# Audiophile cables, an interesting question.



## ViralRazor

Well, debate has been going on for a while, do "audiophile" cable upgrades actually work, with a stronger debate going on for actual analogue signals.
   
  I've just got a short post and a interesting question to share:
   
  Assuming that changing cables changes sound signature and that its true, why do we never see people talking about how their sound quality from their headphones/speakers took a turn for the worse when they changed out from stock cables to "audiophile" cables. Would transmitting a slightly with ever so slightly less interference improve subjective sound quality at all? If the sound signature is changed, surely there must be some people who are disappointed with this change in sound. And yet we never see this when someone changes from a stock cable to a custom cable.


----------



## Parall3l

Well these so called "Audiophile" cables tend to have better build quality then standard cables and might sound better because for example, a unshielded coat hanger is going to be affected by the environment around it therefore fail to transmit the signals properly.


----------



## Willakan

That the change in sound is almost always positive appears to support the strong effect of expectation bias in how cables "perform".


----------



## JadeEast

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> Well these so called "Audiophile" cables tend to have better build quality then standard cables and might sound better because for example, a unshielded coat hanger is going to be affected by the environment around it therefore fail to transmit the signals properly.


 

 But the coat hanger has a purity of sound from the lack of micro-capacitance in a multistrand cable, and it lacks the coloration of a standard cable's plastic (and unnatural) dielectric insulation and shield.


----------



## Head Injury

Exactly JadeEast! You don't find wire wrapped in insulation and rubber in nature, therefore a coat hanger must sound more natural 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  As far as cable sound signature, it is very suspect that the results are almost unanimously positive no matter what headphone is recabled. Surely there's a headphone out there with an expensive stock cable? What would recablers think of it? Is it simply the fact that it's "stock" that makes it bad? Do the manufacturers really not know how to get the best sound out of the drivers they spent months developing?
   
  What's also suspect is the descriptions of the sound signatures. With headphones, you get a lot of descriptions like "lots of mid-bass, rolled off treble, extended sub-bass". All of these descriptions are easy to prove or disprove, just look at a frequency response or waterfall graph. With amps and DACs, you get less of that and more "detailed, full-bodied, smooth", which are harder to quantify. With cables, descriptions are almost exclusively ones like the latter, often even worse ("textured", "etched"). Is it because cables do something beyond alter frequency response? Or can audiophiles not accurately describe what they're hearing because they're hearing their own biases?


----------



## Willakan

My least favourite word, after musicality, is soundstage, when used in the context of anything but speakers/headphones. How people think amplifiers are designed to shrink or expand the soundstage God only knows...
  It is also frequently used to distinguish the "super-high end" improvements of cables and so on - of course, spending the extra thousand massively expanded the sound stage, which was further opened up by the addition of a $300 power cable. Presumably the sound stage further improves when you smear the amplifier with audiophile vaseline (only $50 a pot!)
  Of course, the more expensive and unlikely the differences seem to become, the more nebulous the vocabulary used to describe them becomes.


----------



## MaciekN

Well, cables do have parameters such resistance or capacity, shielding also plays a role, take a look into a datasheet of any popular op-amp and see how it likes driving capacitive loads. The cheaper the headphone the worse cable sold with it. Better headphone comes along with a better cable. Take a cable from a high-end headphone and use it with a cheap entry-level headphone, differences granted.
   
  As for happy recablers, I wasn't really happy when I recabled my portable akg k414p (previous cable died at the connector) and then heard for the first time noise of my portable player, or when they presented me with details I have never heard on ms-1 from a stationary DAC. Are ms-1 detail-less headphones or are k414p detail monsters?
  So I used the same cable for Alessandros and lost some of the brand signature, the hump in midbass is far less prominent and mids lost some peakiness, there has shown some distance between the perfromers and the middle of my head, they gave more details. So it was not a clear improvement, it would be a step back for poeple who prefer aggressivier presentation. And the cable I used was not even audiophile grade.
   
  If it's your hobby then you don't care if the cable cost 5 or 10$ per meter, you need a few meters so the difference in price won't be big. But if you have to buy a cable for 10000 headphones then the difference grows huge, that's why recabling ofter brings improvement, silly as it may sound you can afford a better cable than the manufacturer.
  Cables do make a difference and yes, not every expensive cable is worth its price.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





maciekn said:


> Well, cables do have parameters such resistance or capacity, shielding also plays a role, take a look into a datasheet of any popular op-amp and see how it likes driving capacitive loads. The cheaper the headphone the worse cable sold with it. Better headphone comes along with a better cable. Take a cable from a high-end headphone and use it with a cheap entry-level headphone, differences granted.


 

  And resistance, capacity, conductivity, shielding, all affect the sound how? Surely there are patterns in cable sound signature if all of that is true.
   
  Generalizing stock cables based on the cost of the headphone to which they're attached is a little silly. I thought the sound depended on resistance, capacity, conductivity, and shielding, not price tag?


----------



## Uncle Erik

MaciekN, you are making a false assumption.

You are assuming that inexpensive wire has sound qualities different from expensive ones.

I'll buy that argument in terms of durability. Sound quality, no. If wires measure the same they sound the same. Placebo and expectation say otherwise, but those have been disproven - repeatedly and consistently - with blind listening tests. No one has ever passed a blind listening test for cables.

Debunking aside, a cable manufacturer would have a _huge_ marketing interest in having people hear a difference with their cable. They could have a great ad campaign about how people can tell the difference with their cables while the competing cables can't be differentiated from a coathanger. They'd make millions.

Since cables have been fought over for 30 years, you'd think something like that would have happened by now.

Curious that it hasn't, isn't it? Testing only seems to be done by skeptics while those selling cables are _terrified_ by a whiff of objectivity. Strange, because some objectivity would dramatically increase their sales.

It doesn't make any sense. Unless you suppose that cable manufacturers know they're selling a bogus product.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> MaciekN, you are making a false assumption.
> 
> You are assuming that inexpensive wire has sound qualities different from expensive ones.
> 
> ...


 


  They already do, man.


----------



## MaciekN

Cheaper = worse was a generalisation, my fault. My point was that the manufacturer does not include thicker/better shielded/blessed by the shaman cables with their less expensive models. There are some inexpensive cables with decent parameters. I can only comment on the quality of the cables I used/replaced, and subjectively I heard a difference in two out of two headphones recabled, but placebo never sleeps.
   
  As for measuring differences, as I've mentioned before, among other things cables have their capacity, and in datasheets of many audio opamps you can see how do those chips fare driving capacitive loads of x or y pF.
  Here is an example taken from opa227 pdf:
                      
                                     vs

  So there is a measureable difference in how will the opamp perform with driving cables of different capacity. Sure, not every opamp in every circuit will react the same but in some there surely can be a measurable difference. Whether it's audible or not, well, that's a subjective thing.
   
  Cables can aslo act as filters, and while they are still just copper their build can suppress some interference. Below is a quote from the cable catalog of KLOTZ, a german cable manufacuter:
   
  StarQuad
 In audio applications, StarQuad cables are primarily used for highamplification
 microphone lines if powerful electromagnetic fields
 occur in their surrounding area, generated by e.g. lighting control
 equipment, power lines, transformers, transmitter masts and so on.
 Microphone lines are particularly sensitive, because their signal
 amplifications can extend up to 70 dB so that any interference effect
 to the cable will be amplified in the same way.
 The name StarQuad refers to the cable design, featuring 4-core
 stranding, with opposite cores forming pairs to create a balanced
 line. This kind of cable is also used as a compact data cable in
 communications.
 Design and function:
 The cable's outstanding interference reduction properties (low noise
 pick-up) are created by the use of external wiring connecting the
 opposite cores. The result is a parallel connection of two balanced
 lines twisted together, geometrically halving the length of twist
 compared to a single pair. The shorter the length of twist of a
 balanced line, the more effective its suppression of interference.
   
  So high capacitance cables can cause overshoots or oscillation in some systems, and there are different types of noise and interference reduction, each suited for different applications. Again, whether you hear it or not is totally subjective but there are means to scientifically differentiate cables of different constructions and materials (like higher conductivity of silver over copper). Or when a given cable is too thin to deliver enough current, same thing happens- it plays a role and can audible.
   
  Saying that ALL cables sound alike is a generalisation, and is false. Some setups may require that the cable is of low capacity/inductance or twisted this or that way. Sure, by the time we reach high-end cables territory all the basic requirements are probably fulfilled and some magic (marketing) starts to take place, although I have never heard high-end cable on an accordingly expensive system, so that's just my guess.


----------



## tvrboy

A great question that really has no answer from cable believers. Just like how burn-in never has negative effects, only improvements.


----------



## gregorio

maciekn said:


> So there is a measureable difference in how will the opamp perform with driving cables of different capacity. Sure, not every opamp in every circuit will react the same but in some there surely can be a measurable difference. Whether it's audible or not, well, that's a subjective thing.




I'm sorry to be rude, but that's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen. Your graphs show a difference of a few thousandths of a volt, over a duration of a few 10s of billionths of a second. And you state it's subjective whether or not that difference can be heard! There's no question that we have measurement tools which are incredibly accurate and that differences in cables can be measured, but to say we can measure a difference and therefore it's subjective as to whether or not we can hear a difference is a logical fallacy. We can measure voltage so accurately that we can scan a surface and construct an image of an atom. Would you therefore say it's subjective as to whether or not we can see an atom with the naked eye?

No one is saying differences in cables can't be heard. We are saying differences in cables are not audible under the following conditions: 1. Both cables are the correct type of cable for the application, 2. Both cables are of decent quality construction and 3. Both cables are of roughly the same length. 

In other words, in normal use there is no audible difference between a stock cable and an after market cable.

G


----------



## Iniamyen

Quote:


maciekn said:


> Cheaper = worse was a generalisation, my fault. My point was that the manufacturer does not include thicker/better shielded/blessed by the shaman cables with their less expensive models. There are some inexpensive cables with decent parameters. I can only comment on the quality of the cables I used/replaced, and subjectively I heard a difference in two out of two headphones recabled, but placebo never sleeps.
> 
> As for measuring differences, as I've mentioned before, among other things cables have their capacity, and in datasheets of many audio opamps you can see how do those chips fare driving capacitive loads of x or y pF.
> Here is an example taken from opa227 pdf:
> ...


 

 The transients shown there have about 2 cycles per 400ns, which corresponds to a frequency of 5MHz 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. So you most definitely can't hear either transient (this is very proven), much less the difference between the two. And this is with a difference in capacitance of 200x.


----------



## MaciekN

Quote: 





gregorio said:


> I'm sorry to be rude, but that's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen. Your graphs show a difference of a few thousandths of a volt, over a duration of a few 10s of billionths of a second. And you state it's subjective whether or not that difference can be heard! There's no question that we have measurement tools which are incredibly accurate and that differences in cables can be measured, but to say we can measure a difference and therefore it's subjective as to whether or not we can hear a difference is a logical fallacy. We can measure voltage so accurately that we can scan a surface and construct an image of an atom. Would you therefore say it's subjective as to whether or not we can see an atom with the naked eye?
> 
> No one is saying differences in cables can't be heard. We are saying differences in cables are not audible under the following conditions: 1. Both cables are the correct type of cable for the application, 2. Both cables are of decent quality construction and 3. Both cables are of roughly the same length.
> 
> ...


 

  
  Yea, that was not the best example but example nonetheless. My intention was to show that most opamps, which are often the heart of most headphone amps, distort when driving capacitive loads, the difference is presented in % of overshoot. Square wave is just a way to clearly show this overshoot, and while opa227 is not the most vulnerable opamp in this respect it does show some differences. Now, even though we know that there is some difference since we measured it, as we all hear differently, it can not be said that if something is measured to have x or y of something then it is audible. Some poeple have bat-ears and some have impaired hearing, some use equipment that is poorly designed and distorts heavily when presented with even small amounts of x or y, and finally some use well designed equipment that is not very cable reliant. This is what I meant by writing that it's subjective.
   
  Gregorio, it is indeed hard to disagree with your statement about cables, sadly many head-fiers are not as specific as you were and simply repeat the short version "cables make no difference".
  Consider this: how often is the stock cable the correct type for that specific circuit it used in, or how often has it better construction quality than an aftermarket cable? Maybe this is why recablers hear differences. As I wrote in my previous post, headphone manufacturers do not supply their low-mid tier equipment with very high quality cables since these are costier than medium quality cables, which should do the job more or less.
   
  I don't want to sound ignorant, surely placebo plays a role in some cases, just sometimes an after market cable might be less of a challenge to drive.


----------



## DaBomb77766

I'm pretty sure the only time a "better" cable will make a difference is if you're running it from a mic or guitar to a preamp.  Other than that there's no evidence to show a normal interconnect or speaker cables will make any measurable difference above like...a few microvolts over the course of a few nanoseconds.


----------



## Lumify

I believe cables can change the sound. It is most obvious between various low end cables. I know I'm not a placebo effect victim because of my recent experience buying a new interconnect cable. I was convinced that the new cable would be an upgrade, but it was worse. They are both low end cables with a relatively high end system: Foobar, meticulously equalized with Electri-Q > USB > Fiio E7 > Fiio L7 line out dock > random Philips cable (I tried a Belkin cable here) > La Figaro 339 > stock HD 650 cable > Sennheiser HD650.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





lumify said:


> I know I'm not a placebo effect victim because of my recent experience buying a new interconnect cable. I was convinced that the new cable would be an upgrade, but it was worse.


 

 That means nothing. There's many different kinds of bias. Expectation bias is only one of them. Here's the rest. Bookmark that, it comes in handy around here.


----------



## ViralRazor

Quote: 





lumify said:


> I believe cables can change the sound. It is most obvious between various low end cables. I know I'm not a placebo effect victim because of my recent experience buying a new interconnect cable. I was convinced that the new cable would be an upgrade, but it was worse. They are both low end cables with a relatively high end system: Foobar, meticulously equalized with Electri-Q > USB > Fiio E7 > Fiio L7 line out dock > random Philips cable (I tried a Belkin cable here) > La Figaro 339 > stock HD 650 cable > Sennheiser HD650.


 


   
  I was just thinking, would you have said the same if you believed you were buying a high end cable, say the belkin cable was rebranded and sold for $500. You specifically said they were low end.
   
  The simple issue I have with this  is that, assuming what cable manafacturers claim is true, buying a cable would then change the sound signature. What if the lower quality stock  cable, assuming that cables actually affect sound, is responsible for the sound you like. Shouldn't you then feel your change to a (expensive, "high end") cable be a disappointment?


----------



## tkteo

uh, I have a question not about differences between cables but something far more elementary (but not to me duh).
   
  Say the length of cable between source and amp or amp and speaker/headphone is a few meters or feet. Assume that we are talking analog signal not digital. What if the length of the same cable was now 100 feet or meters. Would that additional physical length of the cable pose a problem for the sound reproduction that we hear from the speaker or headphone?
   
  If so, why?


----------



## khaos974

Yes a longer run would be more susceptible to interferences for example, that's why balanced cables are used (and I've seen runs of 100m for a line level signal). But in a normal home, there would be no difference.


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





tkteo said:


> uh, I have a question not about differences between cables but something far more elementary (but not to me duh).
> 
> Say the length of cable between source and amp or amp and speaker/headphone is a few meters or feet. Assume that we are talking analog signal not digital. What if the length of the same cable was now 100 feet or meters. Would that additional physical length of the cable pose a problem for the sound reproduction that we hear from the speaker or headphone?
> 
> If so, why?


 


 It can, yes, as the resistance, capacitance, and inductance of the cable increases proportionately with increasing length.  The difference is not only possible to model accurately, it is relatively easy to verify with measurements as well.  Increasing capacitance enough in relation to the damping factor can cause high frequency rolloff, for example.  Similar effects on frequency response from highly resistive cables based on the impedance curve of a transducer can be observed as well.  Someone else with more knowledge in the matter can explain more thoroughly - HOWEVER - when we're talking about reasonable cables for the application, there should _never_ be an audible difference.  If there is, the cables are either defective or the wrong ones for the job (often too thin/long for low impedance speakers, for example).
   
   
   
  That brings me to the subject of the capacitance having an effect on system performance...  Again, those with more knowledge can follow up with more comprehensive explanations - but the fact of the matter is that the differences in cable capacitance are small enough that it is more or less a non-issue.  Perhaps if you use CAT-5 cable for speakers, or some similar esoteric audiophool design, you will find a cable with significantly high capacitance to have enough high-end rolloff to be plausibly audible.  Again, it wouldn't be that hard to calculate just how much capacitance you would need for an audible difference in any given situation (based on the damping factor of said system).  I don't have the skills to do so myself, but again some of our esteemed members are likely more than capable.
   
  Just for an example of typical interconnect cable impedances (because that's what I found first) and other measurements:
 http://sound.westhost.com/cables-p3.htm
   
  So we're talking differences that are less than an order of magnitude different, and at an astonishingly low level to begin with.  Make a 1000 foot cable and things are a bit different.


----------



## gregorio

maciekn said:


> Yea, that was not the best example but example nonetheless. My intention was to show that most opamps, which are often the heart of most headphone amps, distort when driving capacitive loads, the difference is presented in % of overshoot. Square wave is just a way to clearly show this overshoot, and while opa227 is not the most vulnerable opamp in this respect it does show some differences. Now, even though we know that there is some difference since we measured it, as we all hear differently, it can not be said that if something is measured to have x or y of something then it is audible. Some poeple have bat-ears and some have impaired hearing, some use equipment that is poorly designed and distorts heavily when presented with even small amounts of x or y, and finally some use well designed equipment that is not very cable reliant. This is what I meant by writing that it's subjective.




Of course, some people do not have bat ears but even if they did, the highest a bat can hear is about 120kHz which is still miles away from 5mHz! The simple fact is, there is no amplifier, no speaker and certainly no ear (on any creature ever to have existed) which can respond to a signal difference of a few thousandths of a volt with a duration of a few 10s of billionths of a second. I don't think you fully appreciate the scale of measurement accuracy relative to sensory perception. As I stated before, we can measure voltage differences accurately enough to construct an image of an atom, this level of measurement resolution is simply so far beyond limits of anything that consumer electronics or sensory perception is capable of resolving.



maciekn said:


> Consider this: how often is the stock cable the correct type for that specific circuit it used in, or how often has it better construction quality than an aftermarket cable? Maybe this is why recablers hear differences. As I wrote in my previous post, headphone manufacturers do not supply their low-mid tier equipment with very high quality cables since these are costier than medium quality cables, which should do the job more or less.




