switched from silver coaxial to optical and highs are much cleaner. 
 Also got some nice rca to mini before I got my zhaulo and made a decent impact change.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_read carefully, it's quite the other way around._

 

You still haven't answered the question. Why would silver have more "extension" in the lows than copper? I understand that there differences between copper and silver may have some affect in very high frequencies, but can you point me to any credible source that suggests that copper attenuates low frequencies?


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *keyid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I switched from silver coaxial to optical and highs are much cleaner._

 

You're proposing that since silver is "brighter" than copper, it can also affect digital signals in an identical way?

 What about the possibility that the optical and coaxial cables or input sections are not of similar quality, or that optical might help to avoid some pre-existing EMI or RFI problems?


----------



## Bootleg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're proposing that since silver is "brighter" than copper, it can also affect digital signals in an identical way?

 What about the possibility that the optical and coaxial cables or input sections are not of similar quality, or that optical might help to avoid some pre-existing EMI or RFI problems?_

 

hmmmmm...thats a good one. Digital huh?

 My digital now sounds brighter with the silver??? 

 Not so much.


----------



## Logistics

Last time I heard someone talk about the differences between silver and copper, it was stated that copper had better bass while silver had better highs.

 However, this has become a very mixed bag because there are many people who are using silver plated copper core CAT cable, which has the added feature of being 100-Ohm fixed impedance cable. And I have yet to hear an explanation of how a fixed impedance cable affects sound when used in place of an original headphone cable or in place of real speaker cable in the case of loudspeakers.


----------



## Akathriel

I truly believe that if you cannot hear the difference between high-level cables (headphone/speaker) this hobby is not for you.

 Line level cabling is more subtle and I suppose some people could miss it, or just not think its impact warrants the ridiculous prices.

 Im pretty skeptical about digital. I suppose digital cables could make a difference, but thats just because consumer digital interfaces are truly "asstacular". Once you seperate the clock with either word/super/I2s and use well designed cables, I dont think there should be any difference.


----------



## HiFi FOR METAL

An interesting thing occurred one day. I went into one of my favorite high end stores with my father who is also and audiophile. I was listening to amphion mini monitors with a cayin 88t sim audio equinox cd player using acoustic zen cables then the owner of the store offered to swap out the speaker cables because these new cables had more of a sweet midrange sound. He did swap out the speaker cables. Lo and behold there was a huge change. The mids were more pronounced but at the cost of coherency tight bass and imaging, it just sounded bloated. Both my father and me cringed at the same time. we heard the exact same thing. We wanted him to switch back to the acoustic zen, he did and the music came back sounding neutral again. Now if the placebo effect existed for us we should have heard a positive difference, but our golden ears told both of us we were hearing the same levels of change that were undesirable. Now I am not saying that there isn't hype in the cable market, in fact this story is proof of it. What I am saying is that there are good cables and bad cables. I have heard very audible differences in cabling. To say there isn't just because someone's particular choice of scientific tests prove that it must be false, just means there is a variable they may not be considering or testing. After all there are literally millions of possible variables in science and not every experiment can isolate every single one. So if your cables make a consistent, beneficial and audible difference then chances are you will start to enjoy the music.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You still haven't answered the question. Why would silver have more "extension" in the lows than copper? I understand that there differences between copper and silver may have some affect in very high frequencies, but can you point me to any credible source that suggests that copper attenuates low frequencies?_

 


 I said it dampens low frequency, not attenuate.

 Silver has better edge detail, therefor percieved better low end. it sounds cleaner and a bit deeper.

 With my silverplated coppercable i have better bass then with a more expensive copper cable. simple.

 if you wanna know why, search the web, i listen to cables.

 "The first of these design fundamentals is that silver is the only metal really suited for durable signal transmission. Copper will oxidize over time into a form that does not conduct electricity and a copper cable's performance will hence slowly deteriorate."

 "Pure copper tends to be a bit low end except in a very few cases .... Some alter the treble frequencies, some the bass, others attenuate the treble."

 Show me the post! you're talking about things i never stated in any post!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 If you talk cables and materials:

 copper: natural sound, less extension in bottom and top end (compared to silver plated copper)

 pure silver: soft sound, clear, extended highs, less bass. Older version can get harsh in the extreem end of the spectrum

 Silverplated: natural sound, extended top end bottom, clean, neutral. best of both worlds.

 This i found out by listening to cables, not reading technical papers.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I said it dampens low frequency, not attenuate._

 

I can't see how there is any difference between these two words in this context.


----------



## hciman77

We need graphs, FR curves , and lots and lots of them plus loads of electrical testing data. 

 Last week in another thread a chap said that CD player B had an extended frequency response and that CD player A had rolled off treble. I managed to find the FR curves that showed that the freq resp of the two were identical down to a tiny 0.37db difference at 20K and in fact B had the *miniscule* (0.5db) 20k roll off not A.

 Personally I am not sure anyone can hear a 0.5db roll off at 20K , do we have any psychophysicians in the house ?

 What level of attenuation and at what frequencies can IC cables provide. We know that for long runs of speaker cable you want to keep the gauge relatively big as there is *****measurable**** energy loss.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I said it dampens low frequency, not attenuate.
_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't see how there is any difference between these two words in this context._

 

Sounds like double-talk to me.

 If a material does attenuate low frequencies it will be easy to prove it with some simple tests, just record the same track to computer with two cables one copper and one silver and run the results through any bog standard audio editor. The wave forms would be noticeably different. A cable cannot amplify energy it can only lose it. Enough energy loss would be easily seen. The corollary is that even measurable energy loss may not be audible.

 If someone wants to send me a couple of suitable cables (mini to RCA) I will happily do this. It would be easy to get some single frequency test tones burn them and record them back - this would show unambiguously if there were measurable differences between the two cables.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ So choosing either can improve or slightly dampen the bass responce._

 

No normal cable can *improve* bass. A cable transmits electrical energy. A normal cable can only lose energy it **cannot** add it to an existing signal. If you mean that a copper cable can attenuate low freq response due to high energy loss that is different.


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 "The first of these design fundamentals is that silver is the only metal really suited for durable signal transmission. Copper will oxidize over time into a form that does not conduct electricity and a copper cable's performance will hence slowly deteriorate."

 pure silver: soft sound, clear, extended highs, less bass. Older version can get harsh in the extreem end of the spectrum_

 


 Silver will also oxidise, could this layer, although conductive, account for the "harsh in the extreem end of the spectrum" with "Older version" of "pure silver". 

 Could the oxidisiation account for some of what people hear as "Break or Burn" in?


----------



## voxr3m

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Akathriel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I truly believe that if you cannot hear the difference between high-level cables (headphone/speaker) this hobby is not for you._

 

I suppose even those who believe they can hear a difference don't belong in thie hobby because they cannot consistently identify cables in blind tests?

 I'm going to come back at you and say that this hobby is not for you if you don't understand the science behind transmission lines and wave guides. I'm going to further that comment by saying that this hobby is not for you if you haven't had significant training in music. Do you see how ignorant comments like these are?

 It's one thing to believe what you want, and it's another to believe you're superior to everyone else. That's why these discussions never go anywhere despite any facts or explanations that are offered.


----------



## voxr3m

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This i believe by listening to cables, not reading technical papers._

 

Fixed that for you.


----------



## keyid

yea it maybe that on my zhaulo the optical may be different then coaxial, I am going to order another cable because its defaults to coaxial and I dont want to press the optical selection all the time. Coaxial should be less prone to interference then optical so i hear.


----------



## romanalexander

I ended keeping the HD600's over the HD650's. The 650's have more bass, but I really prefer the 600's sound.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *romanalexander* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I ended keeping the HD600's over the HD650's. The 650's have more bass, but I really prefer the 600's sound._

 

Same. The problem is I now need a replacement for my HD600's and the used prices are going up. They've gone from $150ish to $200ish on ebay in the last month 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If the HD600 really is out of production, it might end up as a classic can with a price to match.


----------



## infinitesymphony

Wrong thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's a question... Regardless of the conductivity of the metal used, shouldn't all properly-designed cables sound the same? The idea is to transmit the signal without loss.

 Some people have proposed that silver's current reputation is due to manufacturers not using an adequate gauge of wire or proper shielding. Silver has higher conductivity than copper, but the electrical difference is non-existent if the gauge of the copper wire is increased.

 Incorporating two different metals into the same cable (ex. silver-plated copper) seems like it would be impossible to do without causing coloration.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *voxr3m* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fixed that for you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I am getting sensored.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This i noticed by listening to cables extensively!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No normal cable can *improve* bass. A cable transmits electrical energy. A normal cable can only lose energy it **cannot** add it to an existing signal. If you mean that a copper cable can attenuate low freq response due to high energy loss that is different._

 

I know that cables aren't able to add anything. I only know by extensive listening and experimenting with cables, that some let your more then others.
 So, if you speak in these terms, people use the word improve. It is An improvement over the other, older cable.

 Also, i noticed quite a difference in volume using one or the other IC's, the best IC's seem to be louder then the less good, you have to turn down the volume pot and you'll simply hear more detail.

 So, lets say that good cables distract less of the signal then less good cables do. I am speaking of less good cables, not bad, since evry cable is quite decent but there are simply better cables around.

 I also noticed that some cables sound better on other equipment then others, hence the term matching.
 Maybe load balancing is better word?!

 What i found out( not believe) is that silverplated copper has sharper edges then pure silver and that pure copper has less sharp edges as pure silver.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's a question... Regardless of the conductivity of the metal used, shouldn't all properly-designed cables sound the same? The idea is to transmit the signal without loss.

 Some people have proposed that silver's current reputation is due to manufacturers not using an adequate gauge of wire or proper shielding. Silver has higher conductivity than copper, but the electrical difference is non-existent if the gauge of the copper wire is increased.

 Incorporating two different metals into the same cable (ex. silver-plated copper) seems like it would be impossible to do without causing coloration._

 

Not what i heard through extensive experimenting and listening:

 a thin pure silver wire can sound better then a thick copper wire. So, appernetly not all properties are compensated by simply making the core thicker!


----------



## Bootleg

Let's not discount the fact that big beefy fire-hose bling-bling cables are fun to show off to friends and family.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This i noticed by listening to cables extensively!_

 

You really should spend more time listening to music. Would you like some suggestions?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HiFi FOR METAL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_An interesting thing occurred one day. I went into one of my favorite high end stores with my father who is also and audiophile..._

 

You missed the salesman tapping the bass control. I had a guy at Circuit City try to pull that trick on me when I was shopping for speakers. He would reach for the speaker selection knob with one hand and secretively tweak the bass with his other hand. I called him on it and told him that if he left me alone, I'd bring the sale to him when I was finished and I wouldn't complain to the management about his trick. He disappeared faster than a jet.

 They think you will think that more bass is better, so they stack the deck.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You really should spend more time listening to music. Would you like some suggestions?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Not the crappy recordings you make, i hope.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 oh and eh, a better cable gives me more pleasure of listening to the music.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You missed the salesman tapping the bass control. I had a guy at Circuit City try to pull that trick on me when I was shopping for speakers. He would reach for the speaker selection knob with one hand and secretively tweak the bass with his other hand. I called him on it and told him that if he left me alone, I'd bring the sale to him when I was finished and I wouldn't complain to the management about his trick. He disappeared faster than a jet.

 They think you will think that more bass is better, so they stack the deck.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That´s why i bring equipment home and listen to it in my own envirement.
 No tampering or tricks in listening rooms. You know why in listening rooms most of the time speakers or setups sound better then at home, right, highly optimized.


----------



## dvw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not what i heard through extensive experimenting and listening:

 a thin pure silver wire can sound better then a thick copper wire. So, appernetly not all properties are compensated by simply making the core thicker!_

 

I don't really want to get into a cable debate. This is like debating which brand of water taste better.
 However, I don't think silver has some magical quality. No one yet has make silver PCB or even silver plated one. As my background is in semiconductor, I know most of the conductive material used is aluminum basically for cost.
 The point is the basic source/ amplifier component are all actually connected by AL and CU. And AL is an even worst conductor than CU.

 BTW, they do use silver filled epoxy for die attach, but it's really a low cost alternative of gold. (I wonder if even Patrick can hear the difference between the two?)


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not the crappy recordings you make, i hope.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 oh and eh, a better cable gives me more pleasure of listening to the music.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I don't even think he is a knife, more like a spoon.


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You missed the salesman tapping the bass control. I had a guy at Circuit City try to pull that trick on me when I was shopping for speakers. He would reach for the speaker selection knob with one hand and secretively tweak the bass with his other hand. I called him on it and told him that if he left me alone, I'd bring the sale to him when I was finished and I wouldn't complain to the management about his trick. He disappeared faster than a jet.

 They think you will think that more bass is better, so they stack the deck.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Tapping the bass control????
 The Cayin A-88T integrated amp they were listening to does not have tone controls. 

 That might have happened to you but not the guy you replied to. 

 Try again.

 BTW, If you shop for speakers at Circuit City......
 oh nevermind.


----------



## bigshot

Check that patch bay.

 I don't put expensive stuff in my car that I can't take with me. And there's plenty of good equipment at Circuit City, you just have to know what to look for. The inattentive sales help is a different story... but I've had just as much trouble with the attentive but manipulative salespeople at high end audio shops. I think the people who are too crooked to become used car salesmen work at stereo stores.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Todd R

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Check that patch bay._

 

No.
 Places that sell that level of gear don't use patch bays that you find at mass market stores. I'm sure HiFi FOR METAL can confirm that was the case. 
 TR


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't even think he is a knife, more like a spoon._

 

you don't cut it do you.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I don't use knives at all. I use my ears.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I cut through your bold statements about *cables you've never heard *like butter.


----------



## n4k33n

And the winner of this thread is.....(drumroll).... not you. ^


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *n4k33n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And the winner of this thread is.....(drumroll).... not you. ^_

 


 Neither are you.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The only winner is the one reading between the lines of BOTH camps and gained some knowledge.

 Quite an unneccessary post, imo. It is a discussion thread.


----------



## stevenkelby

Does that make me the winner?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does that make me the winner? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hopefully,

 What patrick is at the believers side, is bigshot for the sceptics!

 Both are not completely right. The truth is right there in the middle, better cables do make an improvement, but you don't have to be as extreem as patrick, or overly sarcastic as bigshot always is.


----------



## stevenkelby

Some kids can't help it, not their fault, entirely.

 Fun to watch though!


----------



## hciman77

If anybody wants to send me two cables (mini to RCA) of the *same gauge *but different materials I will happily test them out, I can only do some basic testing but the massive differences perceived between cables must represent whole db energy losses in some frequency ranges it would be trivial to detect these by sight by zooming in on the waveforms. Then we could bury these daft arguments for ever


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If anybody wants to send me two cables (mini to RCA) of the *same gauge *but different materials I will happily test them out, I can only do some basic testing but the massive differences perceived between cables must represent whole db energy losses in some frequency ranges it would be trivial to detect these by sight by zooming in on the waveforms. Then we could bury these daft arguments for ever 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Are you assuming that the differences in cables would only manifest in frequency response? That is, different SPL for a given frequency range?

 Aren't there any more facets to different amps, cans etc than that? Maybe detail, PRaT, soundstage, clarity, blackness etc?


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you assuming that the differences in cables would only manifest in frequency response? That is, different SPL for a given frequency range?

 Aren't there any more facets to different amps, cans etc than that? Maybe detail, PRaT, soundstage, clarity, blackness etc? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Well one of the earlier posts very specifically mentioned a difference in the low frequencies and high frequencies between different cables. This can be tested objectively (better with expensive test kit of course) .