Cable construction quality is irrelevant to operation once we reach the level of _sufficient_. In other words, it does not matter if an after market cable is of better construction quality than a stock cable, provided the stock cable is good enough not to malfunction. Also, if a piece of equipment is incapable of performing to it's peak design specifications with the supplied cable, that would be a faulty design and/or an incompetent manufacturer. There is no "more or less" about it.

As Uncle Eric has already stated near the beginning of this thread "No one has ever passed a blind listening test for cables". In conjunction with the measurable differences in cables being orders of magnitude lower than the limits of human audibility, this leaves the only reasonable explanation for recablers to hear a difference being a bias effect.

G


----------



## MaciekN

Gregorio, you yourself posted that there can be differences between cables if one is not really suited for the cuircit it operates in. How can then "no one" pass a blind a test for cables? If you are so picky about my posts then please do not repeat this generalisation or write the same thought in a full sentence, for the sake of those who are following this thread who would repeat later "no one has ever passed... ". I, for one, did pass few such tests. And as for my example of an opamp driving a capacitive load, I would love to post a graph with proper units that would be within range of frequency and time typical for music, yet there are none in datasheets of numerous opamps I've read (and no, this doesn't meant that they operate perfectly within audio band). But if you know of any such measurements that show general indifference of opamps towards their cable loads do post it.
   
  Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> I'm pretty sure the only time a "better" cable will make a difference is if you're running it from a mic or guitar to a preamp.  Other than that there's no evidence to show a normal interconnect or speaker cables will make any measurable difference above like...a few microvolts over the course of a few nanoseconds.


 

  
  DaBomb77766, what is a "normal" cable to you?


----------



## gregorio

maciekn said:


> Gregorio, you yourself posted that there can be differences between cables if one is not really suited for the cuircit it operates in. How can then "no one" pass a blind a test for cables?




I laid out the conditions quite clearly in my earlier post. We are talking about after market replacements, same type, length, etc. Under these conditions, no one has passed a double blind test.



maciekn said:


> And as for my example of an opamp driving a capacitive load, I would love to post a graph with proper units that would be within range of frequency and time typical for music, yet there are none in datasheets of numerous opamps I've read (and no, this doesn't meant that they operate perfectly within audio band).




If differences are so minute using extreme square waves, I don't see how there could be anything even vaguely within the range of human hearing for the relatively straight forward sine waves which make up music. But I've said what needed to be said about how far outside the limits of human hearing the differences are, if you want to believe you have the hearing of a high grade oscilloscope or the vision of a Scanning Tunnelling Electron Microscope, that's up to you.

G


----------



## MaciekN

Please support your claim that capacitive loads make no real difference in performance of most audio opamps in audio band, graphs would be most welcome.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





maciekn said:


> Please support your claim that capacitive loads make no real difference in performance of most audio opamps in audio band, graphs would be most welcome.


 

 Please support your claim that capacitive loads _do_ make a real difference in performance. You're the one making the claim that goes against all previous studies.


----------



## MaciekN

Please post at least a link to those previous studies, because as far as I remember opamps can be compsated for capacitive loads to minimise or eliminate infulence of this facotr, few do not need compesation and those aren't considered to be the highest grate in sound quality. Otherwise there can be peaking and overshoots, it's written in nearly every opmamp datasheet.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





maciekn said:


> Please post at least a link to those previous studies, because as far as I remember opamps can be compsated for capacitive loads to minimise or eliminate infulence of this facotr, few do not need compesation and those aren't considered to be the highest grate in sound quality. Otherwise there can be peaking and overshoots, it's written in nearly every opmamp datasheet.


 

 Peaks and overshoots that the data you already posted suggests wouldn't be in the same galaxy as audible.
   
nick_charles didn't test loads between different opamps, but varying cables had no varying audible effect on the equipment he used. This suggests that, with his gear, the cables' capacitance (or anything else) didn't matter. Now it's up to you to prove that varying opamps will be affected in different, more extreme ways.


----------



## Uncle Erik

Are you talking about opamps or cables?

They're not exactly interchangeable.

It can be demonstrated that a room changes the way a loudspeaker sounds. But you cannot say that the same room would change the way a cable "sounds."

Also, I'm _very_ interested in the listening tests you took and passed. Please tell us more. Because if you can truly hear the difference, blind, you would be unique among six billion humans.

I imagine you could land a healthy six-figure income testing cables for manufacturers. You could probably consult with major studios, as well.

So go for it. It'd be great if you could pull down huge money from your special hearing ability. Whatever you're doing for a living now is a waste of your talents. You could make a lot more money and get to listen to music all day.

Even better, you could rub your money in the faces of skeptics and humiliate all of us.

Isn't that reason enough?


----------



## Elysian

These are the best cable blind test I've run across.  Are there any other documented tests worth looking at?
   
  http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
  http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





elysian said:


> These are the best cable blind test I've run across.  Are there any other documented tests worth looking at?
> 
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
> http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_wire.htm


 

 There was an amusing test, though maybe not as significant, run right here on Head-fi. I think it was power cables. Members took turns listening to a set of three cables hidden by covers with different shapes. All of this was done in their home, on their own equipment, at their own pace, so there was minimal pressure and no good excuse for unfamiliarity. There were lots of nice poetic descriptions of the sound of the cables, but very few testers distinguished the "audiophile" quality cable from the cheapo one, and I'm not sure if anyone managed it significantly. I don't want to look for a link right now, maybe later. It might be in the Testing Audiophile Myths thread.


----------



## Megaohmz

I have found some audible differences in some RCA car audio cables that I have used. I have used some Rockford fosgate RCAs and monster, and the very good radio shack brand RCAs. The sound characteristics changed quite a bit for me when I replaced my Rockford and radio shack cables with all monster cables that have two different diameters of stranded copper wire. The thought about using different diameters "Gage" of strands is that one diameter will transmit certain freqs better than other freqs.
   
  Here is what they say about the technology.
   "This patented multi-Gage wire construction ensures that all the highs, mids and lows, which move at different speeds, arrive from your player perfectly timed. The result is more accurate audio reproduction, and a better listening experience".
   
  This seems to be an interesting concept.
   
  I noticed that they actually sounded better than my fosgate and radio shack cables. Otherwise I would have just put them back. The sound detail in the upper freqs were quite a bit better, and the mids were less digested and clear. The bass was the same audibly to me.
   
  I want to experiment with building my own cables with silver wire, and using three different diameters and having an air gap between the silicone
  insulation and wires. I believe it would be better to keep the different wires separated from each other to reduce capacitance between the wires and such, since capacitance can act as a filter to the audio signal. Proper shielding from the source and preamp is vital as well. I've heard plenty of noise coming through in car applications. Actually the shielding needs to be grounded at the amplifier, rather than the preamp, contrary to popular belief, and the preamp side left ungrounded to relieve ground loop feedback.
   
  I also believe the quality of solder used, and the skill level on whoever soldered the wires will have a big impact on quality as well. Were the metal surfaces properly prepared before the solder, etc. 
   
  I will probably use silver plated copper wire instead of pure silver to keep the costs down, and since the electrons theoretically flow on the surface of the wire anyway. 
   
  I noticed a difference on the speaker cables as well concerning the Gage used. I replaced some 22GA with some 18GA and it was a pretty big difference in quality to me. After listening to a system for a long time and making just one small change can make a pretty significant impact overall.
   
  This thread also brings up another somewhat related topic of passive crossovers vs. full range speakers. A passive crossover can act a a pretty significant "wire" between the speakers and amplifiers, not to mention the distortion caused by the filter capacitors, power resistors, and air coil inductors, which are essentially just a single, very long wire to begin with, and more connections to contend with.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





megaohmz said:


>


 

 All blind tests right?


----------



## Uncle Erik

Head Injury, that was Edwood's cable test and I believe it was done with interconnects. Of course, no one could tell a difference.

All this cable talk reminds me of something I stumbled across the other day: N-Rays.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

Just like cables and various sacred audiophile totems, N-Rays could only be detected by humans while defying any and all attempts to measure or quantify them.

How the N-Ray theory got pantsed is a good story I won't spoil here.

The difference between cables and N-Rays is that people in 1903 had the integrity to call BS.


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





head injury said:


> All blind tests right?


 

 I quite frequently change cables between equipment and notice a difference almost all of the time. I replaced the original cable from a set of Sennheiser HD570s with a few different cables, one from Radio Shack, and one I made and there is a difference always. The last post was just one example of a pretty big difference I experienced. I have also changed RCA cables between my Dual 701 turntable and Marantz 2270 receiver and noticed an extreme difference, since the RCA that was soldered in place within the turntable was the original from 1973. I have built probably about 200 or so computer video cables in my time and if you get one wire soldered wrong, or if it is a weak solder then it drastically affects video quality on a video test. Same with audio. It boils down to wire quality: inherent resistance of the material used for making wire, whether it is stranded or solid, length of wire, if the connections will corrode over time, etc. Some people don't notice a difference it makes, but if you listen for a minute or so and then let your ears settle in to the sound of one cable, and then change it you might notice a difference for better or worse.
   
  Shielding quality is a big factor especially in a CD/Whatever to Eq to preamp stage to amplifier. If the shielding is poor, then you will almost always get noise from EMF. And between each piece of stereo equipment, the noise will be additive in nature, also depending on how long the cables are. 
   
  There seems to me to be a significant devaluation of the appreciation of quality audio equipment here. I guess we can all just go back to using lamp wire for use as speaker wire?


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


megaohmz said:


> I quite frequently change cables between equipment and notice a difference almost all of the time. I replaced the original cable from a set of Sennheiser HD570s with a few different cables, one from Radio Shack, and one I made and there is a difference always. The last post was just one example of a pretty big difference I experienced. I have also changed RCA cables between my Dual 701 turntable and Marantz 2270 receiver and noticed an extreme difference, since the RCA that was soldered in place within the turntable was the original from 1973. I have built probably about 200 or so computer video cables in my time and if you get one wire soldered wrong, or if it is a weak solder then it drastically affects video quality on a video test. Same with audio. It boils down to wire quality: inherent resistance of the material used for making wire, whether it is stranded or solid, length of wire, if the connections will corrode over time, etc. Some people don't notice a difference it makes, but if you listen for a minute or so and then let your ears settle in to the sound of one cable, and then change it you might notice a difference for better or worse.
> 
> Shielding quality is a big factor especially in a CD/Whatever to Eq to preamp stage to amplifier. If the shielding is poor, then you will almost always get noise from EMF. And between each piece of stereo equipment, the noise will be additive in nature, also depending on how long the cables are.
> 
> *There seems to me to be a significant devaluation of the appreciation of quality audio equipment here. I guess we can all just go back to using lamp wire for use as speaker wire?*


  Firstly, you didn't answer the question.
  The sentence in bold is just so incredibly elitist I don't really feel saying why would make you come across any worse.


----------



## gregorio

megaohmz said:


> The thought about using different diameters "Gage" of strands is that one diameter will transmit certain freqs better than other freqs. Here is what they say about the technology.
> "This patented multi-Gage wire construction ensures that all the highs, mids and lows, which move at different speeds, arrive from your player perfectly timed. The result is more accurate audio reproduction, and a better listening experience".
> 
> This seems to be an interesting concept.




Wow, that explains it then. I just always thought that drummers were too drunk to play the high-hat in time with the kick drum. 

I'm sorry, but marketing BS does not constitute proof. Makes you wonder though, how cable companies have managed to get away with inventing these sorts of sciencey sounding "facts" for years? If you tried this with almost any other sort of product you find yourself in trouble pretty quick. Anyone know why cable companies are able to get away with this BS?

As stated on the first page of this thread, if a cable is corroded or malfunctioning of course differences can be heard. In the case of an extremely poorly soldered dry joint or a disconnected wire, obviously a difference can be heard if the cable is not passing audio or passing it intermittently. Differences may also be significant enough to be heard if the gauge of cable is incorrect for the task, especially over long runs.

Shielding quality is only an issue if you have extreme levels of EMF. Otherwise the shielding found on stock cables is entirely adequate.

If you truly can hear a difference with RCA cables or headphone cables then contact Uncle Erik, I'm sure he has some contacts in the business and as he says, you could make a fortune for doing nothing but listening to music.



megaohmz said:


> There seems to me to be a significant devaluation of the appreciation of quality audio equipment here. I guess we can all just go back to using lamp wire for use as speaker wire?




I would put it a little differently: "There seems to me to be a significant over-valuation of the appreciation of audio equipment marketing hype." Just because a cable is more expensive does not make it any higher quality or better at passing audio than a stock cable. I can be reasonably certain that I have higher quality audio equipment than you do but that is irrelevant to this discussion of expensive after market cables, inaudible differences and placebo effect. Would you please explain why lamp wire would not be suitable for use as speaker wire?

G


----------



## MaciekN

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> Are you talking about opamps or cables?
> 
> They're not exactly interchangeable.
> 
> ...


 

 Uncle Erik, if you so insist then let me write about my superb hearing.
   
     The story began when I wasn't yet much into audio, abou 6 or 7 years ago. Some portable Sennheisers and a mp3 player being all my equipment, so I wasn't really councious about the talent I had. Fortunatly at that time, after years of pause from audio, my father bought himself a pair of Cabasse speakers, basic floorstanding model. He used the speakers with and old Denon amp and a cheap Marantz Cd player he bought out of interest of it's tda1541 dac chip, nothing grand.
     From time to time he was buying a speaker or interconnect cable and we listened for differences. None of the cables we used at that time was expensive or super-audiophile, yet we could both hear same differences. Please remember that at that time I was not much into audio so brands and types of cables told me really nothing. Also, cables were lying one along the other, with only one pair connected at a time, so I didn't even see which cable was plugged. After my father had already a small collection of different non-expensive cables he organised a blind test for me, again, at that time I didn't really understand what was the problem, differences were clear. So i sat with my eyes closed while the cables were switched, and I was describing differences I heard. After a few tries we discontinued the test with conclusion that cables do make a difference. I can recall two brands, tchick yellow nakamichi cables, and klotz gy107, I remembered the model because we both agreed that the latter brought big improvements in sonics. Numerous times later we used various klotz cables considering them a very nice bang for buck.
     As the time passed the equipment got better, and cables started being somewhat costly. I must stress that not every pair of cables was distinguishable at this level, and not every expensive cable sounded better. Last time we made a blind test we both could hear a difference between Kimber 4pr ( it might have been 8pr, I simply remember it was Kimber) and some Vovox silvered copper in teflon interconnects, the CDP was Arcam cd17 with hybrid amp (Haiku or smth like that), speakers stayed the same.
     On the other hand when I compared some basic Kimber IC with conducfil 8030 on my system I couldn't hear definitive differences even though it was 100% sighted test, I even switched the cables myself.
     It surprises me that there are documented test where people could really not hear a single difference. While I'm no master electrician and I can't (not yet at least) present you with scientific proof, I can say I passed a blind test on cables without even the bias of knowing what's the pressure on such tests and cables. Surely, this post will probably be cut to pieces and hugely criticized but I can't be more specific without writing a few pags descriptions of the lenght of my hair, air humidity and temperature during the test, or other stupid details. Some will always believe that cables make no difference, others that they do.
   
  PS. A few years before the above mentioned tests were carried out I had my hearing measured with no sign of hearing damage or anything that would imply it's above normal. I also had my hearing measured at the age of 18, 2 or 3 years after the first tests, and results stated the same, no damage or bat-ears certificate.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hi MaciekN. Regarding blind testing, here are loads of them including many on cables
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  Some blind tests are 'passes' in that they are comparison tests where people know they are listening to different cables and find differences. Consistently the results are that cheap and expensive are as likely to be preferred as each other. When you switch to ABX testing, where you have to identify which cable is which, then no one has passed a test.
   
  Are your tests comparison or ABX?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





megaohmz said:


> I quite frequently change cables between equipment and notice a difference almost all of the time. I replaced the original cable from a set of Sennheiser HD570s with a few different cables, one from Radio Shack, and one I made and there is a difference always. The last post was just one example of a pretty big difference I experienced. I have also changed RCA cables between my Dual 701 turntable and Marantz 2270 receiver and noticed an extreme difference, since the RCA that was soldered in place within the turntable was the original from 1973. I have built probably about 200 or so computer video cables in my time and if you get one wire soldered wrong, or if it is a weak solder then it drastically affects video quality on a video test. Same with audio. It boils down to wire quality: inherent resistance of the material used for making wire, whether it is stranded or solid, length of wire, if the connections will corrode over time, etc. Some people don't notice a difference it makes, but if you listen for a minute or so and then let your ears settle in to the sound of one cable, and then change it you might notice a difference for better or worse.
> 
> Shielding quality is a big factor especially in a CD/Whatever to Eq to preamp stage to amplifier. If the shielding is poor, then you will almost always get noise from EMF. And between each piece of stereo equipment, the noise will be additive in nature, also depending on how long the cables are.
> 
> There seems to me to be a significant devaluation of the appreciation of quality audio equipment here. I guess we can all just go back to using lamp wire for use as speaker wire?


 



 Many cable companies appeal to build quality as a reason why their cables sound better. Surely if there is a weak solder then the cable is faulty? No one is going to argue against faulty cables sounding worse. The same is true for shielding. The issue is when two equally well made cables are found to sound different. What is causing that?
   
  Here is a thread that looked at what cable companies claimed about how they make their cables and sound qaulity
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/556398/cables-the-role-of-hype-and-the-missing-link
   
  What is missing is a link between build quality and construction type and sound quality. It appears no matter how well made a cable is and how it is made, each cable company's own cable is the best sounding. That in itself is a massive contradiction and if anything shows any well made cable will do as well as any other.
   
  So any difference in sound qaulity is not from the cable itself, it is caused by the listener and is best expalined by placebo, buyer justification, psychoacoustics etc.