 Detail, blackness, PRat, soundstage, clarity are not objectively measurable parameters, i.e your perception of the soundstage is not necessarily the same as mine. Electrons however dont have a point of view, at least I hope not.

 If you are going to test on such parameters you have (I contend) to do blind testing and lots and lots of it, you have to adjust for primacy and recency effects and average out the fact that we all perceive differently. Now can you tell a difference testing is somewhat easier but still tedious

 I am only talking about IC cables here not amps sources and so on. And testing the amplitude on the waves not the sound output levels.


----------



## stevenkelby

Yeah I know, you're right, I was just being a cable troll there! 

 You do raise a thread ending point though, one that I've mentioned a few times and never heard a good argument against.

 Those things like PRaT and whatnot, I think it's accepted that they are audible differences between different, for example, headphones.

 As far as I know there is no way of measuring them with instruments other than ears.

 Some people believe we can measure all there is to measure in a cable (normally kids with a degree in some electrical field), and claim that if 2 cables measure the same, they sound the same. I don't have a set belief one way or the other, but think it's possible that there are things some of us can hear, but no one can measure.

 Some of us obviously can't hear those differences. But those of us that can, I say our ears are more capable of discerning some certain "differences" than the currently used measuring devices are.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but think it's possible that there are things some of us can hear, but no one can measure.
_

 

Well, if you can postulate what these things are and can devise a model by which they can be tested empirically you have a nobel prize sewn up there


----------



## LawnGnome

Bust out the oscilloscope a finish this once and for all.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bust out the oscilloscope a finish this once and for all._

 

Already been done. This is the reason that people say only your ears are the right tool for the job.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Already been done. This is the reason that people say only your ears are the right tool for the job._

 

Do you have some links to read, iow what was the magnitude of differences between different cables ?


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have some links to read, iow what was the magnitude of differences between different cables ?_

 

One of the first links in google:

http://www.audiodesignline.com/showA...leID=192200304

 There's a lot there to digest.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One of the first links in google:

http://www.audiodesignline.com/showA...leID=192200304

 There's a lot there to digest._

 

Well the upshot seems to be that the 5M cable has 0.02db less power loss than the 10M cable at 20K, which isnt suprising and as far as I am aware would not be audible. The pattern of loss with rising freq seems to be about the same. The authors conclude that IC cables are required to have a signal loss of no more than 1db at the highest working frequency. The speaker cables show about ~ 0.1db loss at 20K. None get below a 0.15db loss at even 100K. This to me looks as near a flat FR as you could possibly hope for. So these would appear to be good cables and are presumably expensive.

 Some data on cheaper cables would be informative.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well the upshot seems to be that the 5M cable has 0.02db less power loss than the 10M cable at 20K, which isnt suprising and as far as I am aware would not be audible. The pattern of loss with rising freq seems to be about the same. The authors conclude that IC cables are required to have a signal loss of no more than 1db at the highest working frequency. The speaker cables show about ~ 0.1db loss at 20K. None get below a 0.15db loss at even 100K. This to me looks as near a flat FR as you could possibly hope for. So these would appear to be good cables and are presumably expensive.

 Some data on cheaper cables would be informative._

 

From a quick google search, the cables they are testing:

PROEL DH340LU5 -- $65/15' ($4.33/ft.)
HPC640BK -- $8.90/m ($2.71/ft.)
AD CMN20 -- € 5.44/m ($2.26/ft.) (warning, 1m .xls)

 No clue if these are high, low, or retail for the latter two. They're basically the first links that came up. They're not cheap, but they're not really in the same league as cables we usually see around here.

 For reference, 
Radio Shack 60 ft. 18g Speaker wire -- $9.99 ($0.16/ft.)
BJC Ten White -- $0.79/ft.
BJC Canare Star Quad -- $1.05/ft.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What patrick is at the believers side, is bigshot for the sceptics!_

 

I aspire to be as rational as he is insane.

 See ya
 Steve

 P.S. Belief that truth always lies somewhere inbetween two opposing viewpoints is a logical fallacy.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Aren't there any more facets to different amps, cans etc than that? Maybe detail, PRaT, soundstage, clarity, blackness etc? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You'll get better results if you use the correct terminology: distortion, dynamics, frequency response, wow and flutter, signal to noise, channel separation.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some of us obviously can't hear those differences. But those of us that can, I say our ears are more capable of discerning some certain "differences" than the currently used measuring devices are._

 

How do you know that you are actually hearing something that exists, or if it is just some subjective element of the way you hear? For instance, if I hear ringing bells in the distance and you don't, that may not mean that I have clearer hearing. I may have tintinitis.

 Here's a sideline observation... I think the shape of one's ears has a considerable amount to do with how things sound. Cup your hands around your ears and hear the difference. Perhaps audiophiles should wear rubber dumbo ears!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## infinitesymphony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a sideline observation... I think the shape of one's ears has a considerable amount to do with how things sound._

 

That's a good observation, and it's true. The orientation of the pinna (outside part of the ear) can affect perception of high frequencies, but I think the even more important part is the shape and structure of the ear canal and inner ear. 

 The size and shape of the ear canal will affect its resonance frequency, which in turn determines where the harshness range will occur (probably not the right term, but I forget the actual one). It's the one range where the human ear can't discern very well what's going on with the frequencies just because it's resonating, sort of like a room node. IIRC, the resonance frequency can vary between 1-2 kHz for different people, which of course is a huge range, so it's easy to imagine why people might hear differently, especially in this range. Add in noise-induced hearing loss and presbycusis, and it's difficult to come to a consensus on anything.


----------



## jsaliga

This thread is headed for the same fate as the "Most Ridiculous Tweaks" thread.

 The padlock is right around the corner...

 --Jerome


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I aspire to be as rational as he is insane.

 See ya
 Steve

 P.S. Belief that truth always lies somewhere inbetween two opposing viewpoints is a logical fallacy._

 

To believe that you are right when you actually never heard the cables in question IS a fallacy!


----------



## stevenkelby

How would an oscilloscope show differences in soundstage?


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How would an oscilloscope show differences in soundstage?_

 

Just a few "down-to-earth"-factors that come to mind. Don't know if all of them can be checked by an oszilloscope alone.


 - Channel separation
 - High- frequency-content of the signal
 - relation between original and delayed signal (from the used reverb-processor)
 - pre-delay of the used delay/reverb
 - delay-time
 - content and structure of harmonic waves (added by the device itself or inherent in the original signal)
 - deformations of the original signal, epecially those simulating resonances of the earchannel or hrtf's

 Sadly, the oszilloscope can not show deformations and interpretations of the signal happening in the listeners brain, though. Really sad.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sadly, the oszilloscope can not show deformations and interpretations of the signal happening in the listeners brain, though. Really sad._


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


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



_

 

Neither can it do that for cables it never heard.


----------



## elnero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To believe that you are right when you actually never heard the cables in question IS a fallacy!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

You might as well give it up and not bother. Any difference he heard between the cables he would explain away as placebo anyway.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Neither can it do that for cables it never heard.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Since someone mentioned fallacies, shall I explain the problem with expecting someone to prove a negative? - oh nevermind...

 At least DBT hasn't come up yet...


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *elnero* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You might as well give it up and not bother. Any difference he heard heard between the cables, he would explain away as placebo anyway._

 


 Thinking knowing it all IS placebo.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Since someone mentioned fallacies, shall I explain the problem with expecting someone to prove a negative? - oh nevermind...

 At least DBT hasn't come up yet..._

 

Posted an extensive test result in a thread some months ago and it turned out that the best measuring IC's and speaker cables were 400 and 600% better on the figures that matter for sound then the other measured cables.

 I was surprised however they were talking about my brand of cables, wich measured best of the bunch.