----------



## MaciekN

Prog Rock Man, the tests I've described were just comparison test without the knowledge of which cable is plugged atm. I was not picking cables because I simply didn't know which is which, I was describing the changes because I lacked names.  I knew nothing about them yet the differences I heard seemed to correlate with what my father had heard in his sighted test, the results of which I learned after I made my opinion on a given cable. It was meant to be more fun than science. If you say (well, link to tests that show it) that 100% of poeple who took ABX tests with cables failed, then I would most probably be no different.
   
  I am not a proponent of expensive cables, and I confessed that not every cable made an audible difference.
   
  As for cables advertising, every manufacturer, no matter the product, will usually say his is the best one. Rarely is advertising rational, isn't it? 
   
  It seems that only if I take an ABX test between cables, which I would probably fail, I could say that I eliminated placebo from my judgement. In every other type of test I could be making it up. I find it quite stunning, because I thought the differences were clear, at least in some cases. So my senses mislead me severely everytime I heard a new cable, which, again, feels odd. Had my eyes lied to me this way I would be long dead by now. The only upside of this is that I must have a great imagination.
   
  I would like to ask out of pure curiousity, how many poeple here tried an ABX on cables?


----------



## gregorio

maciekn said:


> Prog Rock Man, the tests I've described were just comparison test without the knowledge of which cable is plugged atm. I was not picking cables because I simply didn't know which is which, I was describing the changes because I lacked names.  I knew nothing about them yet the differences I heard seemed to correlate with what my father had heard in his sighted test, the results of which I learned after I made my opinion on a given cable. It was meant to be more fun than science. If you say (well, link to tests that show it) that 100% of poeple who took ABX tests with cables failed, then I would most probably be no different.
> 
> I am not a proponent of expensive cables, and I confessed that not every cable made an audible difference.
> 
> ...




I've done ABX on cables, couldn't tell a difference, there are links on the top of this page (page 3) to some DBTs. There have been hundreds of them, even large prize money offered to anyone who could pass a DBT. To be honest you would need hearing at least 100-1000 times better than perfect hearing to stand a chance of hearing any differences.

I see audiophiles quite often plainly deny they could be susceptible to placebo effect or aural illusion. Even if, like you, some people are more open minded to the possibility of aural illusions, they still seem surprised they may have been victim to it. The truth is that not only are we all susceptible to aural illusion, but it is essential that we are. Psychoacoustics teaches us that music, harmony, chords and even notes themselves are a shared aural illusion, film and TV relies on the fact that everyone can be easily aurally deceived. Check this out (McGurk Effect). Eyesight is no different, colour is a pure invention of our perception and, does the world disappear every time you blink?

The world would be a terribly boring place without the differences between perception and reality.

G


----------



## Megaohmz

Yea I agree totally. That is why I am a big fan of the "cheaper, but getting way more expensive Radio Shack gold RCAs". They are pretty darn good quality build, and shielding is as good as it can be. One problem is the interconnects here in Hawaii will oxidize even if they are "gold" plated. I don't think that is real gold on the shack's stuff or on allot of other brands. I really want to get an electroplating kit in silver and gold so I can just do it myself. The silver kit can be used for plating the wires and gold for the interconnects and speaker wire connections.


----------



## Chris J

WOW!  The McGurk Effect is mind blowing, every Head Fi-er needs to see this.
   
  Question #1: Megaohm, when you replaced the 22 AWG speaker cable with 18 AWG how long was the cable run?
   
  Question #2:  G, my understanding is that many recording engineers often use different mic cables for a different sound? Fact or fiction or just outright BS?
   
  Comment: Somewhere on the Audio Asylum website there is thread regarding a rumour that JPS Cable Company sells two models of power cords which they purchase from a company called EMC Eupen. Apparently there is a huge mark up on these cables.  Do they make an audible difference?  The two models of EMC Eupen cables both have built in EMI line filters. Many pre-amps, power amps, CD players etc have EMI filters on the AC input so draw your own conclusions.
   
  Another comment: several years ago I tried using an audiophile speaker cable (sorry, can't remember the brand name) on an Audiolab 8000P power amp I used to own. After a while I noticed that one channel on the power amp was getting hot. I put an ocsilloscope on the output:  the amp was ocsillating at approx. 1 megaHz. The waveform was sinusoidal so the amp was not clipping but I would be very surprised if this would not be detrimental to the sound of the amp.  However, at this point I disconnected the cable so I have no opinion as to what this did to the sound of the amp. As we all know, power amp designers go to great lengths to prevent their amps from oscallating when the load is too reactive. The oscillation would have probably been caused by the speaker cable having too much capacitance.
   
  And another comment........it would be interesting to get a metallurgists take on using (for example) a gold plated plug with a gold plated jack versus a gold plated plug on a nickle plated jack. I understand that the real benefit of gold plated connectors is the corrosion resistance.
   
  Anyway......back to this McGurk effect, I think I'll trying putting a Beyer logo on my AKG headphones......................and maybe a Stax logo on my Sennheisers............LOL


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> That was no rumor. JPS Labs took a stock, $30 (for a set of 5 from Eupen's US distributor, large quantities would cost a bit less) power cord from Eupen, dressed it up in some heatshrink and Techflex and slapped a $350 price tag on it. My friend Mike Pulizzi broke the story on that one after he cut open a JPS Labs power cord of his and found the Eupen cord underneath.


 
   
  Got any links to subjective impressions?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Got any links to subjective impressions?


 

 Heheh. Nah. I prefer to leave the subjective stuff up to the individual.
   
  se


----------



## gregorio

chris j said:


> WOW!  The McGurk Effect is mind blowing, every Head Fi-er needs to see this.
> 
> Question #2:  G, my understanding is that many recording engineers often use different mic cables for a different sound? Fact or fiction or just outright BS?
> 
> Anyway......back to this McGurk effect, I think I'll trying putting a Beyer logo on my AKG headphones......................and maybe a Stax logo on my Sennheisers............LOL




The signal travelling down a mic cable is anything from 10 - 1,000 times lower than line level (the level from your CD to your amp). Mic level signals have to be amplified greatly with a mic-preamp before we can record or process it. Therefore, any differences in mic cables would be many times more obvious than differences between say speaker cables. Can we hear those differences? .... Not a chance! I have worked in many top recording studios in the UK, over the course of 30 years, starting as a musician and then as a recording engineer and producer and then in audio post production. The only time I have ever seen a mic cable being changed (very rarely) is if there was a fault with the cable. I have had conversations about mic cables with engineers in the top studios but always in terms of longevity, as mic cables are constantly being plugged, unplugged, trodden on, coiled up, stored and generally abused. I always avoid conversations about expensive audiophile cables with experienced recording engineers, unless I'm making a joke, otherwise they would view me as a bit of a nutter, without much knowledge of how audio works. Not a good basis for a mutually respectful working relationship. So, I'm not sure how that rumour started but it's definitely BS that recording engineers change cables for a different sound. Changing mics for a different sound is very common but mic cables, never!

The interesting thing about the McGurk Effect is that even knowing it's an aural illusion doesn't help. With all my years of experience, using and training my ears to analyse sound as accurately as possible, you would think that I would be less susceptible to this aural illusion. Nope, not a bit of it, sounds just as different a word to me as it does to everyone else! When I listen to a musical note I've recorded, I can break that note down and pick out many of the individual harmonics but I still also perceive it as a musical note and as part of a chord within a moving harmony. If I wasn't still susceptible to this illusion of notes and harmony then I would be unable to mix and create music, the same is true for the sound I create for TV and Film.

G


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





maciekn said:


> Prog Rock Man, the tests I've described were just comparison test without the knowledge of which cable is plugged atm. I was not picking cables because I simply didn't know which is which, I was describing the changes because I lacked names.  I knew nothing about them yet the differences I heard seemed to correlate with what my father had heard in his sighted test, the results of which I learned after I made my opinion on a given cable. It was meant to be more fun than science. If you say (well, link to tests that show it) that 100% of poeple who took ABX tests with cables failed, then I would most probably be no different.
> 
> I am not a proponent of expensive cables, and I confessed that not every cable made an audible difference.
> 
> ...


 



 Like you I was amazed at what happened to the sound as I listened sighted, blind and ABX. I was relieved to find out that sighted, blind and ABX testing has consitently turned up the same results. I still find it a bit hard to believe, hence the continual search for more evidence.
   
  As for the number of people who have taken ABX tests, I coulkd find out if I counted participants in the tests I have gathered. I would guess it is 100 max and mainly middle aged, well off male audiophiles.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





gregorio said:


> The signal travelling down a mic cable is anything from 10 - 1,000 times lower than line level (the level from your CD to your amp). Mic level signals have to be amplified greatly with a mic-preamp before we can record or process it. Therefore, any differences in mic cables would be many times more obvious than differences between say speaker cables. Can we hear those differences? .... Not a chance! I have worked in many top recording studios in the UK, over the course of 30 years, starting as a musician and then as a recording engineer and producer and then in audio post production. The only time I have ever seen a mic cable being changed (very rarely) is if there was a fault with the cable. I have had conversations about mic cables with engineers in the top studios but always in terms of longevity, as mic cables are constantly being plugged, unplugged, trodden on, coiled up, stored and generally abused. I always avoid conversations about expensive audiophile cables with experienced recording engineers, unless I'm making a joke, otherwise they would view me as a bit of a nutter, without much knowledge of how audio works. Not a good basis for a mutually respectful working relationship. So, I'm not sure how that rumour started but it's definitely BS that recording engineers change cables for a different sound. Changing mics for a different sound is very common but mic cables, never!
> 
> The interesting thing about the McGurk Effect is that even knowing it's an aural illusion doesn't help. With all my years of experience, using and training my ears to analyse sound as accurately as possible, you would think that I would be less susceptible to this aural illusion. Nope, not a bit of it, sounds just as different a word to me as it does to everyone else! When I listen to a musical note I've recorded, I can break that note down and pick out many of the individual harmonics but I still also perceive it as a musical note and as part of a chord within a moving harmony. If I wasn't still susceptible to this illusion of notes and harmony then I would be unable to mix and create music, the same is true for the sound I create for TV and Film.
> 
> G


 


 Question:
  I understand that recording engineers will often different vacuum tube mics and some high end mic pre-amps use vacuum tubes?
   
   
  Food for thought: I wonder if there is any scientific basis in the idea that two wines from the same vineyard taste different because they are different vintages?  Frankly, I find it just about impossible to tell the difference but then I don't claim to be a wine connoisseur...................


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Question:
> I understand that recording engineers will often different vacuum tube mics and some high end mic pre-amps use vacuum tubes?
> 
> Food for thought: I wonder if there is any scientific basis in the idea that two wines from the same vineyard taste different because they are different vintages?  Frankly, I find it just about impossible to tell the difference but then I don't claim to be a wine connoisseur...................


 

 Professionals still use tubes? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  There are measurable differences between tubes. I don't know specifics. I know Uncle Erik does, you can send him a message. They have different voltage biases and behave differently at different loads and in different circuits. That's not nearly the same thing as cables. How audible a change between tubes in the same design _is_, that's probably overblown, but I can forgive it because there _are_ differences.
   
  There's a lot of variables that go into wine making. Maybe one harvest is sweeter than the next, maybe the vintners use too much of one ingredient between vintages. There are lots of potential differences here. It's like asking why your favorite dish at a restaurant one night tastes worse than the week before. There are measurable differences here as well, but they'd probably take a back seat to the price tag if you asked a connoisseur to compare.


----------



## khaos974

head injury said:


> Professionals still use tubes?




They do, the aim is to impart specific tube colorations to the sound, reproduce the soft saturation effect on a track for example.


----------



## gregorio

chris j said:


> I understand that recording engineers will often different vacuum tube mics and some high end mic pre-amps use vacuum tubes?




No, that's not really true. Some recording engineers will use tube mics and tube pre-amps for specific tasks. The vast majority of recording engineers generally avoid tubes like the plague! It depends on what your doing though. Some forms of distortion in some genres of music is highly desirable. In fact, heavy metal wouldn't sound at all like heavy metal without copious amount of distortion (particularly on the guitars). So this is an example of where tube equipment might be used. It's all about the genre, in classical and jazz we try for complete transparency because classical music is designed for live performance, many other genres though are designed for the studio and are very difficult or impossible to perform live acoustically. In these genres, engineers use the colouration of mics and pre-amps as a musical tool, an integral part of the production. This has been true since the 60's.

G


----------



## MaciekN

Gregorio, thatnks for the link to McGurk effect, that's interesting but I am troubled by it's impications on cables. Everyone who took an ABX on cables so far has failed but if this effect applies here, then tests change nothing. Even if I know that's an illusion, everytime I change a cable I will hear a difference unless it's an ABX test. My brain may tell me not to buy new cables but my ears will tell that new cable sounds great, and both will be right in a way. Paradoxally, I could enjoy listening to a new cable while knowing that it did not really change anything.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





maciekn said:


> Gregorio, thatnks for the link to McGurk effect, that's interesting but I am troubled by it's impications on cables. Everyone who took an ABX on cables so far has failed but if this effect applies here, then tests change nothing. Even if I know that's an illusion, everytime I change a cable I will hear a difference unless it's an ABX test. My brain may tell me not to buy new cables but my ears will tell that new cable sounds great, and both will be right in a way. Paradoxally, I could enjoy listening to a new cable while knowing that it did not really change anything.


 

 One of the biggest causes of problems in cable debates is that the objectivist side is often presented/presents itself as stating 'you cannot hear a difference' when clearly people can. There are many who do not care why they hear a difference with a new cable, they are just happy that they do.
   
  Where I think that they are wrong is to attribute the difference to the cable using pseudoscience and frankly the deceptions of many cable sellers.
   
  If you accept that the reason for hearing a difference is you, as proven by sighted testing, then be happy and buy lots of cables. You are right, the brain and ears are both right.
   
  Incidentally, I am helping with a challenge against a hifi publication for misleading practices over cables. It is way too early to say any more at the moment, but we are going to press for a ruling as to whether or not it is possible to use pseudoscience to promote/sell cables. We clearly think it is not.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





maciekn said:


> Gregorio, thatnks for the link to McGurk effect, that's interesting but I am troubled by it's impications on cables. Everyone who took an ABX on cables so far has failed but if this effect applies here, then tests change nothing. Even if I know that's an illusion, everytime I change a cable I will hear a difference unless it's an ABX test. My brain may tell me not to buy new cables but my ears will tell that new cable sounds great, and both will be right in a way. Paradoxally, I could enjoy listening to a new cable while knowing that it did not really change anything.


 
   
  That's entirely possible and you're welcome to buy cables if you know the effect is psychological but you enjoy it regardless. For me, even if my brain tells me the sound has improved, I wouldn't be able to justify the price knowing that there's no real physical change.


----------



## gregorio

maciekn said:


> Gregorio, thatnks for the link to McGurk effect, that's interesting but I am troubled by it's impications on cables. Everyone who took an ABX on cables so far has failed but if this effect applies here, then tests change nothing. Even if I know that's an illusion, everytime I change a cable I will hear a difference unless it's an ABX test. My brain may tell me not to buy new cables but my ears will tell that new cable sounds great, and both will be right in a way. Paradoxally, I could enjoy listening to a new cable while knowing that it did not really change anything.




I think the McGurk Effect works so well because the information entering the eyes and the information entering the ears are in direct conflict. The brain decides to give priority to the eyes and changes what you perceive you are hearing. I don't think this is the same situation as with cables. With cables, I don't believe it's a question of what we see being in direct conflict with what we are hearing, it's more the case that our hearing is in conflict with what we believe. I think, we are capable of training our hearing to overcome our belief. I think this would be even easier to accomplish if our belief changes. In other words, I think that if you loose your belief that you can hear a difference with cables, then you will no longer hear a difference in cables. I have no absolute proof for this assertion, just an educated guess.

G


----------



## Willakan

The McGurk test is more just an interesting anecdote to lob in the vague direction of the "ears are perfect" group, rather than a real example of the psychological mechanisms that lead to differences being perceived with cables.


----------



## MaciekN

I don't understand one thing. In the youtube video of McGurk we hear a difference because lips of that guy suggest that they are making different sound, while it has not changed. From the very moment we learn to speak and understand speech we learn that certain sounds coincide with certain layouts of lips. As explained in the video, our brain tries to make sense from what it both hears and sees, and as it faces a contradiction of sound vs mouth layout it changes what we hear. So the source of the imapct of visual information on sound is quite obvious with speech. But it totally isn't with cables.
     Common knowledge is that cable is just a cable, everybody (who is not an audiophile) knows that cables do not make any difference. There is no contradiction to face here, but even without reading reviews of cables or seeing any cable ad I heard differences. Cables are not like speech, only in my past few years I learned that cable can actually have (percieved) impact on sound, which is quite contrary to my whole life experience with cables. So, why does my brain is making it up? On what basis? If McGurk effect applies here, then it should actually work against sound of cables.
   
  EDIT: I didn't notice few posts before and firther explanation on McGurk but the question remains the same, what actually makes the brain hear differences. It is not belief (at least I don't think so) because many poeple who are sceptic would hear "properly". Did anyone actually resarch it?


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





chris j said:


> WOW!  The McGurk Effect is mind blowing, every Head Fi-er needs to see this.
> 
> Question #1: Megaohm, when you replaced the 22 AWG speaker cable with 18 AWG how long was the cable run?
> 
> ...


 
  The length varies from 8ft to 15 ft. I actually had some generic 22ga and then switched to JL audio brand in 18ga. The wattage is 650w x4 and 750w x1. I noticed when I changed the wire out the JL was much softer (I like to scrape the strands with an exacto knife before hookup) than the generic, and the insulation was thicker and tougher than the generic. The strands were finer on the JL wire. It makes a difference in how much current the wire can handle if you have finer srands, and a thicker gage. If the wire heats up the resistance increases, and will heat up even more to a point.
   
  Notice how your vaccum cleaner plug gets warm. It is just from the wires resistive value, depending on how long it is. The gold plating is great for oxidation prevention, and even though its resistive value is higher than copper, the length (thickness of the coating) is microscopic, so it doesn't matter. I don't think the plating would make a difference since it is so thin. It would be better IMO to use the best anti corrosive metal available (RCAs, etc). You start to see a sort of degradation of "skin effect" on the wire under high wattage. This is why it is always safe to over do it a bit when it comes to speaker wire.
   