 These guys did measurements on a bunch of expensive cables and came to the conclusion that there is significant differance in cables and were completely converted. They started out as sceptics, did measurements and are willing to pay money for a good cable now.

 of course the sceptics dismissed the figures as not being audible.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So much for expecting negative.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 No matter what or how much prove or figures you come up with, the same people always dismiss it with not audible; as if they know what someone else actually can hear!


----------



## stevenkelby

I don't see how different cables COULD sound the same! Would a coathanger wire sound the same as a piece of aluminum foil, or a high end silver cable? Surely we all agree that they would sound different to each other?

 So were do you draw the line, when can you say "obviously there is a difference between a coathanger and silver, but there is obviously no difference between silver and copper, or 18G silver and 20G silver, or what. I don't need tests to know that."

 Furthermore, No one can ever prove that there is no audible difference between 2 cables, the same way no one can ever prove there is no god.
 But it only takes one show of solid evidence that there IS an audible difference for the positive to be proved.


 Are you open to the possibility that there might be things we can hear but not measure? 

 Or do you deny that it's a possibility?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't see how different cables COULD sound the same! Would a coathanger wire sound the same as a piece of aluminum foil, or a high end silver cable? Surely we all agree that they would sound different to each other?

 So were do you draw the line, when can you say "obviously there is a difference between a coathanger and silver, but there is obviously no difference between silver and copper, or 18G silver and 20G silver, or what. I don't need tests to know that."

 Furthermore, No one can ever prove that there is no audible difference between 2 cables, the same way no one can ever prove there is no god.
 But it only takes one show of solid evidence that there IS an audible difference for the positive to be proved.


 Are you open to the possibility that there might be things we can hear but not measure? 

 Or do you deny that it's a possibility?_

 

Some allready did and he guessed all three types of cables right! So, obviously proof that some people can hear the difference between cables, i also think of the people participating, his rig was at the higher end side. So, a very transparent system is also able to show the subtlest differences!

 On my system, i hear any change in cables or tubes. Also of recordings, some that sounded before ok, are now bad sounding, some that sounded allready quite good, sound excellent now.


----------



## stevenkelby

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some allready did and he guessed all three types of cables right! So, obviously proof that some people can hear the diference between cables, i also think of the people participating, his rig was at the higher end side. So, a very transparent system is also able to show the subtelest differences!_

 


 Makes sense to me!


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Posted an extensive test result in a thread some months ago and it turned out that the best measuring IC's and speaker cables were 400 and 600% better on the figures that matter for sound then the other measured cables._

 

If these figures relate to energy loss then that is important and warrants further investigation. However I would caution against looking at numbers out of context. The DR of a redbook system is ~96db the DR of a high res system may be 120db - technically this is 256 times better 2^8 times better (each 3DB doubles the DR) i.e 25600% better.

 Now the JND in intensity between two sounds varies with initial loudness. So that at say a 60db SPL you could notice a 0.1db difference (Reisz, 1928) in a 1K tone an area where hearing is reasonably sensitive, as you increase the level you get to a JND of about 0.05db when you hit 100db SPL (loud). But this really isnt an issue at all. The issue is the nature of the energy loss over the audible spectrum. If one cable just uniformly loses 0.1db more across the spectrum a tiny tweak to the volume control would compensate. 

 If one cable loses more at a different freq range then that may be significant.

 Can you point us to these tests ?

  Quote:


 These guys did measurements on a bunch of expensive cables and came to the conclusion that there is significant differance in cables and were completely converted. They started out as sceptics, did measurements and are willing to pay money for a good cable now. 
 

As I have said many times before there is measurable and there is audible, DBTs are very useful for testing audible differences. Wadia produce CD players with a 3 Db roll off from 10 - 20K. Surely this is audible as it is a halving of loudness at the highest frequencies, yet these clearly defective CD players still sell for $5K , go figure 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

  Quote:


 No matter what or how much prove or figures you come up with, the same people always dismiss it with not audible; as if they know what someone else actually can hear! 
 

Well, Psychophysics is a well established discipline and there are several well established limits on human discrimination, see above.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To believe that you are right when you actually never heard the cables in question IS a fallacy!_

 

inductive reasoning
 deductive reasoning
 no reasoning

 take your pick (I know which one you'll choose!)

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some allready did and he guessed all three types of cables right! So, obviously proof that some people can hear the difference between cables, i also think of the people participating, his rig was at the higher end side. So, a very transparent system is also able to show the subtlest differences!_

 

Your use of the word "guess" is telling.

 In any event, could you please post a link to the source that you are referring to? It seems like every time this discussion comes up, you rely on hearsay or unattributed references and then it turns out that the source you cite doesn't stand for the proposition you cite it for.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How would an oscilloscope show differences in soundstage?_

 

Soundstage is 99% miking technique and mixing and 1% channel separation and phase.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't see how different cables COULD sound the same! Would a coathanger wire sound the same as a piece of aluminum foil, or a high end silver cable? Surely we all agree that they would sound different to each other?_

 

A wire coat hanger holds up your coat as well as a wooden one.

 A Radio Shack 3 foot RCA to RCA conducts sound as well as a high end boutique 3 foot RCA to RCA.

 That doesn't mean that an RCA cable can hold up your coat or a coat hanger can conduct your signal to your speakers.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *stevenkelby* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you open to the possibility that there might be things we can hear but not measure? Or do you deny that it's a possibility?_

 

Call out the X-Files.

 There are a lot of people that say there are UFO abductions going on. They don't have any evidence of it... just a lot of people say that. If a lot of people say that, there really be a chance that UFO abductions are actually going on, and the government should be spending billions of dollars to defend us against being adbucted! Right? What sort of evidence should we require to start spending all that money? Do the anecdotal reports of a bunch of people qualify? Or do you think we should have more solid evidence?

 If there is a effect that is clearly reproduceable and discernable in blind testing, you can define exactly what that effect is. Then you can try to find how to measure it. If there was some amazing property of cables that we don't understand, you can bet that AT&T and NASA would be all over it trying to figure it out. But the advantage of high end cables is NOT reproduceable and is NOT discernable in blind testing. And the people who do claim to hear a difference can't even agree on what that difference is, so there's no point looking for a cause.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 I don't see how different cables COULD sound the same! Would a coathanger wire sound the same as a piece of aluminum foil, or a high end silver cable? Surely we all agree that they would sound different to each other? 
 

I believe a coat hanger, aluminum foil or silver would sound the same to most peoples ears. Sure they may measure differently on a small scale, but they are still just transferring electrons from one component to another over a small distance. Just because they are different materials, does not mean they will sound different to the human ear. Why would they? The human ear is not the precise instruments that everyone thinks they are.

 I did make an interconnect out of paper clips and scotch tape and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference from a silver cable. Just because one material is a better conductor, does not mean it sounds better.


----------



## vcoheda

these threads always become uninformative and pointless after about . . . the first post.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A wire coat hanger holds up your coat as well as a wooden one._

 

You need to learn to test your hypotheses, be it subjective, such as listening to products before commenting on their sound, or objective, which is easily done by attempting to hang a heavy winter coat on a wire coat hanger. Once the wire hanger bends and drops your coat, you learn to use wooden coat hangers for the heavy stuff. One can surmise from this that you know as much about coat hangers as you do about cables.


----------



## LawnGnome

The argument of cheapo vs quality cables is valid.

 Cheapo cables often have quite large resistance differences on the different conductors due to shoddy soldering and the likes.

 But once you get a decent quality cable, almost anything above the cheapest and your good.

 But you can get quality cables for 25$ and don't need to spend hundreds.

 I'd be willing to bet that cable shielding plays a much bigger role than the conductor material.


----------



## drarthurwells

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I find the HD600 with Genuine Cardas and the Bada 12 with two Chinese and one EH Gold 6SN7 and the Saturn with my rebadged Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II ICs, and Tice power conditioner and good power cables:

*great clarity, sharp imaging with 3-D tones and plenty of empty space between tones, compact tones with no blurry or muddy bloating of the tones, sweet natural timbre, great tone body resolution with subtle nuances revealed, excellent inner detail and instrument separation in complex passages, and well balanced*


 The HD650 with stock cables falls just slightly short for me than the HD600 with HD650 cables, in terms of balance, inner detail, 3-D imaging with air between tones. Some prefer the strong bass of the 650.

 I understand the HD650 with Equinox is better than the HD650 with Cardas - don't know from actual experience. 

 Cables do make a difference to me.

 The K701 with stock cable has expansive tones that fill out the soundstage but these tones are bloated in a subtle way compared to the HD600/Cardas and its smaller but sharply delineated tones (which are focused in empty space as palpable and transparent)._

 



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A veritable dictionary of vague romantic terms to describe sound!

 See ya
 Steve_

 


 I know you won't believe this, but there actually are a few people posting on this forum who know exactly what I am talking about in my descriptions of sonic qualities.


 As far as measuring sonic qualities, say FR and distortion changes with changes in cables - doesn't help with detecting subtle but critical qualities.

 Two identical amps using different brands of (same valued) capacitors, will sound different, and the one with the best sound could have the worst measurements. Measurements are somtimes misleading in regard to actual sound quality.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Two identical amps using different brands of (same valued) capacitors, will sound different, and the one with the best sound could have the worst measurements. Measurements are somtimes misleading in regard to actual sound quality._

 

You're sure you'll hear the difference without someone telling you that the capacitors are now blessed ones, handmade by 99-year old New York virgins in the light of the full moon?


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Vul Kuolun* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're sure you'll hear the difference without someone telling you that the capacitors are now blessed ones, handmade by 99-year old New York virgins in the light of the full moon?_

 

I require caps made by new jersey 100 year old virgins. I'm soo much more audiophile than you!

 Just because YOU can't hear or even measure the differences with very precise equipement, doesn't mean I can't hear the difference that extra year and extra miles make!

 Don't dare question me either! I don't need proof it works, I paid alot of money for this stuff, so it WILL work!

 btw, please don't mention none of my claims can be proved with any sort of reasonably scientific testing. I haven't got a good excuse for that one yet.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_btw, please don't mention none of my claims can be proved with any sort of reasonably scientific testing. I haven't got a good excuse for that one yet._

 

Well that one is easy. Science obviously doesn't know everything, and clearly there are things that your ears can hear that science has not yet discovered how to measure.


----------



## drarthurwells

For you people that think ICs don't sound different, try a new one meter pair of CT Silver (RCA at both ends) for about $40 at www.tweekgeek.com

 If you don't like them I will send you what you paid if you ship to me with your original sales receipt, and in the box they came in.

 Offer good for the first person in the USA to notify me they wish to sell them to me - most people will want to hang onto them.

 These are as good as any IC at up to 5 times (or perhaps more) their price and I can always use an extra pair.

 They will give you a hint of what really expensive ($500 plus) ICs can sound like.


----------



## meat01

I would love to try these silver cables and A/B them to my paper clip or a coat hanger IC, but then people would just say that my system is not resolving enough if I can not tell a difference.

 A silver interconnect and a paper clip IC should yield "a night and day" difference, which means there should be an audible difference even with a mid-fi setup.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did make an interconnect out of paper clips and scotch tape and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference from a silver cable._

 

Remember those integrated amps that had jumpers in the back that linked the preamp and amp circuitry, so you could plug in signal processors? The jumpers were just a u shaped piece of metal. It did the trick fine.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You need to learn to test your hypotheses, be it subjective, such as listening to products before commenting on their sound, or objective, which is easily done by attempting to hang a heavy winter coat on a wire coat hanger. Once the wire hanger bends and drops your coat, you learn to use wooden coat hangers for the heavy stuff._

 

OK. I wouldn't suggest using speaker cable to connect the generators at Hoover Dam to the strip in Las Vegas.

 The signal running through a line level patch cord isn't going to require any special cabling. This isn't rocket science. It's just plugging in a CD player.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The argument of cheapo vs quality cables is valid. Cheapo cables often have quite large resistance differences on the different conductors due to shoddy soldering and the likes. But once you get a decent quality cable, almost anything above the cheapest and your good. But you can get quality cables for 25$ and don't need to spend hundreds. I'd be willing to bet that cable shielding plays a much bigger role than the conductor material._

 

The biggest problem with cheap cables is how good a connection the jacks make. If there's a short or the contacts are covered with peanut butter, you are going to have it cut out. But a "veil"? Uh uh.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As far as measuring sonic qualities, say FR and distortion changes with changes in cables - doesn't help with detecting subtle but critical qualities._

 

What kind of critical qualities?

 Are those qualities reproduceable?

 Can they be detected through controlled listening tests?

 What causes the critical qualities?

 Let me know if you find out.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I require caps made by new jersey 100 year old virgins. I'm soo much more audiophile than you!_

 

Aw, that's a trick question! There aren't any virgins in New Jersey!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well that one is easy. Science obviously doesn't know everything, and clearly there are things that your ears can hear that science has not yet discovered how to measure._

 

I can think of directionality and perhaps reflection. What sort of things can we hear and not measure?

 See ya
 Steve

 P.S. Don't say Elvis' waistline!


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The biggest problem with cheap cables is how good a connection the jacks make. If there's a short or the contacts are covered with peanut butter, you are going to have it cut out. But a "veil"? Uh uh.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I never mentioned a veil. and am a disbeliever of boutique cables. So I'm unsure of what your talking about.

 But cheapo IC's do have quality problems mostly due to shoddy soldering. which leads to the cable having unmatched impedence on the channel leading to problems with channel balance.

 But if you have a decent cable, its fine. and by decent, i mean better than stock, not exotic.

 And I know and have measured this first hand. my IC is a cheapo from a monitor. and must have shoddy soldering on the left channel.

 Because it constantly measures .2db lower across the frequency range in rmaa.

 This is tested on my x-fi, SBLive!, and AC885 onboard sound each being recorded with their own inputs.


----------



## infinitesymphony

The multi-quote feature is your friend. Multiple posts are no longer necessary.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The jumpers were just a u shaped piece of metal. It did the trick fine._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This isn't rocket science. It's just plugging in a CD player._

 

So what you're saying is that either a cable "just works," or doesn't work at all, and if it works, it should be good enough for everyone. Capacitance, resistance, inductance, signal loss, improper shielding--none of those matter as long as you hear sound.


----------



## dvw

Cable threads always come down to the same argument: what I can hear you can't measure and ears are more reliable measuring tool. There is never anything new.
 How about this new idea; what can you hear that is measurable. The simplest parameter is frequency range. We can set up 6 frequency limited music file. The limits are 40Hz to 16KHz. The files will be 0.5dB increment in limit.
 Then we can see who can put the files in the ascending orders. 
 The reason for 6 files is you completely eliminated chance. The chance of getting it right is 6! (6x5x4x...)
 We can also choose a passage out of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the Moon. I'm sure everyone is familiar with that and most likely have a copy at home. You can even use it as a reference. I would pick the alarm clock part as it has the most dynamic and widest range as well as most clue on soundstage.
 The files can be created with CoolEdit or DiamondCut. I'm sure Steve can make the file.
 We can all use our own equipment, sit in our own favorite chair and take our time to figure out the loss of detail (and how much) through our ears.
 I will not be able to tell as I am too old to hear over 16KHz. But some of you young bucks should be able to.
 The range and increment can be changed. But I think someone said they can tell a 0.1dB difference, that's why I picked 0.5dB.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cable threads always come down to the same argument: what I can hear you can't measure and ears are more reliable measuring tool. There is never anything new.
 How about this new idea; what can you hear that is measurable. The simplest parameter is frequency range. We can set up 6 frequency limited music file. The limits are 40Hz to 16KHz. The files will be 0.5dB increment in limit.
 Then we can see who can put the files in the ascending orders. 
 The reason for 6 files is you completely eliminated chance. The chance of getting it right is 6! (6x5x4x...)
 We can also choose a passage out of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the Moon. I'm sure everyone is familiar with that and most likely have a copy at home. You can even use it as a reference. I would pick the alarm clock part as it has the most dynamic and widest range as well as most clue on soundstage.
 The files can be created with CoolEdit or DiamondCut. I'm sure Steve can make the file.
 We can all use our own equipment, sit in our own favorite chair and take our time to figure out the loss of detail (and how much) through our ears.
 I will not be able to tell as I am too old to hear over 16KHz. But some of you young bucks should be able to.
 The range and increment can be changed. But I think someone said they can tell a 0.1dB difference, that's why I picked 0.5dB._