  For example run some 6in speakers with just one strand of copper wire and start with the vol all the way down, then turn it up, the wire will heat up and eventually burn out. You will also hear the difference also. I used to do this when I was a kid just to see how cool it was to burn up some wire.


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





willakan said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> megaohmz said:
> ...


 


   


  Quote: 





head injury said:


> All blind tests right?


 
  I always offer a 100% money back guarantee on all of my posts.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Quote: 





viralrazor said:


> Well, debate has been going on for a while, do "audiophile" cable upgrades actually work, with a stronger debate going on for actual analogue signals.
> 
> I've just got a short post and a interesting question to share:
> 
> Assuming that changing cables changes sound signature and that its true, why do we never see people talking about how their sound quality from their headphones/speakers took a turn for the worse when they changed out from stock cables to "audiophile" cables. Would transmitting a slightly with ever so slightly less interference improve subjective sound quality at all? If the sound signature is changed, surely there must be some people who are disappointed with this change in sound. And yet we never see this when someone changes from a stock cable to a custom cable.


 


  I guess you have not read enough to really understand what folks are believing. If you read around you will read about many people selling their silver headphone cable modified headphones. If you have a custom made pure silver headphone cable and change amps to new sound signature can be too bright. These people go with a new pair of their favorite headphones with the stock cable and sell the silver cable headphones.
   
   
The first day with my new amp I really wanted to hear it at it's best and brought over my friends $500.00 pure silver RCA cables to hook between my Woo 5LE and the CD player.
   
   
   
   
   
  My standard cables were Monster cables as I was not a cable believer yet and didn't think that the did anything. If there was a big difference from cables I wanted to hear it the first day with my new amp. The amp arrived and I tried both the Monster interconnects from the CD player to the RCA input of the Woo 5LE. I also demoed a pair of $500.00 pure silver interconnects which a favorite from a friend.
   
The silver cables were too bright sounding and the soundstage was very hard to understand. I went back to my standard $20 Monster cables for about a year, thinking that cables do change the sound but I had not found the perfect combo for my system. The silver cables were not warm like the Monster cables. I needed to find a nice pair of copper cables for my system to be dialed in, which I did. Silver can be perfect for dull sounding systems and too bright for treble high systems. Cables should be looked at as EQ systems. Some systems respond better than others.
   
Any normal mind would have to agree that there is something here, even if it's not always proved 100%. The best thing people say is that it's all mental. If it's all mental then why didn't I love the sound of the $500.00 RCA cables? I loved the sound of the Monsters as they matched my system the best at the time.


----------



## gregorio

maciekn said:


> EDIT: I didn't notice few posts before and firther explanation on McGurk but the question remains the same, what actually makes the brain hear differences. It is not belief (at least I don't think so) because many poeple who are sceptic would hear "properly". Did anyone actually resarch it?




Now that's a good question and one which at this time science only has a partial answer for. There has been a great deal of research in this area and the research is ongoing. Neuroscience has looked at this area and of course psychoacoustics is specifically the study of the perception of sound. What seems to happen is that the brain discards the vast majority of all it's sensory input (estimates puts the figure at about 90%), the brain would need to be approximately 5 times bigger than it is to process all the information it receives. The highly simplified data which remains is little more than a set of "patterns" which is "matched" (processed) using memory/experience to construct a "picture" of the world. This "pattern matching" explains why our senses can be fooled with aural and visual illusions, the brain is filling in the blanks. Your hearing is no different to the hearing of a great mastering engineer, the only difference is the mastering engineer has trained himself to discard less of the information and perceive more detail.

So what we hear is not based purely on what enters our ears but on all our senses, mixed in with all our emotions and experience of the world. This last part cannot be underestimated, it explains all the biases we exhibit and indeed even how we can perceive music. It's not so much what we hear but our cultural background which enables us to perceive music and harmony. It's the lack of understanding of how we perceive sound and music which often leads some audiophiles in the wrong direction. Trying to find an audio system which can reproduce the sound of a live concert is an impossibility because what we perceive when we go to a live concert is only partly dictated by the sound waves we hear. When we listen to cables, all that's needed for us to hear a difference is the belief that something has changed. If we see or know that a cable has been changed our brains "pattern match" and fill in the blanks. As has been tested on a number of occasions, the cables don't even need to be changed for a cable believer to hear a difference, just the belief the cable has been changed is enough.

This is a fascinating and complex area and not all the details of how the brain accomplishes perception are fully understood. To use a computer analogy: Modern computers have more raw processing capability than the human brain but the software which enables us to make sense of the world around us is many orders of magnitude more sophisticated than anything a computer is currently capable of. 

Not sure I've explained all this very well, I'm trying, in a couple of paragraphs, to condense and explain what I've learnt in my 30 years experience of studying and applying the perception of sound.

G


----------



## gregorio

redcarmoose said:


> I guess you have not read enough to really understand what folks are believing....
> 
> ...The silver cables were not warm like the Monster cables. I needed to find a nice pair of copper cables for my system to be dialed in, which I did. Silver can be perfect for dull sounding systems and too bright for treble high systems. Cables should be looked at as EQ systems. Some systems respond better than others.
> 
> Any normal mind would have to agree that there is something here, even if it's not always proved 100%.




Do different metals, say silver or gold change the sound to a perceivable level? Absolutely! Silver creates a brighter sound compared to say gold which produces a warmer sound. This is a well known fact which has been understood and employed as a kind of EQ by generations of professional brass players, flute players and instrument manufacturers. Even just plating or lacquering brass with these different metals creates different absorption characteristics and different resonant frequencies which are all measurably within the capabilities of the human ear to perceive.

The problem though, is that this fact has nothing whatsoever to do with cables, as cables do *not* transmit sound! Absorption characteristics and resonant frequencies are completely irrelevant when it comes to cables because the only thing travelling through a cable is an electrical current, not sound. When transmitting an electrical current, capacitance and resistance are the important factors. Whereas capacitance and resistance is completely irrelevant to a brass instrument. The difference in capacitance and resistance of the various metals used in cables are so vanishingly small that the resultant alteration of the electrical current when converted to sound is orders of magnitude below what the human ear can hear. Cables are *not* "EQ systems" any EQ which may be occurring is in your brain, it's certainly not being heard by your ears.

Any normal mind with a basic understanding of the concept of analogue sound (electricity as opposed to sound) would agree the only thing here is bias. To say "there is something here, even if it's not always proved 100%" is a complete distortion of the facts. Despite many DBTs audible differences between cables hasn't been proved to even 1%! All the evidence so far is 100% in favour of the "something here" being nothing more than bias!

I'm afraid writing in big red letters is not going to make your distorted assertions any more true.

G


----------



## Chris J

.............And I thought everyone was entitled to their opinion here...........guess I was mistaken......


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





chris j said:


> .............And I thought everyone was entitled to their opinion here...........guess I was mistaken......


 


  You are, just not in the science forum. People want cold, hard facts here. I hear a difference is not a fact.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Basically, I am all done with the back and forth of wearing out my keyboard keys trying to run my findings across someone who believes they are a total expert and gets some kind of gratification by showing the world how totally smart they are. I have to say I'm the worlds best crack-pot science believer. So you could say I'm the perfect one for making my point in colored letters and I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> You are, just not in the science forum. People want cold, hard facts here. I hear a difference is not a fact.


 

 x2.


----------



## Hennyo

Wonderful post. Bravo.
  
  Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Basically, I am all done with the back and forth of wearing out my keyboard keys trying to run my findings across someone who believes they are a total expert and gets some kind of gratification by showing the world how totally smart they are. I have to say I'm the worlds best crack-pot science believer. So you could say I'm the perfect one for making my point in colored letters and I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement.


----------



## Chris J

I am just trying to suggest a bit more courtesy folks, this may be the science forum, but it is not a scientific journal.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I am just trying to suggest a bit more courtesy folks, this may be the science forum, but it is not a scientific journal.


 

 No wonder I couldn't find the centerfold. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote:


redcarmoose said:


> Basically, I am all done with the back and forth of wearing out my keyboard keys trying to run my findings across someone who believes they are a total expert and gets some kind of gratification by showing the world how totally smart they are. I have to say I'm the worlds best crack-pot science believer. So you could say I'm the perfect one for making my point in colored letters and I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement.


 

 I think belief in crack pot science is a route to enslavement.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I think belief in crack pot science is a route to enslavement.


 

 x2
   
  se


----------



## Willakan

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Redcarmoose *
> Basically, I am all done with the back and forth of wearing out my keyboard keys trying to run my findings across someone who believes they are a total expert and gets some kind of gratification by showing the world how totally smart they are. I have to say I'm the worlds best crack-pot science believer. So you could say I'm the perfect one for making my point in colored letters and I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement.


 
  I dismiss cables by exactly the same mechanics I dismiss the idea that eating muffins improves the sound of my headphones. I do not believe I need to check that that is indeed the case for either.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I have an open mind to good science. It closes a bit with bad science. That is a very healthy place to be. It protects me from drivel.
   
  Those who peddle psudeoscience are far more closed minded than good scientists. If you want proof of that, ask a psuedoscientist for properly reviewed and verifiable evidence and/or corroboration for their claims.
   
  The day I look again with any seriousness at the pseudoscience of cables is when a reputable body such as a university backs up claims about sound or picture quality.


----------



## JRG1990

I agree the most closed minded are the people who believe all cables sound different , try and say otherwise or use facts to prove them wrong and they simply get upset.


----------



## gregorio

redcarmoose said:


> I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement.




You continue to misrepresent the facts, in fact you've got it completely backwards! It's the opinion of science and of *all* the evidence, not "the opinions of some". The whole point of science is that we don't have to try everything for ourselves through trial and error, scientists have done it for us, we can take certain things for granted and move on to other areas of more interest. I don't have an open mind when after decades of trying, there's still not a shred of evidence to back up the marketing claims of cable sellers and I don't need to throw myself off the edge of a cliff to prove to myself that Newton was right about gravity.

While you may believe that you are posting with a sincere desire to help others, what you are actually doing by arguing against the evidence is supporting the barely legal pseudo-scientific marketing hype which is designed to scam innocent audiophiles looking for high fidelity. The end result of you posts is IMHO, the opposite of providing help. Now, if you've got some actual evidence that differences between cables can be heard, I'd love to hear it (and I'm sure everyone else here would too) but until you do, you can't come here and call us all enslaved and close minded when you are the one enslaved in a medieval world where provably unreliable perception and opinion is worth more than provable scientific fact and evidence!

G


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> No wonder I couldn't find the centerfold.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Thanks!  I couldn't stop laughing whenI read that!


----------



## Br777

i have to admit i have never tried comparing cables, but the sheer fact that i am unable to instantly a/b switch from one headphone cable to another makes trying to hear a difference impossible.
  even a few seconds of silence in between makes distinguishing differences in sound A LOT more difficult.  I found this to be true even when comparing amps that truly DID sound different.
   
  its very amusing to me that people say cables "extend the treble" or "increase low end" or ANYTHING that involves the actual changing of volume or range of the sound frequencies in cables.  Its amusing b/c there are plenty of documented tests, some done here by head-fiers, that prove there are no frequency changes happening with cables.   It just does not happen.. ever... and its not like there is some magic voodoo happening in people's ears that detects some kind of frequency anomilee that the testing gear is not able to detect.   this data alone makes me HUGELY skeptical that cables could make a difference... aaaaand.. these tests are very easy to do if you have the proper software.


----------



## cantsleep

i used to keep the original cables.
  because sometimes, stock cables are better matching than aftermarket cables.
   
  go to a mini meet. try same headphones with different cables, on a same source and an amp.
  if you dont hear the difference, you dont need to bother with cables at all. but if you do, try em with various interconnects. 
  those are a little bit more harder to distinguish, i would say.
   
  if you believe in cables but youre too broke for a cable upgrade, get some beers before you listen to music. that may help.
  maybe not............


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





cantsleep said:


> go to a mini meet. try same headphones with different cables, on a same source and an amp.


 

 Yes, because peer pressure is sure to prevent bias


----------



## SpaceTimeMorph

Quote: 





cantsleep said:


> if you believe in cables but youre too broke for a cable upgrade, get some beers before you listen to music. that may help.
> maybe not............


 

 Only helps the wallet if it's natty ice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
   
  Anyway, cables are boring.  I want to see a subjectivist's head try to wrap itself around something interesting like frequency compensation.  Imagine the audiophile-isms that would come out of that conversation.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





gregorio said:


> You continue to misrepresent the facts, in fact you've got it completely backwards! It's the opinion of science and of *all* the evidence, not "the opinions of some". The whole point of science is that we don't have to try everything for ourselves through trial and error, scientists have done it for us, we can take certain things for granted and move on to other areas of more interest. I don't have an open mind when after decades of trying, there's still not a shred of evidence to back up the marketing claims of cable sellers and I don't need to throw myself off the edge of a cliff to prove to myself that Newton was right about gravity.
> 
> While you may believe that you are posting with a sincere desire to help others, what you are actually doing by arguing against the evidence is supporting the barely legal pseudo-scientific marketing hype which is designed to scam innocent audiophiles looking for high fidelity. The end result of you posts is IMHO, the opposite of providing help.* Now, if you've got some actual evidence that differences between cables can be heard, I'd love to hear it* (and I'm sure everyone else here would too) but until you do, you can't come here and call us all enslaved and close minded when you are the one enslaved in a medieval world where provably unreliable perception and opinion is worth more than provable scientific fact and evidence!
> 
> G


 



 I like what you have to say gregorio, except the bit about hearing differences in cables. I have evidence differences can be heard, tons of it. It is all the sighted testing of cables where people report hearing differences. I have heard differences. The real issue is what causes those differences and I am sure science tells it is is caused by the listener and their brain/ears being subject to placebo etc.
   
  I used to get annoyed at the audiophiles who claimed sound quality differences, now I am more annoyed at the cable companies and review magazines and internet sites which try and use pseudoscience to explain what is happening to make one cable sound better than another.
   
  Here is another reason why I am far more open minded than any cable believer. If evidence arises which shows how one cable can sound better than another, I will go with the evidence. I will then be in the same place as the cable believer, the big difference being I am there for the right reason, science. They got there for the wrong reason, pseudoscience.


----------



## gregorio

prog rock man said:


> I have evidence differences can be heard, tons of it. It is all the sighted testing of cables where people report hearing differences. I have heard differences.




Yes, you're right, I should have been more precise and said scientific evidence, DBTs.

G


----------



## BlackbeardBen

Quote: 





redcarmoose said:


> Basically, I am all done with the back and forth of wearing out my keyboard keys trying to run my findings across someone who believes they are a total expert and gets some kind of gratification by showing the world how totally smart they are. I have to say I'm the worlds best crack-pot science believer. So you could say I'm the perfect one for making my point in colored letters and I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. *Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement. *


 
   
  I don't know if it's reaching the level of cliche here, but this video definitely deserves another posting after yet another demonstration of the misunderstanding of open-mindedness.


----------



## Parall3l

Quote: 





blackbeardben said:


> I don't know if it's reaching the level of cliche here, but this video definitely deserves another posting after yet another demonstration of the misunderstanding of open-mindedness.


 


  WOW, just WOW. Amazing video


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





parall3l said:


> WOW, just WOW. Amazing video


 
   
  It is..I've seen, and posted, it a few times, and it never gets old.


----------



## Megaohmz

I believe the guy in the video because of the Brittish accent!
   
  Is a photon a particle or a wave? Is it both at the same time? Is it not a particle or a wave, but something else entirely. Or is a photon just a figment of our imaginations. Is it a holographic reality? If you said yes to any of these questions, then science will never be 100% correct.


----------



## gregorio

megaohmz said:


> I believe the guy in the video because of the Brittish accent!
> 
> Is a photon a particle or a wave? Is it both at the same time? Is it not a particle or a wave, but something else entirely. Or is a photon just a figment of our imaginations. Is it a holographic reality? If you said yes to any of these questions, then science will never be 100% correct.




Did you stop the video as soon as you heard the British accent or were you just incapable of understanding the accent?

There are certain things which science can explain with an extremely high level of certainty, there are other things for which science has only a balance of certainty (many scientific theories for example). Even a schoolchild should have this basic level of understanding of science. Science provides a wealth of evidence that differences between expensive "audiophile" cables and standard cables are inaudible. To dismiss all this evidence and indeed to attempt to dismiss the whole of science itself, in favour of a belief in your personal perception, is about as irrational as it's possible to be. Trying to convince others (through your posts) that your belief is more valid than all the scientific evidence, is as the video states: "Close-Minded, Controlling, Arrogant and Presumptuous in the extreme".

If you have some scientific evidence of audible differences between audiophile and standard cables, I and most others here would love to hear it and if necessary modify our beliefs but if you don't have any objective evidence, then you are exhibiting the very worst character flaws demonstrated in the video.

G


----------



## Prog Rock Man

megaohmz said:


> I believe the guy in the video because of the Brittish accent!
> 
> Is a photon a particle or a wave? Is it both at the same time? Is it not a particle or a wave, but something else entirely. Or is a photon just a figment of our imaginations. Is it a holographic reality? If you said yes to any of these questions, then science will never be 100% correct.




Again typical subjectivist arguments based on irrelevant issues and claims that science cannot be 100% certain (which is in itself is debatable) so the science as presented by the objectivist side cannot be belived. 

Sorry Gregorio, again to pick you up on a point, you say "Science provides a wealth of evidence that differences between expensive "audiophile" cables and standard cables are inaudible", but to many people they are not, to such a degree that understandably they react when objectivists say there is no difference.

The real issue is that the differences heard are not down to the cable, they are down to the listener. The evidence for that is

- the very consistent results and differences between sighted, blind comparison and ABX testing of cables

- the inconsistency between cable company claims about how cables are made and what they are made of and sound quality differences

- the properties of cables and the lack of a link with sound quality

- the explanation provided by placebo, buyer justificaton and psychoacoustics for the difference being in the listener and not in the cable


----------



## gregorio

prog rock man said:


> Sorry Gregorio, again to pick you up on a point, you say "Science provides a wealth of evidence that differences between expensive "audiophile" cables and standard cables are inaudible", but to many people they are not, to such a degree that understandably they react when objectivists say there is no difference.




I don't get your point? Those who suggested the earth was a sphere with scientific evidence to back it up were threatened with excommunication and death by the majority who had only subjective perception and biased belief as their evidence. Just because there was a lot of flat-earthers didn't make their perception or irrational belief any more true. There's still a Flat Earth Society to this day! There are all kinds of weird and wacky little groups of people with completely irrational beliefs. Have I misunderstood your point?

G


----------



## Willakan

@Gregario - semantics confusion here unless I'm much mistaken. Prog Rock Man generally says in most of his posts on this that people do hear differences between cables, but they are produced by the mechanisms of bias rather than the cable. He's saying that people hence react badly, seeing that the see the differences they heard as cable related with a mistaken certainty.
   
  @Megaohmz:
  Google Quantum Mysticism. What you're trying to say can be summed up (as it was in another thread) as "I don't know, therefore quantum physics."


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Yes, I have shifted how I express my position by removing the part of the debate that offends so many subjectivists by saying/suggesting they are wrong to hear a difference, there is something wrong with them that thye do hear a difference and there is no difference. 

By doing that I want to try and progress the debate, hence my signature "The debate should be WHY do some hear differences and others do not."


----------



## nicholars

Very interesting post... Personally I just buy decent cables (not lamp cord or bottom of barrel stuff but something like QED classic £3 per metre cable)....

I have thought I noticed subtle differences but I am entirely open to the fact that this could have been entirely psychological and I also think that the high end cable / power cord industry is very questionable lol.


----------



## JRG1990

Zip cord is the best for speaker cable just make sure you get the right gauge, the expensive cables make unproven claims like no skin effect or dieeletric losses but provide no measurements to prove this, also dieeletric losses from the cheapest pvc jacket are so small there completely inaudioable, also skin effect losses are in the 0.01db range at 20khz is also completely inaudioable.


----------



## Megaohmz

I was being sarcastic about the Brittish accent. I am English myself, among other European ancestry. My ancestors are Druid kings for God's sake. And yes I did listen to the whole thing. I don't dissagree with the video at all. Sheesh.


----------



## Uncle Erik

The reason people hear a "difference" is the same reason why Folger's Crystals were successfully slipped into high-end restaurants.

Anyone remember those commercials?

They'd switch an expensive coffee with Folger's and no one could tell the difference. Everyone assumed it was something expensive and loved it.

The same happens in wine tests.

It all turns on an expected result. Which is why quite a few here thought that Home Depot wire in a garden hose was something special.

There isn't a complicated issue here and no mysteries unknown to science. The psychology behind placebo/expectation has been understood (or at least noticed and studied) for decades. Further, audio has been well understood for 50 years while electricity has been scientifically understood for over 100.

Unless you're working with radio frequencies, power transmission lines or long distances, cables behave the same. No test has shown otherwise. Every cable listening test falls in line with what's known about placebo and expectation.

Cables are _completely_ understood.

Also understood is the common con-man, grifter, flim-flam artist, and snakeoil merchant. Those people have been around for centuries. It's commonly known that victims often defend con-men, even after they've been exposed. Some people refused to believe Ponzi was guilty, even after he went to prison. Nothing new here. Scam artists are everywhere in audio. Easy money and you can "appear" respectable to many.

It's much more romantic to think that magic is real, there are fantastic undiscovered realities and that there are noble people fighting the boundaries of science to make your music better.

The reality is that there is no magic, you're imagining things that aren't really there, and that a greedy con-man took advantage of your trust to cheat you out of a lot of money.


----------



## Megaohmz

One example of a difference in some RCAs I had was some Rockford Fosgate RCAs that I replaced in my truck with some Monster RCAs. The Fosgates were special cables in that they were braided so the wires overlapped over and over again. This created a sort of induction in the wire to attenuate automobile noise like from a distributor. But the high freqs were also attenuated a bit and this was not apparent until I switched the cables over. I think If anyone with decent ears did an A to B comparison, they will notice definite changes in the character of the sound, especially in longer lengths of RCA cable.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





megaohmz said:


> One example of a difference in some RCAs I had was some Rockford Fosgate RCAs that I replaced in my truck with some Monster RCAs. The Fosgates were special cables in that they were braided so the wires overlapped over and over again. This created a sort of induction in the wire to attenuate automobile noise like from a distributor. But the high freqs were also attenuated a bit and this was not apparent until I switched the cables over. I think If anyone with decent ears did an A to B comparison, they will notice definite changes in the character of the sound, especially in longer lengths of RCA cable.


 

 How about a blind ABX test?


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





willakan said:


> @Gregario - semantics confusion here unless I'm much mistaken. Prog Rock Man generally says in most of his posts on this that people do hear differences between cables, but they are produced by the mechanisms of bias rather than the cable. He's saying that people hence react badly, seeing that the see the differences they heard as cable related with a mistaken certainty.
> 
> @Megaohmz:
> Google Quantum Mysticism. What you're trying to say can be summed up (as it was in another thread) as "I don't know, therefore quantum physics."


 

 Actually what I was trying to say in a sort of cryptic manner, is that no matter what someone believes, there is always out there one who does not believe, but knows.
   
  It's funny because I believe in God not because of faith, but because I have experienced a sort of miracle that I will keep to myself. I actually think that faith is a really good way to get yourself into trouble, which is why I only study religions for political/historical knowledge. I think that organized religion is the elites way of trapping minds and controlling the populace. This has a negative effect on people who are atheists, and see through the manipulation. They will "never believe in a creator, or universal conscience" unless a bearded man comes down and tells them he is God and "proves it".  
   
  So in a way I disagree with the video, not because of logic, but because of my personal experiences. The video is logically arranged in a way so that it makes sense. It would be folly to believe in something that you don't "know", but it would also be equally ridiculous not to investigate something that everyone is on a bandwagon with. I like the video in a way because you can show it to people and make them look wrong, since it talks logical circles around and in on itself.
   
  One thing I, being a scientist believe, is that the more questions are answered by science, the more questions will exponentially follow. It is like peeling back reality, and realizing it is all just there to mess with you in a way. When they find the higgs boson will that suffice? Is the higgs boson made of yet even more infinitely small particles, with multiple infinite dimensions?


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





head injury said:


> How about a blind ABX test?


 

 I offer 100% money back if you are not satisfied with any of my posts.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





megaohmz said:


> I offer 100% money back if you are not satisfied with any of my posts.


 

 Too bad cables don't.


----------



## SpaceTimeMorph

uncle erik said:


> Cables are _completely_ understood.




Sorry to drag up an earlier quote of mine but I felt like I had to reiterate... cables are boring.



megaohmz said:


> One example of a difference in some RCAs I had was some Rockford Fosgate RCAs that I replaced in my truck with some Monster RCAs. The Fosgates were special cables in that they were braided so the wires overlapped over and over again. This created a sort of induction in the wire to attenuate automobile noise like from a distributor. But the high freqs were also attenuated a bit and this was not apparent until I switched the cables over. I think If anyone with decent ears did an A to B comparison, they will notice definite changes in the character of the sound, especially in longer lengths of RCA cable.




Nope. I hate to say this, but this is the same form as the anecdote referenced in the earlier video. You are relating an experience without giving enough details for someone to follow along or (if in case it is warranted) to challenge you on this. What kinds of RPM's are you talking about (because this can be related to the frequency induced)? What kind of distributor (if indeed that is what was in your car) did you have? The braiding... I'm assuming you mean in the insulating/shielding portion of the cable?,.. Because if it is in the wire, it should receive no interference from any part of your engine that would cause an audible change (perceptive maybe, but not different at your pinna); and if it is, then it is/was junk cable or all you needed was some $5 ferrite cores and you would have been golden. Were these RCA's supplying any video in the car (because video operates at a much higher frequency, it is more important how the cables are terminated)? EMI has more energy at lower frequencies (from your distributor, not audio here)... how again are you justifying that high audio frequencies were attenuated? If you are saying because inductive reactance is directly proportional to frequency... that is irrelevant because no matter how far off the phase angle is, audio frequencies are too low to be reflected back to the source (and cause 'interference') in time for you to hear voltage variations from this. These are some questions I might be asking myself if I were in your situation there.

I didn't want to call you out, but you are mistaking "personal experience" from "valid scientific evidence." If science had any proof that your personal experience alone were valid, then I wouldn't be pointing this out, but instead the opposite is true and science has continually shown that personal, subjective, sighted experience wrt what is audible cannot be taken as scientifically valid.

For the last part, don't assume that everyone here listens to junk equipment because we can't afford good stuff. And please don't assume that we are trying to rationalize spending less money because we are unfortunate souls who just can't hear well. Every example that I'm aware where someone (from Michael Fremer on down) has attempted to blindly differentiate cables, has failed. Your argument is a last ditch, desperate, empty attempt to justify your position sir.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Uncle Erik

megaohmz said:


> Actually what I was trying to say in a sort of cryptic manner, is that no matter what someone believes, there is always out there one who does not believe, but knows.
> 
> It's funny because I believe in God not because of faith, but because I have experienced a sort of miracle that I will keep to myself. I actually think that faith is a really good way to get yourself into trouble, which is why I only study religions for political/historical knowledge. I think that organized religion is the elites way of trapping minds and controlling the populace. This has a negative effect on people who are atheists, and see through the manipulation. They will "never believe in a creator, or universal conscience" unless a bearded man comes down and tells them he is God and "proves it".
> 
> ...




It's easy to question science. It's something else to overturn a century of hard results, tests and real-world experience. This isn't some theoretical deal. It is hands-on, hardcore reality.

The - literally - billions of electronic tests conducted over 100 years lend credence to known electrical theories. Millions and millions of people have tested equipment with millions of devices. If something as fundamental as RLC had flaws, it probably would have shown up before 1910.

As for the psychological aspect, I could humiliate you with a coathanger and a blindfold.

I think that, on some level, you know you cannot pass a listening test.

Every believer goes into hiding when pressed to take a test. I've seen a lot of argument, but believers are always afraid to put their belief to the test. No one will listen with their eyes closed. No one will buy a $5 DMM (Harbor Freight has them, cheap) and see what's going on. As far as I can tell, every believer is terrified about confronting the truth.

Me? I bought some expensive cables. I actually still use some silly silver thing between my tonearm and phonostage. It came with the SME IV arm. It works. No magic, but it works, so I kept it. I had the others for a few years and listened daily. I also put them on my test gear - I have a nice DMM, LCR meter, oscilloscope, frequency counter, and a few other things. All measurements and tests were the same as other cables. They all sounded the same.

I didn't have firm beliefs before I went through the cables. But now I do, especially in light of all the reports and measurements I've seen. My opinion was formed on direct experience, tests and the reports of others who did the same.

If you have faith, put it to the test. See what happens. If you turn out to be wrong, why have faith? If you're afraid to test faith, then do you actually have faith in the first place?


----------



## kite7

Well said. You see, they're not going to submit themselves to a test when they believe that a DBT is a lose lose situation and come up with excuses. If I spent $2000 on cables and I found out they didn't make a difference I'd be happy because I could sell them. I can't be oblivious about the things I spend my money on


----------



## nicholars

Hmmm the thing is as you say unkle eric "cables are missunderstood they are definately a con" but how come cable companies still continue to advertise cables for £1000's and sell them without having legal action taken. Because if as you say (I am not disagree just making a point) it is 100% sure that they cannot affect audio quality in any way then surely the marketing companies are actually breaking the law by making outragous claims and chargind ridiculous amounts for cables?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

megaohmz said:


> One example of a difference in some RCAs I had was some Rockford Fosgate RCAs that I replaced in my truck with some Monster RCAs. The Fosgates were special cables in that they were braided so the wires overlapped over and over again. This created a sort of induction in the wire to attenuate automobile noise like from a distributor. But the high freqs were also attenuated a bit and this was not apparent until I switched the cables over. I think If anyone with decent ears did an A to B comparison, they will notice definite changes in the character of the sound, especially in longer lengths of RCA cable.




That post is like so many that helps to prove the objectivist case. Pseudoscience without any any testing is presented to explain why someone can hear a difference between two cables when they know what they are listening to.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

nicholars said:


> Hmmm the thing is as you say unkle eric "cables are missunderstood they are definately a con" but how come cable companies still continue to advertise cables for £1000's and sell them without having legal action taken. Because if as you say (I am not disagree just making a point) it is 100% sure that they cannot affect audio quality in any way then surely the marketing companies are actually breaking the law by making outragous claims and chargind ridiculous amounts for cables?




The answer to that is that not enough people have challenged the companies who know that so long as they are careful with their wording, they can avoid being challenged. One example of a successful challenge was against Kimber and Russ Andrews over bariding and RFI reduction. The Advertising Standards Agency made them stop making such claims in the UK because they could not provide a link between RFI reduction and improved sound quality.

I am presently working with anothet Head-fi forum member on a similar compaint to the Press Compaints Commission abut HDMI cables.


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





uncle erik said:


> It's easy to question science. It's something else to overturn a century of hard results, tests and real-world experience. This isn't some theoretical deal. It is hands-on, hardcore reality.
> The - literally - billions of electronic tests conducted over 100 years lend credence to known electrical theories. Millions and millions of people have tested equipment with millions of devices. If something as fundamental as RLC had flaws, it probably would have shown up before 1910.
> As for the psychological aspect, I could humiliate you with a coat hanger and a blindfold.
> I think that, on some level, you know you cannot pass a listening test.
> ...


 

 You just made my point. You've de-crypted what I was saying about faith. There is faith, and then there is knowing. A big difference. I have experimented with safety wire to run speakers, aluminum, aluminum foil and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the changes in sound character are pretty substantial. You can still hear everything, it just sounds different. Why? well this could be an explanation:
   
  Skin depth=
   






.   where
   ρ = resistivity of the conductor  ω = angular frequency of current = 2π × frequency  μ = absolute magnetic permeability of the conductor    
   
  But I think there may be more variables to the sonic changes that occur. Here is pretty much how iron fares in high freq (more than 60Hz):
   
  In a good conductor, skin depth varies as the inverse square root of the conductivity. This means that better conductors have a reduced skin depth. The overall resistance of the better conductor remains lower even with the reduced skin depth. However this means that there is less reduction in A.C. resistance when substituting a metal of higher conductivity, compared to the reduction of D.C. resistance, when its diameter is larger than the skin depth for that frequency.
  Skin depth also varies as the inverse square root of the permeability of the conductor. In the case of iron, its conductivity is about 1/7 that of copper. However being ferromagnetic its permeability is about 10,000 times greater. This reduces the skin depth for iron to about 1/38 that of copper, about 220 micrometers at 60 Hz. Iron wire is thus useless for A.C. power lines. The skin effect also reduces the effective thickness of laminations in power transformers, increasing their losses.
  Iron rods work well for direct-current (DC) welding but it is impossible to use them at frequencies much higher than 60 Hz. At a few kilohertz, the welding rod will glow red hot as current flows through the greatly increased A.C. resistance resulting from the skin effect, with relatively little power remaining for the arc itself. Only non-magnetic rods can be used for high-frequency welding.
   
   
  If it doesn't matter what type of wire we use on our stereo, then why not just sell coat hangers instead of copper? Coat hangers are mostly iron. I have allot of safety wire laying around and it would be great to put it in a teflon jacket and to use it for speaker wire, but I haven't convinced myself that it would be a better material to use than a good quality copper, or better yet silver, but silver is not worth the extra money since the differences can be attenuated with a good EQ, IMO.
   
  Some of the sounds I hear when using poor conductors for wire can be described as very thin and deleted highs, raspy boxy sounding mids. Those sounds are extremely apparent and ever present.
   
  But who will use iron or aluminum for wire when a good cheap copper wire can be had at any store. For me it is vastly more important to have a good quality connector that won't corrode, since I am in Hawaii. Here I have even seen plastic "rust". So for me a good "audiophile quality" RCA wire and some good pure copper with tinned terminations are important to me.
   
  If someone askes me if I did a blind test on all these wires, I will say I had my eyes wide open the whole time.


----------



## Megaohmz

Quote: 





spacetimemorph said:


> Sorry to drag up an earlier quote of mine but I felt like I had to reiterate... cables are boring.
> Nope. I hate to say this, but this is the same form as the anecdote referenced in the earlier video. You are relating an experience without giving enough details for someone to follow along or (if in case it is warranted) to challenge you on this. What kinds of RPM's are you talking about (because this can be related to the frequency induced)? What kind of distributor (if indeed that is what was in your car) did you have? The braiding... I'm assuming you mean in the insulating/shielding portion of the cable?,.. Because if it is in the wire, it should receive no interference from any part of your engine that would cause an audible change (perceptive maybe, but not different at your pinna); and if it is, then it is/was junk cable or all you needed was some $5 ferrite cores and you would have been golden. Were these RCA's supplying any video in the car (because video operates at a much higher frequency, it is more important how the cables are terminated)? EMI has more energy at lower frequencies (from your distributor, not audio here)... how again are you justifying that high audio frequencies were attenuated? If you are saying because inductive reactance is directly proportional to frequency... that is irrelevant because no matter how far off the phase angle is, audio frequencies are too low to be reflected back to the source (and cause 'interference') in time for you to hear voltage variations from this. These are some questions I might be asking myself if I were in your situation there.
> I didn't want to call you out, but you are mistaking "personal experience" from "valid scientific evidence." If science had any proof that your personal experience alone were valid, then I wouldn't be pointing this out, but instead the opposite is true and science has continually shown that personal, subjective, sighted experience wrt what is audible cannot be taken as scientifically valid.
> For the last part, don't assume that everyone here listens to junk equipment because we can't afford good stuff. And please don't assume that we are trying to rationalize spending less money because we are unfortunate souls who just can't hear well. Every example that I'm aware where someone (from Michael Fremer on down) has attempted to blindly differentiate cables, has failed. Your argument is a last ditch, desperate, empty attempt to justify your position sir.
> Hope this helps!