 

That's only Patrick who claims that. The lowest figure i read on the net is 0,5 db. The science thinks more in terms of 1db though.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Remember those integrated amps that had jumpers in the back that linked the preamp and amp circuitry, so you could plug in signal processors? The jumpers were just a u shaped piece of metal. It did the trick fine.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That's why most people remove those cheap bridges for high quality cable ones.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 That's why most people remove those cheap bridges for high quality cable ones. 
 

Most people or a few people


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's only Patrick who claims that. The lowest figure i read on the net is 0,5 db. The science thinks more in terms of 1db though._

 

Now the Just Noticeable Difference in intensity between two sounds varies with initial loudness. So that at say a 60db SPL you could just notice a 0.1db difference (Reisz, 1928) in a 1K tone, as you increase the level you get to a JND of about 0.05db when you hit 100db SPL (loud). 

 But this really isnt an issue at all. The issue is the nature of the energy loss over the audible spectrum. If one cable just uniformly loses 0.1db more across the spectrum a tiny tweak to the volume control would compensate. 

 If one cable loses more at a different freq range then that may be significant.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's why most people remove those cheap bridges for high quality cable ones.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

When I took the cover off my NAD C320BEE to see how those jacks were arranged, it appeared the best solution was to simply solder in a couple of 2 cm jumpers inside between the signal connections at the jacks.......I mean, why run a signal out and back in through a couple of mechanical connections when all it would take is a jumper, if you really, seriously wanted the best connection?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *sejarzo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I took the cover off my NAD C320BEE to see how those jacks were arranged, it appeared the best solution was to simply solder in a couple of 2 cm jumpers inside between the signal connections at the jacks.......I mean, why run a signal out and back in through a couple of mechanical connections when all it would take is a jumper, if you really, seriously wanted the best connection?_

 

best connection is none at all. they use the cable bridges to bridge the gap between the high and low jacks on a speaker wich is capable of bi-wiring. If you don't use bi-wiring, they are supplied with cheap bridge strips. MOST people (alot, not a few) replace those with a cable bridge. As far as i heard, Without an exception the people had better sound removing those strips and replacing them with good cables.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now the Just Noticeable Difference in intensity between two sounds varies with initial loudness. So that at say a 60db SPL you could just notice a 0.1db difference (Reisz, 1928) in a 1K tone, as you increase the level you get to a JND of about 0.05db when you hit 100db SPL (loud). 

 But this really isnt an issue at all. The issue is the nature of the energy loss over the audible spectrum. If one cable just uniformly loses 0.1db more across the spectrum a tiny tweak to the volume control would compensate. 

 If one cable loses more at a different freq range then that may be significant._

 

Hence the reports of extended highs or extended bottom/bass. So, not every cable is capable of showing the same detail at every frequency, since a twist of the volume control doesn't solve the problem. It is there at every volume level and is by default in the cable design.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hence the reports of extended highs or extended bottom/bass. So, not every cable is capable of showing the same detail at every frequency, since a twist of the volume control doesn't solve the problem. It is there at every volume level and is by default in the cable design._

 


 That is rather the point of contention and the issue that remains to be proven. To say cable A has more energy loss at 40 - 300Hz (attenuated bass) is fine - but does it really ? Ah, there's the rub. This is why we need measurements


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hence the reports of extended highs or extended bottom/bass._

 

Can you provide a reference for these "reports"? I can't help but notice that you have ignored every request that I have made to you in this thread to provide support for the unattributed references that you cite.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is rather the point of contention and the issue that remains to be proven. To say cable A has more energy loss at 40 - 300Hz (attenuated bass) is fine - but does it really ? Ah, there's the rub. This is why we need measurements 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes, and this would be something very easily measured. But of course they never will, because once they see the results they will need to find new absurd theories.


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you provide a reference for these "reports"? I can't help but notice that you have ignored every request that I have made to you in this thread to provide support for the unattributed references that you cite._

 

Yeah, talking with him is pretty futile. Every time you make a point he just ignores it. Guess ignorance is bliss eh.


----------



## krmathis

Yes, I can.
 Depending how different they are of course...


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you provide a reference for these "reports"? I can't help but notice that you have ignored every request that I have made to you in this thread to provide support for the unattributed references that you cite._

 


 Search head-fi. Plenty of cable reviews. Also plenty of "professional" cable reviews, wich you sceptics don't trust in the first place.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Search head-fi. Plenty of cable reviews. Also plenty o"f "professional" cable reviews, wich you sceptics don't trust in the first place._

 

I'd like to know specifically which reports *you* are relying on when you make statements like the ones that you've made in this thread.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, and this would be something very easily measured. But of course they never will, because once they see the results they will need to find new absurd theories.




 Yeah, talking with him is pretty futile. Every time you make a point he just ignores it. Guess ignorance is bliss eh._

 

Strange, i was thinking the same of you guys. Have you read the post i did some months ago about differences in measurements in cables?! I bet you didn't. Because it will cut through your nonsense like butter.

 Do a search on headfi and you'll find the thread. There's also figures in there.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd like to know specifically which reports *you* are relying on when you make statements like the ones that you've made in this thread._

 

Same here, show me yours. You think you can trick me into doing all the hard work.

 Search headfi for cable reviews and find the threads and posts i did about measurements in cables. There were SIGNIFICANT differences in the measurements in the cables!

 here's one i posted in another cable thread some months ago:

  Quote:


 I quote:

 Speaker cables and interconnects represent one of the most controversial subjects in audio/video. Do they make a difference in the quality of the signal being passed from one component to another? Are they worth the price? You will find audiophiles of all degrees of experience and expertise answering these two questions with yes's and no's. Why the controversy? At least part of the answer lies in what we have been told, rather than what we have heard for ourselves. Secondly, it is difficult to define precisely what to listen for when comparing cables, and third, any particular cable may sound quite different with one set of equipment than with another.

 During the last year, *we began researching some of these questions for ourselves*, *believing at the outset that cables probably did not make any truly noticeable improvement in sound quality*. *We were wrong in our assumption, and how!*

 Cables do make a difference, and in order to see why, it is first necessary to understand the characteristics that affect their ability to transmit a signal.

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

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

 Some amplifiers are more sensitive than others to the load that the speaker cable places upon them. The higher the output impedance, the more likely capacitance and inductance of the cable will affect the sound quality. Tube amplifiers are probably most sensitive, since they tend to have higher output impedances (e.g., 1 Ohm) than solid state amplifiers (e.g., 0.01 Ohm). In any case, however, capacitance and inductance values are important in determining how the cables will perform in any sound system.


 Cables...
 inductance: 0,1 to 0,6PF = 600%
 capacitance from 6 to 50MH. = 833%

 

so, 600 and 833% difference between the best measuring cables and the worst measuring cables is quite significant!

 Oh, yeah, i heard this one before: these differences aren't audible......so, please come up with something more original.