 

 Thanks for putting all those words in my mouth.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





megaohmz said:


> If someone askes me if I did a blind test on all these wires, I will say I had my eyes wide open the whole time.


 

 So why would you even take the time to write all of that?


----------



## Steve Eddy

megaohmz said:


> You just made my point. You've de-crypted what I was saying about faith. There is faith, and then there is knowing. A big difference. I have experimented with safety wire to run speakers, aluminum, aluminum foil and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the changes in sound character are pretty substantial. You can still hear everything, it just sounds different. Why? well this could be an explanation:
> 
> Skin depth=
> 
> ...




You left out proximity effect.

And FYI, we figured out how to ameliorate both skin and proximity effect without sacrificing DC resistance about a century ago. And it didn't involve coat hangers.

se


----------



## sailorman

Quote:


redcarmoose said:


> Basically, I am all done with the back and forth of wearing out my keyboard keys trying to run my findings across someone who believes they are a total expert and gets some kind of gratification by showing the world how totally smart they are. I have to say I'm the worlds best crack-pot science believer. So you could say I'm the perfect one for making my point in colored letters and I really do have a lot of unproven scientific beliefs, cables being one of them. The reason I post is to maybe help others to at least try some different stuff in their system and try new things. Some times things make a difference and sometimes they don't. Science cold and hard has given us many gifts and made a grand improvement in our lives, on this same note having an open mind is the only true way leading to experiment through trial and error. I would feel sad to learn that many folks only read the opinions of some and don't at the least try things with an open mind, as to only *believe what we are told to believe is the first step to true enslavement. *


 

  You mean like being told what to believe by jargon filled ad copy from marketing hucksters?  Or, believing things for which there is no evidence?  Lysenko anyone?  Bloodletting? Humors? Spontaneous generation? Eugenics? "Trickle-down" economic theory?  Voodoo? Homeopathy?
   
  Having an open mind encourages experimentation, but experimentation demands adherence to scientific principles and it demands that the experimenter defer to cold hard facts, whether he'd prefer otherwise or not.
   
  No thanks. I'll stick to cold, hard facts. There are only two ways to form a belief.  Being told what to believe by someone without evidence, and being told what to believe by someone with evidence. You're free to make up your own mind either way, but it occurs to me that the latter is a far more reliable path to the truth. And truth will set you free (or at least save you a lot of $$)


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





nicholars said:


> Hmmm the thing is as you say unkle eric "cables are missunderstood they are definately a con" but how come cable companies still continue to advertise cables for £1000's and sell them without having legal action taken. Because if as you say (I am not disagree just making a point) it is 100% sure that they cannot affect audio quality in any way then surely the marketing companies are actually breaking the law by making outragous claims and chargind ridiculous amounts for cables?


 


   Because, like all many other articles of faith and psueudo-scientific beliefs, they are pseudo-science precisely because they cannot be falsified. No test can be devised to prove that you are not hearing what you can be persuaded you are hearing.  It can be proven that there is no logical reason for you to hear what you say you hear, but it can't be proven that you don't hear it. If spending $1,000 on cables makes you hear better mids, no test that would stand up in a court of law can be devised to prove otherwise. Cable companies get away with this deception for the exact same reason that homeopaths, psychics, faith healers, crystal healers, dowsers and astrologists can ply their trades without being prosecuted for malpractice.


----------



## Willakan

Ah, accusing those who place their trust in science as being closed-minded. Oh, the delicious irony.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

But there is a logical, reasonable, sensible reason why some cables can sound different to some people, sometimes in some systems, it is in the mind. The very powerful and mysterious human brain, which for goodness knows what reason we often ignore. Which is odd as music is processed in the brain and it is such a subjective matter where people prefer different styles of music and EQ.
   
  We have significant evidence to show it all goes on in the mind. There is the consistent difference between sighted and blind and ABX testing. Then the subjectivity of sound quality and the lack of agreement as to what cable sounds better or even what they sound like. Then there are the people who have good hearing, listen to loads of music and have great systems, who cannot hear a difference.
   
  Finally, as we have ruled out any electrical property of cables as a cause of reported differences in sound quality, we should go by the principle of if you rule out a reason, any other reason, no matter how starnge it initially appears, should be properly investigated.


----------



## Sweden

I find the similarities with the believe in audiophile cables and believe in religion to be both uncanny and humorous.
  As a long time atheist I've studied many religions and people of faith, and the aspect of believing in things without sufficient evidence is what I find fascinating.
  "If Jesus works for me then why should you care" "If these cables work with my system why should you care"
  I feel I don't want to derail the thread here so I just stop exploring this further.


----------



## JRG1990

I don't hate cables, I wouldn't be able to connect up my gear without cables, what I hate is overpriced cables with stupid claims that go against basic science.


----------



## Mochan

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Exactly JadeEast! You don't find wire wrapped in insulation and rubber in nature, therefore a coat hanger must sound more natural
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I may be one of the few people who recabled my HD650 with cardas cable, and found that the resulting sound was not as good as the stock cable.  Cardas cable sounds thin and lacking in body. Soundstage is improved but the mids lose their magic and the overall impact is gone. I then went back to stock.


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





sweden said:


> I find the similarities with the believe in audiophile cables and believe in religion to be both uncanny and humorous.
> As a long time atheist I've studied many religions and people of faith, and the aspect of believing in things without sufficient evidence is what I find fascinating.
> "If Jesus works for me then why should you care" "If these cables work with my system why should you care"
> I feel I don't want to derail the thread here so I just stop exploring this further.


 


  The Pink Teapot in Orbit theorem comes to mind...


----------



## Willakan

Gotta love Bertrand Russell...


----------



## Blue Boat

I think this might've been said some pages back but...
   
  I think the big question here is whether you can tell apart two cables made of different materials regardless of price, in a sighted listening test.
   
  If you can't tell the difference, good for you. If you can, then buy the better cable and DIY some for yourself. Cables are not very expensive compared to the rest of your audio chain, unless you're going for the really rare stuff like Picolino, or you buy them premade. Yes, there is a lot of bias involved in a sighted listening test but like some say, ignorance is bliss. If you really enjoy the "sparkle" that silver cables add, why shatter that illusion? Also, I believe one of the reasons why some go for a recable is because we're all modders at heart. I haven't had the chance to do a side by side comparison of a silver/gold/crystal/platinum vs stock cable though, so I don't really have a strong opinion on cables.
   
  I think what someone said earlier about headphone companies having more expertise in designing and tweaking headphones is correct for the most part. The Fostex T50RP and Grado Magnum are two good examples that show what DIYers are capable of but I think people should have more faith in the people who design the transducers and cups, which make up 99% of the headphone's sound signature (been seeing a lot of "throw away the stock cables they are crap" comments lately).


----------



## Uncle Erik

Blue Boat, if you hear the difference then why do you need to see the cable?

Sight introduces an expectation bias. You hear what you expect to hear.

There was an interesting study done with wine. People were given two samples of wine and told that one was cheap and the other expensive.

As you might guess, both samples were the exact same thing. The twist was that the subjects had their brains scanned while they sampled each. Though thy were drinking the same thing, they had different brain reactions depending on whether they thought they were drinking something cheap or expensive. In oher words, their physical perception changed because of what they expected to taste.

The same thing is going on here. People hear what they expect to hear from a cable.

If you thought that a coathanger was actually pure silver, then a coathanger would sound the same to you as a silver cable. This is why people thought that plain Home Depot wire was something special when it was put into a garden hose. Belief makes the difference. But if you take away the expectation, no one has any idea what they're listening to. Test gear shows no difference, either.


----------



## Blue Boat

I get where you're coming from Uncle Erik.
  I've read a number of articles on sighted listening bias, including one very similar to the wine study, but a sighted test is kind of the
  whole point.
   
  If you truly believe that a $100 recable completes you (and your audio rig), then why would you shatter the illusion by subjecting
  yourself to a blind test? I think the same can be said about drawing green lines on your CD, vinyl vs CD, Flac vs Mp3 and other various
  audiophile myths. _Sometimes_ ignorance can save you a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on upgrading and buying new
  equipment to achieve that elusive audio "nirvana". Other times... 
   





   
  If after repeated sighted listening test, you are still very positive that the "upgraded" cable was the better one, then I think your next move
  should be very clear. DIY some silver cables and stop spending money on audio for a very long time. 
   
  Edit: I know this is the Science forum but I just had to get it off my chest.


----------



## Willakan

Whilst it is tempting to just say "If it makes a difference for you, good," such an attitude has allowed a pervasive aura of B.S. to surround high-end audio, which makes it appear utterly insane to "outsiders" and severely hinders the efforts of someone such as myself who is trying to get the best sound for the least money. My first thread on Head-Fi was one of utter conclusion, trying to work out how the DACMagic could be both warm and bright, whilst simultaneously being better and worse than a competing product.


----------



## glowtape

Yo!
   
  I stumbled into this thread after googling for my company out of boredom. I work at Eupen Cables.
   
  I'd just wanted to mention, in regards to some companies selling our stuff as miracle cables for huge markups, you wouldn't believe how much kludging is involved in the production of our products. And frankly, it's not just here (actually, if we're to believe a huge reseller, who audits us regularly, we're pretty good), but more or less the same in ever other cable plant.
   
  So if someone like JPS or Monster is making up stories about the copper and insulation of cables, you can slap them hard.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Hi glowtape. Glad you found us 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Does Eupen sell cable to 'audiophile companies' who then dress it up and sell it on for big mark ups with psuedoscietific marketing? Or do you have any evidence of a link bteween how a cable is made and better sound quality?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Hi glowtape. Glad you found us
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


   
   
  The Eupen AC Power Cables have built in line filters at both ends.
  They are not just a cable with a magic conductor and magic insulator.
  They are actually power conditioners.
  Audio component power supplies (actually any linear or switchmode power supply) generate a fair amount of switching noise which is conducted down the power lines to the other components in your system.
  I know this is true having worked beside switchmode power supply designers for many years.
  I will leave the Eupen guy to tell us if this is audible, but linear power spplies generate a lot of 50 or 60 Hz harmonics. The rectifier diodes also generate noise as they turn on and off.
  Power supply capacitors and linear power supply chips usually have poor noise rejection at high frequencies.
   
  It's unfortunate that  JPS can't just stick to the facts and try and educate audiophiles  instead of passing along the standard marketing BS.


----------



## glowtape

I'm more on the manufacturing side of the cables themselves. I'm not that fluent in electronics. Nor do I know details about customers, but from what's been told, there's been product sourced by at least one premium cable company.
   
  My main gripes with audiophiles and their cables is all the marketing ******** they're sucked in with. If it were up to Monster cable, you'd believe their products are assembled atom by atom at nano-level. Alone the process of drawing large gauge raw copper wire (half an inch thick) down to the thin strand copper braids you'll find in your usual speaker and power cables is pretty interesting. All the stretching and bending forces applied (because drawing copper is all about pulling and bending things to make them thinner and longer) to get to the end result doesn't leave any place for the advertised tight tolerances or copper purity "high end" cable sellers are advertising for. Nor would a manufacturing company do any special alloys or coating for whatever reason. While theoretically doable, all the manufacturing changes to make and test custom processes work are too expensive to be worth done, especially since we're talking about tiny runs of a few thousand meters per year only (Monster cables don't sell like hot cakes). "Silver-coated" wires are my favorite, it's most of the times just tin being sold as something else. And insulations are usually cheap PVC or PE (stiffer ones) or cheap rubber (really flexible ones), and they don't have any signal affecting properties apart from preventing a short circuit (you know, insulating...)
   
  Premium cable companies order bog standard products and gift-wrap it. Manufacturing isn't going to get bent out of shape for special wishes, if we're talking about a few thousand meters only. And if, it'll be really expensive. Cutting the profit line expensive.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

So claims of the likes of very high purity copper are possible dubious?


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





glowtape said:


> I'm more on the manufacturing side of the cables themselves. I'm not that fluent in electronics. Nor do I know details about customers, but from what's been told, there's been product sourced by at least one premium cable company.
> 
> My main gripes with audiophiles and their cables is all the marketing ******** they're sucked in with. If it were up to Monster cable, you'd believe their products are assembled atom by atom at nano-level. Alone the process of drawing large gauge raw copper wire (half an inch thick) down to the thin strand copper braids you'll find in your usual speaker and power cables is pretty interesting. All the stretching and bending forces applied (because drawing copper is all about pulling and bending things to make them thinner and longer) to get to the end result doesn't leave any place for the advertised tight tolerances or copper purity "high end" cable sellers are advertising for. Nor would a manufacturing company do any special alloys or coating for whatever reason. While theoretically doable, all the manufacturing changes to make and test custom processes work are too expensive to be worth done, especially since we're talking about tiny runs of a few thousand meters per year only (Monster cables don't sell like hot cakes). "Silver-coated" wires are my favorite, it's most of the times just tin being sold as something else. And insulations are usually cheap PVC or PE (stiffer ones) or cheap rubber (really flexible ones), and they don't have any signal affecting properties apart from preventing a short circuit (you know, insulating...)
> 
> Premium cable companies order bog standard products and gift-wrap it. Manufacturing isn't going to get bent out of shape for special wishes, if we're talking about a few thousand meters only. And if, it'll be really expensive. Cutting the profit line expensive.


 


 Mr G.
  Perhaps this explains why some audiophile cable companies charge so much?
  Because the OEM charges so much for a small run of a few thousand feet?
  Some of the cables I have seen cut open (for example Cardas) appear to be made specifically for Cardas.
  Whether the special winding, conductors and insulators actually do anything different to the sound is another question entirely.


----------



## glowtape

Purifying copper is done by electrolysis. It's an one-step process. The copper ions travel through the electrolytic solution (copper sulfate) from the impure anode to the cathode. The impurities fall to the bottom of the purifying pool. Electrolysis gets you the purest copper, and all copper used in electric applications has been purified that way. There might be really negligible variances in zinc build up, depending how much the electrolytic solution is filtered. However, there's no "higher purity" copper than what's generally used in cable manufacturing. For electric applications, there's essentially a single quality level with a certain purity tolerance. Repeated purification is a futile no-gains exercise, and not really profitable either, because electrolysis involves immense amounts of energy.
   
  There is a potential step in the process that might reintroduce some minor impurities. To produce the raw wire, that's delivered to cable plants, the cathodes have to be melted and then extruded into the thick wire. But there's practically nothing you can do at this point.
   
  FYI, this is second hand information, since we don't purify copper.
   
  All the drawing of raw copper to thinner gauges may reintroduce additional impurities onto the wire surface. The oils in the drum pools of the drawing machines start collecting impurities (foreign materials, iron from machine wear, etc), that may layer on the drums that create the stretching forces and might press these particulate impurities into the surfaces. To prevent that, you'd have to very frequency filter and cycle the oils, as well scrub and replace the drums. But were talking about ridiculously minuscule amounts of impurities, so that makes it essentially a theoretical exercise.
   
  As far as measuring the existence of impurities goes, this is really only possible measuring resistances and comparing it to reference levels. You'd however need to have really high build ups of crap, to measure something beyond the expected error.


----------



## glowtape

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Some of the cables I have seen cut open (for example Cardas) appear to be made specifically for Cardas.


 


 As I said, it's possible to do custom constructions. As OEM, we'd mix and match various existing manufacturing steps to get close to the specification a client may want. A client can't however expect an OEM to introduce client specific new/additional steps. That's nowhere near profitable.
   
  Take that JPS cable. If I got it correctly, they took one of our power cables, put braided shielding (Techflex?) and another cheap insulation around it. There's no reason why we couldn't have done it ourselves, because we have machinery that can endlessly spin braided shielding around a cable, which results in an intermediary product, over which we could extrude another insulation (which would be higher quality than some heat shrink). A client would however have to bleed out of their nose for such non-standard steps, it'd probably be cheaper to have some cheap labor to do the finishing on an existing product as needed.
   
  As far as "special winding" goes, IIRC audiophile cables advertise with tighter windings, right? If so, that's a single parameter on the stranding machine.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> So claims of the likes of very high purity copper are possible dubious?


 

 Not necessarily. Some years ago I spoke with a rep at Phelps Dodge (now Freeport McMoRan) about their regular ol' OFHC copper wire (CDA101). It was certified at 99.9999% pure. And at the time sold for around $3 a pound. Nothing special about it at all. They were achieving that level of purity just as a matter of course.
   
  What disturbs me is that some of the OCC propaganda out there includes a comparison of purity between OCC and OFHC. The OCC purity is given as 99.997% and OFHC as 99.99%. Well, the 99.99% figure is just the minimum purity required just to meet the CDA101 spec, NOT what the purity levels are of what's actually being produced.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Glowtape, you wouldn't happen to be the Herr Heinrich I spoke to back in 2004 would you?
   
  http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/32/325908.html
   
  se


----------



## Prog Rock Man

If I ever win the lottery, I will buy a whole load of high end cables and pull them apart to see what is really inside.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> If I ever win the lottery, I will buy a whole load of high end cables and pull them apart to see what is really inside.


 

 At least run some tests on them first!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I will sponsor a University to run such tests and do proper research.


----------



## RexAeterna

why is there always a cable thread about the same thing? we should have a sticky thread or something. anyways ''audiophile'' cables is usually marketing. it probably cost less then 20 bucks to make the cables they make and then they sell it for hundreds to thousands of dollars. just start doing cabling yourself.cheaper and not very hard whatsoever. i used silver and copper cable before ranging from different gauges and to be honest very little to no difference at all. only difference i can attest to is using thicker gauge speaker wire then 18 gauge can help but once you hit 16 gauge you notice zero changes going thicker unless you running speakers lower then 3ohms nominal and more then 50ft in length but that's very rare and i never see much people use speakers under 3ohms or nowhere near 50ft length either.

just let people believe in what they want. i mean something needs to make them feel warm inside. it's like little kid believing in santa clause. let them have something to look forward to and have some hope and let them be. they're not bothering you.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

My objections to audiophile cables are
   
  there are sold with psuedoscience akin to snake oil sales in the past
   
  people think that the cables inherantly make a difference, for which there is no evidence
   
  both of which are wrong IMO.


----------



## Uncle Erik

prog rock man said:


> I will sponsor a University to run such tests and do proper research.