----------



## sejarzo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_best connection is none at all. they use the cable bridges to bridge the gap between the high and low jacks on a speaker wich is capable of bi-wiring. If you don't use bi-wiring, they are supplied with cheap bridge strips. MOST people (alot, not a few) replace those with a cable bridge. As far as i heard, Without an exception the people had better sound removing those strips and replacing them with good cables.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 


 Umm, that was not the bridge to which the OP or I were referring. It was the connection between the preamp outputs and power/main amp inputs on integrated amps.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Same here, show me yours. You think you can trick me into doing all the hard work._

 

I didn't realize that posting a link would be so taxing for you.

  Quote:


 here's one i posted in another cable thread some months ago: 
 

Once again, no link. Come on. If you can figure out how to cut and paste the text, surely you can figure out how to cut and paste the link as well.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now the Just Noticeable Difference in intensity between two sounds varies with initial loudness._

 

Test tones have their place. But you need to translate the results into a scale for real world listening too. With music of a normal sort, one would be lucky to hear the difference between 2 or 3 dB. We all listen to music, not continuous test tones.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You think you can trick me into doing all the hard work._

 

Well, then I'm going to take the easy road too! Here is what I know to be a fact... Time and time again that you don't know what you're talking about. You also make up "proofs" and take sales pitch from manufacturers as gospel.

 It's up to you to prove me wrong.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Strange, i was thinking the same of you guys. Have you read the post i did some months ago about differences in measurements in cables?! I bet you didn't. Because it will cut through your nonsense like butter.

 Do a search on headfi and you'll find the thread. There's also figures in there._

 

Post a link.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so, 600 and 833% difference between the best measuring cables and the worst measuring cables is quite significant!_

 


 Well, I found the last time you quoted that particular article here and--no surprise--you didn't post a link there to the original either.

 But I do note that even in what you quoted there and here, you are mischaracterizing the article. What the article says (at least as you have quoted it) is that capacitance among certain cables (doesn't say which ones) varies from 6 pF to 50 pF. It doesn't say that there is a 833% difference "between the best measuring cables and the worst measuring cables."


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I never mentioned a veil. and am a disbeliever of boutique cables. So I'm unsure of what your talking about._

 

I was speaking in general, not specifically to you. A bad job of soldering can certainly cause trouble. I've never found a problem in the cables I get for a few bucks at Radio Shack. Perhaps the cheapie ones from China at the 99 cent store might have problems.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hciman77

From a guy who used to head one of McIntosh's research labs.


http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *infinitesymphony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So what you're saying is that either a cable "just works," or doesn't work at all, and if it works, it should be good enough for everyone. Capacitance, resistance, inductance, signal loss, improper shielding--none of those matter as long as you hear sound._

 

When it comes to the cables you buy at Radio Shack or just about any stereo or electronics store, yes. I haven't found a bad cable from any of those sources myself. The biggest problem I have found is the ruggedness of connectors if you are going to be plugging and unplugging often. Bad connectors will develop shorts.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's why most people remove those cheap bridges for high quality cable ones._

 

You're making that up. The only reason to replace those is if you are patching in an equalizer or some other signal processor. A cable would be MUCH more susceptible to shorting and having bad contact than a solid bridge. The people I know who have amps with those bridges are very careful not to lose them when they remove them.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

John E. Johnson, Jr.
 Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/flatln.html


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so, 600 and 833% difference between the best measuring cables and the worst measuring cables is quite significant!

 Oh, yeah, i heard this one before: these differences aren't audible......so, please come up with something more original._

 

Er, as I have mentioned before the paper difference in DR between 16 bit audio and 24 bit audio is 25600% , does anyone think that 24 bit audio sounds 256 times better.

 The point that your segment fails to address is whether any energy loss is consistent over the freq spectrum , if it is consistent then it is utterly irrelevant as you just turn the volume up a tad. Also the measurements shown do not show the actual energy loss over a run of speaker cable , this is the bottom line - how much energy is lost and where is it lost.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ With music of a normal sort, one would be lucky to hear the difference between 2 or 3 dB. We all listen to music, not continuous test tones.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Can you provide a citation to back this up. A 3db drop is a halving of intensity isnt it ?, I would have thought that we would be capable of greater discrimination than that.


----------



## hciman77

If the difference between two cables of the same gauge is 0.025db at listening levels it is way below what is known to be detectable in level discrimination tests which is 0.25db (Toole and Olive 1988) and that only in pink noise studies in lab conditions i.e low ambient noise, with music discrimination is no better than 0.5db (Jestaedt, et. al. 1977) (at 80db levels) at 5db it goes up to 1.5db. 

 Of course if you make the cable very thin and/or very long you can get big time signal loss, but why would anyone rational do that ?


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm_

 

Very nice link, thanks for sharing!


----------



## WindowsX

Jeez. Just listen to it yourself. Stop posting boasting theories like that would make your listening seems to be better. It shouldn't be hard to to notice the different between 300$ and 3000$ cables if your eargasm is good enough.

 These are my cables I'm currently using
 AC: wattgate silver -> VD powerone -> wattgate gold -> PAD anniversary
 IC: valhalla (upgraded rca to wattgate nextgen super silver)

 Why? Because I found it better and worth for my listening experiences. It may be not for yours since this is not easy stuff like from mp3 to CD experiences. But what you don't actually realize doesn't mean it should be the same to others. Isn't it called democracy for stuff like this?

 P.S. not that i don't know about those theories but maybe those aren't enough to prove the facts behind its sound. Who do you think you are? A researcher from Nordost company?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WindowsX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It shouldn't be hard to to notice the different between 300$ and 3000$ cables if your eargasm is good enough._

 

Of course, that assumes (a) that there IS a difference, and (b) that the difference isn't due to some other factor besides the cable.


----------



## drarthurwells

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...17#post3237217


----------



## 883dave

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course, that assumes (a) that there IS a difference, and (b) that the difference isn't due to some other factor besides the cable._

 

If you all you do is replace a cable what other "factor" would there be?

 All you have to do is listen...have you?

 I went from Totem Sinew to Tara Labs the One. To my ears and in my system there was a very pleasurable difference. 

 (the last time I listened to the totem cables it was daytime and the first listen to the tara labs cables it was nighttime...would this be a night and day difference?)


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...17#post3237217_

 

Interestingly, the article by Stereophile does mention cotton among dielectrics, but it doesn't indicate it is actually the best dielectric after air. Well, I must indicate that I've only read such claim about cotton a few times on different places online, not really 100% sure. In any case I was surprised when learning that, since for quite some time I had been under the impression that the best solid dielectric was teflon.

  Quote:


 Associated with the subjective performance of the cable dielectric is the insulating thickness, this often related to the manufacturer's voltage rating. Better sound often follows higher ratings. Solid dielectrics are common and include those plastics mentioned above, as well as higher-molecular-weight polymers, ceramic powder, silicone rubber, and resin-impregnated glass fiber. Natural thread such as cotton or silk has been tried, plus various grades of carbon-based rubber. Every dielectric can be shown to have its own distinctive sound, even when used in a line-level interconnect application of just 1m in length. 
 

Some claims in that article definitely call for further supporting evidence though. For example, that last sentence: "every dielectric has its own distinctive sound."

 PS. Gee I realize that's a new thread, should probably post this in that other thread.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Er, as I have mentioned before the paper difference in DR between 16 bit audio and 24 bit audio is 25600% , does anyone think that 24 bit audio sounds 256 times better.

 The point that your segment fails to address is whether any energy loss is consistent over the freq spectrum , if it is consistent then it is utterly irrelevant as you just turn the volume up a tad. Also the measurements shown do not show the actual energy loss over a run of speaker cable , this is the bottom line - how much energy is lost and where is it lost._

 

Sorry, provided as is. This IS what the article said, nothing more, nothing less.

 They see those two points responsable for different performance in cables.