Preferably in the psychology department. Engineering would make short work of the cables.

A psychology department's investigation would be a lot more interesting. I'm sure they could get rave reviews from a coathanger in a Cardas sleeve and horrible reviews of a Cardas cable labelled a coathangar. ABX isn't necessary. People "hear" what they expect to hear from a cable. Shuffling expectation and reality around would show that all reported "differences" come from what someone thinks is inside the cable.


----------



## Head Injury

A Psychology study could also expand the experiment to include any number of other unrelated stimuli. I guarantee there's a certain color wallpaper that is subjectively preferred for listening. A fresh coat of paint could be a more cost-effective tweak


----------



## mrspeakers

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> My objections to audiophile cables are
> 
> there are sold with psuedoscience akin to snake oil sales in the past
> 
> ...


 
   
  If you please, that should be "Oxygen Free Snake Oil."


----------



## Hughkk

does this make sense:
  pure copper cable conduct electricity better than deafult factory cable, therefore, it can be driven easier by ur amp, and therefore lower signal disortion.
  is that theoratically correct? and is it practical at all?


----------



## liamstrain

Sort of.
   
  Factory cables are usually pure copper as well. So *how much* better, a new cable actually conducts electricity, is usually a very very small amount if any. Changing the cable length by an inch or so, changes the overall cable impedance more than the material does.


----------



## Chris J

Most audiophile speaker cable is 10 AWG (10 gauge) copper.
  If you have a 10 foot run of speaker cable ( this is fairly typical) then the resistance of the speaker cable is approx. 0.02 ohms.
  If the power amplifier had zero output impedance ( this is impossible, I'm just trying to show how little influence cable resistance has in typical lengths) then the system would have a damping factor of 400.
   
  The purity of the copper would have very little effect on the resistance of the cablle, therefore very little effect on the performance of the system. In typical lengths I would argue that you can ignore speaker cable resistance.
   
  There is probably more resistance in the connections than in the actual cable.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Most audiophile speaker cable is 10 AWG (10 gauge) copper.
> If you have a 10 foot run of speaker cable ( this is fairly typical) then the resistance of the speaker cable is approx. 0.02 ohms.
> If the power amplifier had zero output impedance ( this is impossible, I'm just trying to show how little influence cable resistance has in typical lengths) then the system would have a damping factor of 400.
> 
> ...


 

 That pretty much sums it all up right there.
   
  se


----------



## Duncical

Seems like DIY audio cables is a good way to experiment without spending a fortune, no?


----------



## liamstrain

Yes


----------



## Joe Skubinski




----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





joe skubinski said:


>


 


  omg


----------



## nikp

Quote: 





dabomb77766 said:


> omg


 






 What did I miss?


----------



## Head Injury

Thank you Joe Skubinski for the greatest post I have read on this forum. You've opened my eyes.


----------



## Stereodude

Quote: 





nikp said:


> What did I miss?


 

 Not much.  He went on the offensive against Steve Eddy over this post.


----------



## tmars78

Man, when a post is the great(I missed it), people need to do a screen capture...just saying.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





tmars78 said:


> Man, when a post is the great(I missed it), people need to do a screen capture...just saying.


 
   
  Let's just say that it was in Joe's best interest that he deleted it. It wouldn't have ended well.
   
  se


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Let's just say that it was in Joe's best interest that he deleted it. It wouldn't have ended well.
> 
> se


 

 GAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! Now I really wish I hadn't missed it.


----------



## sailorman

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Let's just say that it was in Joe's best interest that he deleted it. It wouldn't have ended well.
> 
> se


 


  Hmmm... I got it in an email. Not even knowing the particulars, other than what's been posted here, but having experience in private-label and custom manufacturing, it was a very lame defense that also hinged on at least one major logical fallacy. So I just arrived, loaded for bear.  Alas, the bear have left the room.
   
  Yes, it was indeed in Joe's best interest that he deleted it.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Was it along the lines of what happened to me and my Musical Fidleity X-CANV2? I opened the amp to have it modded and found it contained the previous X-CANS version electronics. I told Musial Fidleity and from that they found they had been ripped off by the company who was making the amps for them over in Tiawan.


----------



## Matt V

This is probably one of the most interesting things I've read. Relating sight to what people hear, could this be a case with a lot of the "inferior yet popular" headphones? I know this discussion is about cables but it makes sense when it comes to hardware too. I.E. people seeing Beats owners all the time, so they could easily think they're the best.

I have always believed that cables were one of the most marked up items you could ever buy, that's why I buy from Monoprice. They are cheap, gold plated (usually) and have different gauge offerings. Not to mention all of their cables are very high quality.


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





matt v said:


> This is probably one of the most interesting things I've read. Relating sight to what people hear, could this be a case with a lot of the "inferior yet popular" headphones? I know this discussion is about cables but it makes sense when it comes to hardware too. I.E. people seeing Beats owners all the time, so they could easily think they're the best.
> I have always believed that cables were one of the most marked up items you could ever buy, that's why I buy from Monoprice. They are cheap, gold plated (usually) and have different gauge offerings. Not to mention all of their cables are very high quality.


 


  ...you may be surprised by how much the Beats are marked up.


----------



## Head Injury

You may be surprised by how much every headphone is marked up!
   
  At least most headphone developers (even Monster) do some R&D. Not pointing any fingers at the ones who don't *cough*Grado*cough*.


----------



## nileppezdel77

Figured I'd contribute. So I don't know how I could do actual tests and calculate differences, but I've just spent the last 40 minutes of my life switching back and forth between my stock cable and the Moon Audio Silver Dragon V2 cables I have for my HD650. My girlfriend was into the idea, as a psychologist and researcher by trade, to help me do this blindly. I'm listening to FLAC files and using a Marantz PM5004 amp's headphone jack. I listened to Blind Boy's of Alabama's "Way Down in the Hole", Buena Vista Social Club's "Chan Chan" and Luciano Pavarotti's "I Pagliacci, Act I: Vesti la giubba." 
   
  So, yeah, there appears to be an actual audible difference, and not necessarily for the positive 100% of the time. The largest difference is the bass. The stock cable has more of it, and it actually detracts from the music, especially in the Blind Boy's song where the singer's voice is actually a bit muddied by it. The Moon cables improved on the sound by evening it out a bit. The "Chan Chan" song was the same. Now, Pagliacci, on the other hand, actually sounded noticeably better with the stock cable. Pavarotti's voice had more gravitas to it, is the best way I can describe the difference. I suppose if I had to describe the effect the cables have, it's cleaning the sound up. I suddenly wish I were better at being descriptive...
   
  I have no idea how this may help anyone's argument here, but I had some fun. I could hear differences and while they weren't _obvious _or _intense_, they were noticeable. ~$300 noticeable, though? Not really. Eh, at least now I know that if I'm listening to opera, I should switch cables for the full effect.


----------



## Steve Eddy

How did you go about level matching between the two cables? What's the resistance of the stock cable versus the Dragons?
   
  se


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





> Originally Po
> 
> Figured I'd contribute. So I don't know how I could do actual tests and calculate differences, but I've just spent the last 40 minutes of my life switching back and forth between my stock cable and the Moon Audio Silver Dragon V2 cables I have for my HD650. My girlfriend was into the idea, as a psychologist and researcher by trade, to help me do this blindly.


 
   
  Can you describe the protocol including how the cables were randomised, a single blind test is better than sighted but, and I have twin degrees in Psychology myself, there are all sorts of subtle cues that experimenters can give out unconsciously (see _Clever Hans_) and of course experimenters themselves are human and often have their own expectations.
   
  And as Steve says Level matching is crucial especially where we are dealing with a few mV, even a 0.2db volume difference can seem like a jump in quality. I have 4 CD players and no two have the same output level  and I can DBT the loudest and quietest 14/14 , but when I level match nope !


----------



## nileppezdel77

The level matching might have made a difference, I did nothing to either cable, both straight out of the box. To randomize, since we had only two cables and no real commitment to a serious scientific endeavor here she just flipped a coin. It wasn't double blind, she knew which cables were which and it's entirely possible that I knew as well since the dragon cables are slightly heavier but this was as little bias as I could muster.
   
  I can do level matching and try again at some point if we'd like a more scientific endeavor. I just saw the argument on here, knew I had two cables and an extra set of hands and just threw together a relatively rudimentary experiment. 
   
  The awg of the moon audios is 24, is silver and 5 ft. long. The stock cables are copper and 10ft long but I'm not sure how to find the gauge of the stock cable without ripping it open, and I just don't want to do that. I'm no math whiz, so I'll let the people with more knowledge of this stuff work out the ohms.
   
  I'm open to suggestions about how to make this a better test, so next time I try this, I'll have to level match the cables (I honestly never thought that would be a factor) and I'll try to figure out a way to avoid the possible weight bias.


----------



## Saintly

Quote: 





nileppezdel77 said:


> The level matching might have made a difference, I did nothing to either cable, both straight out of the box. To randomize, since we had only two cables and no real commitment to a serious scientific endeavor here she just flipped a coin. It wasn't double blind, she knew which cables were which and it's entirely possible that I knew as well since the dragon cables are slightly heavier but this was as little bias as I could muster.
> 
> I can do level matching and try again at some point if we'd like a more scientific endeavor. I just saw the argument on here, knew I had two cables and an extra set of hands and just threw together a relatively rudimentary experiment.
> 
> ...


 

 Isn't copper known to have a warmer sound than silver?  Maybe that explains the difference you bass that you heard.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





saintly said:


> Isn't copper known to have a warmer sound than silver?  Maybe that explains the difference you bass that you heard.


 

 There is no science to back that claim up. But the rumour that copper sounds warmer and silver sounds brighter is enough to influence people into hearing differences. That is the mind at work, not the cable.


----------



## Saintly

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There is no science to back that claim up. But the rumour that copper sounds warmer and silver sounds brighter is enough to influence people into hearing differences. That is the mind at work, not the cable.


 


  I see. Unfortunately, that notion is pretty deeply etched into the minds of the cable crowds. I personally do enjoy saving money, although some of the custom cables are so pretty.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





saintly said:


> Isn't copper known to have a warmer sound than silver?  Maybe that explains the difference you bass that you heard.


 


 I've measured the FR differences between copper and silver analog cables, neither type had any notable deviation from utterly pancake flat...


----------



## nileppezdel77

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There is no science to back that claim up. But the rumour that copper sounds warmer and silver sounds brighter is enough to influence people into hearing differences. That is the mind at work, not the cable.


 


  Right, and this is the problem. I don't like being suckered into paying top dollar for cables if they don't do anything... At least they are thicker than the stock cable; my cat likes chewing on things she shouldn't.


----------



## tim3320070

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There is no science to back that claim up. But the rumour that copper sounds warmer and silver sounds brighter is enough to influence people into hearing differences. That is the mind at work, not the cable.


 

 Silver is "bright" colored, copper is "warm" colored- there's the influence on the perception of sound IMO.


----------



## Deadeight

I would quite like to participate in a blind ABX test myself. Personally I'm siding with scientific findings on this one, but I'd also like to test some other things, like amps. 
   
   
   
  Also, arguably, maybe it's worth paying extra money for the placebo affect, it's not free


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





deadeight said:


> I would quite like to participate in a blind ABX test myself. Personally I siding with scientific findings on this one, but I'd also like to test some other things, like amps.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, arguably, maybe it's worth paying extra money for the placebo affect, it's not free


 

 Yes, I like to have nice kit that makes me feel good and I can boast about to other audiophiles, or puzzle non-audiophiles. That is why I have no issue with people who buy outrageously expensive kit. The issue is with the unscientific claims that often follow,


----------



## DaBomb77766

Quote: 





tim3320070 said:


> Silver is "bright" colored, copper is "warm" colored- there's the influence on the perception of sound IMO.


 


  Hm - has anyone ever commented on a copper cable, calling it "brighter" than a silver cable they're comparing it to, or vice-versa?


----------



## Br777

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> I've measured the FR differences between copper and silver analog cables, neither type had any notable deviation from utterly pancake flat...


 


   
  amazingly, truly amazingly, this evidence is not enough for most people.    What do they really think they are hearing that is so "unmeasurable" which is always the bottom line claim.
   
  please someone tell me what you are hearing, especially when you say the bass has increased, or treble has calmed down, - what magic sound are you hearing that you are clearly claiming is frequency response change, but somehow isnt a measurable one. 
   
*no need to respond, here is your answer*


----------



## Head Injury

I'm really not sure the McGurk effect is all that relevant to cables. It's not so much seeing the cable as it is knowing what the cable is. It does demonstrate nicely how easily our senses are fooled, but it's not what causes cables to sound different.


----------



## Br777

Quote: 





head injury said:


> I'm really not sure the McGurk effect is all that relevant to cables. It's not so much seeing the cable as it is knowing what the cable is. It does demonstrate nicely how easily our senses are fooled, but it's not what causes cables to sound different.


 


   
  more about demonstrating how easily we are fooled for sure.
   
  Though there is so very much evidence of the strength of bias, you need not look far to find insurmountable evidence that comparison without measurements and double blind tests is just rediculous.


----------



## sfoclt

Quote: 





spacetimemorph said:


> ...but you are mistaking "personal experience" from "valid scientific evidence."


 


  To be exact, personal experience _is_ valid scientific evidence.  It's just not _sufficient_ scientific evidence.


----------



## TheAttorney

Quote: 





sfoclt said:


> To be exact, personal experience _is_ valid scientific evidence.  It's just not _sufficient_ scientific evidence.


 
  Nicely put!
   
  One could also say that measurements and DBT are valid scientific evidence. Just not _sufficient_ scientific evidence.
  When all the different evidences (?) are all in full alignment, then we have the answer that nobody can dispute. Other than another head-fier of course.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





theattorney said:


> Nicely put!
> 
> One could also say that measurements and DBT are valid scientific evidence. Just not _sufficient_ scientific evidence.
> *When all the different evidences (?) are all in full alignment, then we have the answer that nobody can dispute*. Other than another head-fier of course.


 


  I think we are at that position now. We have numerous blind comparison, ABX and sighted tests with the same results, we have years of study by cable companies and amatures who ahve found no connection between how a cable is made, what it is made from and how it sounds and we have numerous experiemnts that show how the senses are interlinked and can be fooled.


----------



## Willakan

The funny thing is, if no DBTs had even been conducted I still wouldn't believe in cables. As I see it:
   
  1. Existing science suggests cables do not do magical things to the sound. This is incontestable.
   
  2. Audiophiles suggest they do, but fail to satisfy the burden of proof (reproducing these differences under controlled conditions). This is also rather hard to refute: Mr. Robert Harley of Stereophile presented a paper at the AES, declaring that there were audible differences in prettymuch everything, but they disappear under any types of controlled testing. If that's not an unfalsifiable claim with no supporting evidence (anecdotal listening reports are explained quite adequately with reference to psychology), I don't know what is.
   
  With those two things being established, you can then logically go to step 3, exercising the mechanism by which we reject unfalsifiable claims with no supporting evidence as silly.
   
  3. I hence do not give audiophile beliefs in cables any credibility.
   
  DBTs are just trying to put things in the audiophile's court - (OK, so you think ears are better than everything. Fine, have a listen and distinguish these two things). The fact that cable believers reject this and then make out that the entire scientific argument rests on the DBTs done for their benefit says everything you need to know: you throw them a bone, but they stamp on it then try to stab you with the broken bits...


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





willakan said:


> This is also rather hard to refute: Mr Harley of Stereophile presented a paper at the AES, declaring that there were audible differences in prettymuch everything, but they disappear under any types of controlled testing.


 

 I just love this so much, every time I read about it. I need to patent the phrase "Schrodinger's Cable". Obviously within a cable exists two potential signal states at once, the changed and unchanged signal. When an audiophile (and only a true audiophile, perhaps with some unicorn blood in his or her family) listens to the cable sighted, the potential collapses into the changed signal. When a non-audiophile listens, or when anyone listens blind, the potential collapses into the unchanged signal. See? Quantum mechanics explains everything!


----------



## sfoclt

The DBT is essentially the "experimental physics" for the underlying theory.  It's not necessary in the proof, but it helps in the demonstration.


----------



## Willakan

The Audio Critic actually kept a running commentary on Robert Harley's outrageous distortions of established science throughout the 90s, even going so far to speak of the dreadful "Harleyfication of digital theory."
   
  If it were not for him, we wouldn't have people gibbering on about picoseconds of jitter and spending extortionate sums on reducing it, despite no real evidence you can actually hear it in even pretty large quantities+ideal conditions. Hell, if you're feeling paranoid (which I am) you don't really have to spend much to reduce jitter to silly-small amounts - my DACMagic makes a pretty damn good job of it, but is excluded from the ranks of the high-end by a relatively insignificant price tag, the audiophile aversion to anything that might possibly be a switching wallwart (even when it isn't anything of the sort) and the absence of some "fully discrete" output stage or similar marketing woo to justify an inflated price tag.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





willakan said:


> The funny thing is, if no DBTs had even been conducted I still wouldn't believe in cables. As I see it:
> 
> _snip..._


 

 Me too.  Even without the negative DBTs there's still no good reason to believe it.
   
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> I just love this so much, every time I read about it. I need to patent the phrase "Schrodinger's Cable". Obviously within a cable exists two potential signal states at once, the changed and unchanged signal. When an audiophile (and only a true audiophile, perhaps with some unicorn blood in his or her family) listens to the cable sighted, the potential collapses into the changed signal. When a non-audiophile listens, or when anyone listens blind, the potential collapses into the unchanged signal. See? Quantum mechanics explains everything!


 

 Its like the opposite of the uncertainty principle.
   
  Harley's certainty principle states that magic cables only effect the sound when the listener knows what they're listening to.  There is clearly some sort of quantum entanglement between the cable and the listener.  The next step is to figure out how this entanglement is created at the factory and why it always matched the person who essentially buys a cable at random from the available stock.  Imagine the predictive capability needed to orchestrate such a phenomenon!
   
  Now on a serious note...
   