 Compared to people that say there is NO difference between cables, 600 and 833% IS significant to nothing.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, provided as is. This IS what the article said, nothing more, nothing less._

 

I guess since you absolutely refuse to provide a link, we'll just have to take your word for it.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Of course, that assumes (a) that there IS a difference, and (b) that the difference isn't due to some other factor besides the cable._

 

Wich factor is there other then the cable if that IS the only thing you change!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The only thing i can think of is balance mismatch/dampingfactor.

 I do recognize matching; i myself experienced quite a difference with the exact same cable on two different setups. On one it sounded really bad, on the other it sounded quite good. So, this could account for the balance mismatch.

 Other then that, two exactly the same measuring cables of two different brands will sound different.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess since you absolutely refuse to provide a link, we'll just have to take your word for it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Nope, it isn't on the web anymore. It's an older article and the web changes frequently, as you know, new articles and stuff. So, the link i had is dead.

 You can believe what you like. Some people even don't believe me with a link.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, it isn't on the web anymore. It's an older article and the web changes frequently, as you know, new articles and stuff. So, the link i had is dead.

 You can believe what you like. Some people even don't believe me with a link.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What was the name of the author and the title of the article?


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *drarthurwells* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...17#post3237217_

 

ART,

 of the things posted in that thread, i would say changing caps will provide the biggest change.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What was the name of the author and the title of the article?_

 

Sorry can't remember. I stumbled across that article by accident and never bookmarked it. I just posted it in the cables thread at that time. Since then i wasn't able to find the article again. All i know(remember-several months ago), it's NOT an article from a cable manufacteror! 

 You can clearly see, that the writing is not of my hand.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The only thing that does things to frequency responce is the dampingfactor. probably wy matching cables is important and the "right" cable let you simply hear more?!


----------



## rsaavedra

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess since you absolutely refuse to provide a link, we'll just have to take your word for it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Yes, sadly some people here are "masters" of hearsay, completely unaware of the relevance of verifiable sources/references for credibility.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry can't remember. I stumbled across that article by accident and never bookmarked it. I just posted it in the cables thread at that time. Since then i wasn't able to find the article again. All i know(remember-several months ago), it's NOT an article from a cable manufacteror! 

 You can clearly see, that the writing is not of my hand.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The only thing that does things to frequency responce is the dampingfactor. probably wy matching cables is important and the "right" cable let you simply hear more?!_

 

I have absolutely no idea what that last sentence means.

 In any event, here is the article: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/flatln.html

 Google is an amazing thing.

 (BigShot posted the link above. I didn't realize that what he had posted was the same article that you were referring to.)


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rsaavedra* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interestingly, the article by Stereophile does mention cotton among dielectrics, but it doesn't indicate it is actually the best dielectric after air. Well, I must indicate that I've only read such claim about cottong a few times on different places online, not really 100% sure. In any case I was surprised when learning that, since for quite some time I had been under the impression that the best solid dielectric was teflon.



 Some claims in that article definitely call for further supporting evidence though. For example, that last sentence: "every dielectric has its own distinctive sound."

 PS. Gee I realize that's a new thread, should probably post this in that other thread._

 


 Well, cotton is fluffy and contains air. Maybe cotton doesn't leak the sound back into the core, as any other dielectric does. This prevenst sound smearing, means less detail.


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have absolutely no idea what that last sentence means.

 In any event, here is the article: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/flatln.html

 Google is an amazing thing.

 (BigShot posted the link above. I didn't realize that what he had posted was the same article that you were referring to.)_

 

yeah, it is.This could be it.

 last sentence means that the only factor that IS known and measurable and recognized for changing frequnecies in cables is the damping factor. And damping factor has to to do with cables!


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're making that up. The only reason to replace those is if you are patching in an equalizer or some other signal processor. A cable would be MUCH more susceptible to shorting and having bad contact than a solid bridge. The people I know who have amps with those bridges are very careful not to lose them when they remove them.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I said it were bridges on the bi-wire chassis of speakers! NOT amps. YOu're making that up!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can provide several links of people reporting positively of removing the strip on the speaker for cable ones! Bi-wiring only works when bi-amped.


----------



## tourmaline

I am somewhere in the middle:

 yes, some cable manufacterors write BS about how their cables work, but i also hear consistantly differences between cables. In the end, you should buy cables you feel comfortable with!


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tourmaline* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, provided as is. This IS what the article said, nothing more, nothing less.

 They see those two points responsable for different performance in cables.

 Compared to people that say there is NO difference between cables, 600 and 833% IS significant to nothing.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 

Let me try this again. Group delay on speaker wire is the difference between different freq ranges travelling the same length of speaker wire. 

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=2526

 For a ten foot run of speaker wire there can be over 50x (5000%) difference from 1.3ns to 72.6ns, that means that the worst of these cables will show a huge audible lag for high frequencies (72.6 ns) , and that would be absolutely correct.

 That is of course once the group delay reaches 1ms , below 1ms this group delay is just not audible. 72.6 ns may sound like a lot but it just aint audible.

 Blauert, J. and Laws, P "Group Delay Distortions in Electroacoustical Systems" 
 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
 Volume 63, Number 5, pp. 1478-1483 (May 1978) 

 ns are 10 ^ -9, ms are 10 ^ -3


----------



## tourmaline

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Let me try this again. Group delay on speaker wire is the difference between different freq ranges travelling the same length of speaker wire. 

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=2526

 For a ten foot run of speaker wire there can be over 50x (5000%) difference from 1.3ns to 72.6ns, that means that the worst of these cables will show a huge audible lag for high frequencies (72.6 ns) , and that would be absolutely correct.

 That is of course once the group delay reaches 1ms , below 1ms this group delay is just not audible. 72.6 ns may sound like a lot but it just aint audible.

 Blauert, J. and Laws, P "Group Delay Distortions in Electroacoustical Systems" 
 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
 Volume 63, Number 5, pp. 1478-1483 (May 1978) 

 ns are 10 ^ -9, ms are 10 ^ -3_

 


 I read somewhere these things aren't audible as is but general as having a bigger stage or better top and bottom. So, the sum of all the things going on in a cable does translate into another sound. People also reporting on headfi stating that other cables give extended highs and bottom and better soundstage.

 So clearly not everybody has the same vision. My quoted article shows another vision than your link. They state(think) capacitance and inductance. Also my ears tell differently.

 Oh, all cars bring you from point a to b, but the experience will be quite different.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From a guy who used to head one of McIntosh's research labs.


http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm_

 



 GREAT LINK! Very good explanations.

 However, notice how the cable supporters completely ignore it.

 That is because they have no actual facts to try to refute it.

 Also, since this is speaking about speakers, and the higher the initial resistance, the less the cable effects anything.

 And since even grado's have 4 times the normal speaker impedance, and a RCA link is 9 times more resistance, AND the cable runs are MUCH shorter than with speakers.

 Cable's make little difference.


 EDIT: tourmaline, your analogies are flawed and the only thing they further is how foolish you look.


----------



## Bigguy

When I was at the International Headfest meet this year in my hometown I saw a 3 to 4 inch mini to mini cable that one of our sponsors was selling (or attempting) for $175. I about fell over when I saw the price. What were they smoking or what did they think we were smoking? Even if they could make a noticeable difference in SQ it would certainly not be worth that amount of money. That money spent on better source or headphone would be of more benefit. I think this whole cable/wire difference thing is like "the emperor's new clothes". It is a sales pitch, "bigger, more exotic is better"!


----------



## kwkarth

Quote:


 
 ...the only factor that IS known and measurable and recognized for changing frequnecies in cables is the damping factor. And damping factor has to to do with cables! 
 

Gosh, this subject has been so over discussed, I'm tempted to close this thread. This thread is so full of mis-information and it is so homogenized with the good information that it borders on dangerous. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So many things stated as FACT, when they are nothing more than OPINIONS, and many of them incorrect anyway. The statement quoted above is both meaningless, and false, for example.


----------