  The above might just sound like some sort of elaborate joke but it actually serves an important purpose.  Skeptics are often accused of "lacking imagination" or refusing to "think outside the box" by advocates of woo for rejecting unsupported beliefs when in fact the opposite is often true.  People who believe in psychics, magic cables, and other types of woo rarely consider the full ramifications of their beliefs.  How would the world be different if the world actually operated according to the mechanisms they propose or if the things they claim had actually happened.  If there are psychics who can read minds then why has there never been a case of stolen financial information via telepathy.  If there are real psychokinetics then why don't they rob buildings by unlocking doors with their minds or clean up in Vegas playing dice games?
   
  Cables are the same.  If they do make a difference then how does it make a difference?  Our current knowledge places some rather large constrains on the possibilities.  The differences don't show up on our most sensitive test equipment, they only occur in this specific application and have never been measured or detected anywhere else, they disappear when we properly control for other variables, and its manifestation also mimics well known psychological biases and cognitive failures.  Given those circumstances why would you ever believe it it to be true until presented with some sort of new and very substantial evidence.  Because of that, pretty much any argument in favor of the woo is either unfalsifiable and therefore pointless to consider or susceptible to amusing reductio ad absurdum.
   
  Its not just a joke and I'm not making fun of anyone.  I'm using my imagination and thinking outside of the box.  How could a claim be true and what effect would it have on the world if it was?  How would a world where the claim was true differ from a world where it wasn't and which world does ours most closely resemble?  If its implications would cause other secondary things which we do not observe then the claim probably isn't true.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





willakan said:


> The Audio Critic actually kept a running commentary on Robert Harley's outrageous distortions of established science throughout the 90s, even going so far to speak of the dreadful "Harleyfication of digital theory."


 

 Is any of that online or summarize in one place?  Sounds funny to me.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Is any of that online or summarize in one place?  Sounds funny to me.


 


http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/
   
  You have to wade through the issues but it is well worth the effort- look out for the SHEESH fund segments - priceless !


----------



## Willakan

The relevant section for the scientific howler-watch is "Hip Boots: Wading Through the Mire of Misinformation in the Audio Press." It is very aptly named.


----------



## maverickronin

Thanks.  I'll take a look at that when I get a chance.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





willakan said:


> The funny thing is, if no DBTs had even been conducted I still wouldn't believe in cables. As I see it:
> 
> 1. Existing science suggests cables do not do magical things to the sound. This is incontestable.
> 
> ...


 

 1.  Suggestions are certainly uncontestable.  Existing science _*absolutely provides mechanisms *_whereby power cords and IC's do affect the system. To state otherwise is_ unscientific_..
   
  2.  Concurrence.
   
  3.  It would be foolish to adopt this stance.  You can easily be proven incorrect.
   
  Properly performed DBT's which control for all human response foibles are a good thing.
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





willakan said:


> snip....we wouldn't have people gibbering on about picoseconds of jitter and spending extortionate sums on reducing it, despite no real evidence you can actually hear it in even pretty large quantities+ideal conditions....snip


 
  If I recall correctly, signal jitter will push through the system as analog noise _*whenever the receiver reconstructs the timing clock via the jittery input transitions*_..  I do not recall specific level of effect details (it's not my bailiwick), nor the author (was thinking Hawksford, but am not sure).
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> If I recall correctly, signal jitter will push through the system as analog noise _*whenever the receiver reconstructs the timing clock via the jittery input transitions*_..  I do not recall specific level of effect details (it's not my bailiwick), nor the author (was thinking Hawksford, but am not sure).
> 
> Cheers, jn


 

 Then by extension if the signal is reclocked but noise remains well below audibility, there should be no problem right?


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





head injury said:


> Then by extension if the signal is reclocked but noise remains well below audibility, there should be no problem right?


 

 As I stated, it is not my bailiwick.  However, what you say does indeed seem reasonable.
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## Willakan

@jnjn:
   
  Not entirely sure to what extent you agree with me!
   
  I agree entirely that science does provide mechanisms whereby cables can affect the sound, just not the magic ones beloved of audiophiles, that are invariably dependent on some unknown aspect of the cable. As for my foolishly adopted stance, it is one that I feel that one must adopt by logical necessity when faced with unfalsifiable claims with no supporting evidence, lest I seriously entertain the possibility that I am followed by invisible, incorporeal gnomes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot. 
   
  Or is your criticism of pt.3 (and indeed 1) more a squabble over semantics? Technically, some audiophile ideas about cables make sense (sufficient gauge, that sort of thing), but I think you know to what I refer.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





willakan said:


> @jnjn:
> 
> Not entirely sure to what extent you agree with me!
> 
> ...


 


 We agree in that it is not magic.  We also agree that explaining any change as being caused by magic is useless.
   
  It is very important to seperate the claims made of the cables themselves, and what happens when they are used in situ.  I can make two different IC types which will measure identically on the bench to 7 or 8 digits precision, yet perform very differently in the final application.  If I did not know why, then I would be left with magic as the only plausible explanation.
   
  Tossing out an individual's assertion of a change in sound because they cannot present a reasonably coherent explanation is what I call foolish, or better yet, just unwise. It doesn't mean they are correct in their assertion, just that it is not wise to toss it because the person does not have any engineering understandings.   I extend that lack of expertise to the vendors as well..look at the shunyata test...well done, may indeed correlate to a change, but has an explanation with no meaning in reality.  I would not toss the possibility of a line cord effecting a difference just because I know their explanation is bogus.. They claim cord characteristic impedance is the thing, but they missed the boat.
   
  jn


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> 1.  Suggestions are certainly uncontestable.  Existing science _*absolutely provides mechanisms *_whereby power cords and IC's do affect the system. To state otherwise is_ unscientific_..
> 
> 2.  Concurrence.
> 
> ...


 


 On point 1:  Power cords and ICs.
  some food for thought:
  some power cords have built in noise filters, too bad the vendors obscure their claims in BS & gobbelygook.
  I find it very hard to beleive that a good noise filtering system or power conditioner is NOT audible in some hi fi systems (I believe it would depend on the power supply design of the audio equipment) as there is always a lot of noise conducted and radiated by power lines and most other operating electrical equipment.
  some IC and power cords are shielded, some are not, but is it audible?
  Cable geometry; twisted, coaxial, etc., but is it audible
  technically it is easy to prove that Teflon is a superior insulator to rubber, but is is audible?
  same argument goes for capacitors, theoretically Teflon is one of the very best dielectrics (insulators) for a capacitor, again, but is it audible?
*Theoretically* this should all make some difference.
   
  The cable vendors are their own worst enemies, instead of baffling us with marketing mumbo jumbo show us some scientific proof and engineering measurements, guys!


----------



## Deadeight

Quote: 





chris j said:


> [snip]
> 
> The cable vendors are their own worst enemies, instead of baffling us with marketing mumbo jumbo show us some scientific proof and engineering measurements, guys!


 


  By doing this and trying to argue on scientific terms, they've already lost. If they publish measurements, it would take only a few moments to see that these differences are inaudible. They _have_ to use marketing mumbo jumbo, it's all they have.
   
  In my opinion.


----------



## Chris J

I think Russ Andrews used to publish some graphs and measurements, short version of a long story: they got soundly shot down for doing this.
  Apparently they proved their AC power cable reduced powerline noise. They got shot down by some advertising board in the UK because they also stated that this would make your equipment sound better but couldn't prove the latter claim. How ironic.
  OTOH no wonder the cable companies baffle us with BS. When they don't they get sued!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I think Russ Andrews used to publish some graphs and measurements, short version of a long story: they got soundly shot down for doing this.
> Apparently they proved their AC power cable reduced powerline noise. They got shot down by some advertising board in the UK because they also stated that this would make your equipment sound better but couldn't prove the latter claim. How ironic.
> OTOH no wonder the cable companies baffle us with BS. When they don't they get sued!


 

 That's not ironic at all. They shouldn't have made claims they could not demonstrate. Then it's not an issue.  
   
  Frankly, I can think of more than one audio company that should have their ads and packaging shot down by an advertising board for making false (or unproven, or unprovable) claims.


----------



## TheAttorney

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> Its not just a joke and I'm not making fun of anyone.  I'm using my imagination and thinking outside of the box.


 
  I don't think you're thinking out of the box, even if you think you're thinking it.
  A long time ago, when I was a Sound Scientist, the understood engineering best practice was to use DD turntables because they had the best wow&flutter measurements, and low mass arms and low tracking cartridges. When I tried my first turntable-designed-by-listening (Rega Planar 3), I was completely floored by how much better this simple belt drive sounded. Further down the track, it became accepted science that it's not just the_ amount_ of wow and flutter, it's also the _type._ Plus many other considerations about vibration control and resonances.
   
  This is an example where a subjective observation flew in the face of accepted scientific wisdom at the time, but science did catch up in the end. It was always there, but scientists were just not looking in the right places. For cables, I don't know what the scientific explanations are. I'm genuinely curious, but I can live without it. But most likely, the eventual explanation will be more subtle than was for my turntable analogy. One thing I've never claimed is that it's due to magic or mysterious forces. Those are terms that the sceptics keep bringing up. Only the sceptics seem to get into a lather about Marketing BS. I never pay any attention to it - it's the end result that counts.
   
  Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Properly performed DBT's which control for all human response foibles are a good thing.


 
  Yes they are. However, the only human response foible that they can't control for is, by definition, the very act of being in a DBT. I'm talking about the A/B rapid switching types. Theoretically, you can have a DBT that lasts all year, but in practice that's not how they're run.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





theattorney said:


> Yes they are. However, the only human response foible that they can't control for is, by definition, the very act of being in a DBT. I'm talking about the A/B rapid switching types. Theoretically, you can have a DBT that lasts all year, but in practice that's not how they're run.


 


  So, you are saying that when people think they hear a difference when using a new cable. Then cannot tell the difference between them in a properly run DBT, that the more likely answer is that being in a DBT is the problem? Not any number of the demonstrable and well supported psycho-acoustical phenomena we know affect listening experiences?
   
  Sorry. If a perceived effect vanishes when objectively tested, the most likely answer is not that the test is flawed.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That's not ironic at all. They shouldn't have made claims they could not demonstrate. Then it's not an issue.


 
  I do not like you.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  If it were up to you, there would be no victoria secret advertisements...  That is not a world I choose to live in..
   
  jn


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> So, you are saying that when people think they hear a difference when using a new cable. Then cannot tell the difference between them in a properly run DBT, that the more likely answer is that being in a DBT is the problem? Not any number of the demonstrable and well supported psycho-acoustical phenomena we know affect listening experiences?
> 
> Sorry. If a perceived effect vanishes when objectively tested, the most likely answer is not that the test is flawed.


 
  In principle, I agree.
   
  In practice, humans perceive localization in strange yet wonderful ways which are not controlled for in dbt's.  On the surface, the test conditions seem rigorous, in practice they may not be appropriate for the task at hand.
   
  jn


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> I do not like you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Women's underthings are one place where I will whole-heartedly accept claims of magical properties and defying physics.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *TheAttorney* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Yes they are. However, the only human response foible that they can't control for is, by definition, the very act of being in a DBT. I'm talking about the A/B rapid switching types. Theoretically, you can have a DBT that lasts all year, but in practice that's not how they're run.


 

 I'm not sure where this claim is coming from. Most of the tests I've been aware of over the years allowed for rather leisurely listening times. Now, because our auditory memory tends to diminish as differences become more and more subtle, a good blind test demands that when the decision to switch from A to B or B to A is made, that that transition take place as rapidly and seamlessly as possible. But that's not the same thing as rapidly switching back and forth between A and B. Are you sure you're not confusing one type of "rapid switching" for the other? Because that's one of the most common misunderstandings about AB testing that I see out there.
   
  se


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That's not ironic at all. They shouldn't have made claims they could not demonstrate. Then it's not an issue.
> 
> Frankly, I can think of more than one audio company that should have their ads and packaging shot down by an advertising board for making false (or unproven, or unprovable) claims.


 


 My point was the company used to publish measurements that showed the cable reduced poweline noise, i.e they made a claim they could back up.
  Then they crossed some line by stating the cable makes your stereo sound better.
  They got their butt kicked, now they publish NO measurements.
   


  Quote: 





jnjn said:


> I do not like you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I agree.
  In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?
  For me there are two different wines: white and red. OK, I exaggerate. But I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays, never mind different vintages.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I agree.
> In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?
> For me there are two different wines: white and red. OK, I exaggerate. But I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays, never mind different vintages.


 

 That's akin to saying there are only open or closed headphones to choose between ... and we know and can measure differences between different models within them. Some people can tell the differences better than others, but they are measurable. Ditto wine. Thrown them in a spectrometer and you'll see the differences. This is not the case with two cables of equal resistance/inductance/capacitance but different materials.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





chris j said:


> My point was the company used to publish measurements that showed the cable reduced poweline noise, i.e they made a claim they could back up.
> Then they crossed some line by stating the cable makes your stereo sound better.
> They got their butt kicked, now they publish NO measurements.
> 
> ...


 
  Quite honestly, I wish that there was only red and white wine.  In the past, my wife and I were very cheap dates.  Unfortunately, we have in the last several years, started to tell the difference between the wines we've grown accustomed to, and some of the more expensive bottles to be had in the local grape growing area.  My wallet does indeed prefer the under 10 bucks bottles of chardonnay.  Unfortunately, we have found at least two sources of excellent (to us) chards in the 35 dollar range, and have been amazed at the gift bottles in the 150 dollar per range..
   
  While price is not the driver for us, we absolutely know the difference from the first taste..if anybody can fool us in a comparison between our 35'vers and one less than 10, I would purchase several cases instantly..no questions asked...  Oh, and I used to laugh at all that "hint of pepper", "aftertaste of peach" yada yada stuff the wine guys would say...but sunovagun, I'm learning that my first response to such wording was.....foolish on my part...
   
  jn


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Ditto wine. Thrown them in a spectrometer and you'll see the differences.


 
   
  Actually, blind testing is routine in the wine tasting business.
   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> This is not the case with two cables of equal resistance/inductance/capacitance but different materials.


 
  Actually, that is not quite accurate.
   
  If a cable goes from one end to another, and there are no other conductive paths, then we agree completely...
   
  If a power cord for example, has identical RLC, but one has been twisted while the other has not, the non twisted one will couple HEAVILY into a ground loop should one exist, while the twisted cord will NOT as a result of geometry..  I have the exploded capacitors to prove this. (and the dirty underwear).
   
  cheers, jn


----------



## Steve Eddy

As for the Russ Andrews issue, here are the ASA's reports for both instances (one in 2008 and another in 2011).
   
  http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx
   
  http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/1/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49597.aspx
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *jnjn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> If a power cord for example, has identical RLC, but one has been twisted while the other has not, the non twisted one will couple HEAVILY into a ground loop should one exist, while the twisted cord will NOT as a result of geometry..


 

 Eh? I don't see what twisting or not twisting has to do with ground loops.
   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> As for the Russ Andrews issue, here are the ASA's reports for both instances (one in 2008 and another in 2011).
> 
> http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/3/Russ-Andrews-Accessories-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44177.aspx
> 
> ...


 

 Wow.
   
  For some reason, the proof that the expert provided to support his assertions were not even mentioned.  No mention of tests, equipment, measurements...nuttin.
   
  I would have thought that it would have been.  Surely the "court" didn't just take his word, no?  I mean, it should have been easy to measure.
   
  Cheers, jn


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> Eh? I don't see what twisting or not twisting has to do with ground loops.
> 
> se


 

 A power cord creates an external dipole magnetic field.  A ground loop formed using that cord will see that dipole field.
   
  Twisting the power cord causes a net zero integral for that trapped flux, reducing the loop currents.
   
  jn


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Wow.
> 
> For some reason, the proof that the expert provided to support his assertions were not even mentioned.  No mention of tests, equipment, measurements...nuttin.
> 
> I would have thought that it would have been.  Surely the "court" didn't just take his word, no?  I mean, it should have been easy to measure.


 

 What the expert attested to was that Russ Andrews was not able to adequately substantiate their claims. That doesn't require any testing on the part of the expert, but rather depends on the evidence provided by Russ Andrews.
   
  In other words, the burden of proof wasn't on the expert to falsify Russ Andrews' claims, rather, the burden of proof was on Russ Andrews to substantiate their claims. What the expert concluded was that Russ Andrews fell short on that count.
   
  se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> A power cord creates an external dipole magnetic field.  A ground loop formed using that cord will see that dipole field.
> 
> Twisting the power cord causes a net zero integral for that trapped flux, reducing the loop currents.


 

 You're looking at the wrong loop if you're actually talking about a ground loop.
   
  se


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


> What the expert attested to was that Russ Andrews was not able to adequately substantiate their claims. That doesn't require any testing on the part of the expert, but rather depends on the evidence provided by Russ Andrews.
> 
> In other words, the burden of proof wasn't on the expert to falsify Russ Andrews' claims, rather, the burden of proof was on Russ Andrews to substantiate their claims. What the expert concluded was that Russ Andrews fell short on that count.
> 
> se


 

 Agreed.  However, the expert made claims regarding the susceptibility and sensitivity of equipment to common mode vs differential mode RFI, and he asserted that the cord was not capable of protecting the system against one specific variety..  All that without proof of any kind in support of his assertions.
   
  Reminds me of a co-worker who beat a radar speeding ticket by using his title of EE to explain to the judge that the radar calibration technique using a tuning fork was not well controlled because the tuning fork could not be held perfectly perpendicular to the microwave beam, therefore calibration could not be guaranteed to be accurate.
   
  The judge believed him as a result of his credentials.  Of course, neither my co-worker nor the judge understood that the calibration did not require the angle be correct, merely that a metallic object resonated at a very specific frequency within the beam, reflecting it back.  The device was not measuring doppler per se, but the beat frequency of the send mixed with the return.  Excessive angle would prevent lock of the gun.
   
  As such, the veracity of the expert's comments were not evaluated with respect to the actual conditions the product would be used in.  Instead, it was decided that an "expert" who stated that a bar was not cleared by the defendent.... by the expert's_* unsubstantiated *_say so..was sufficient to conclude against the defendent.
   
  Cheers, jn
   
  ps..hey, happy new year steve.
   
  pps.  Nope, I am looking at the correct loop.  You've not followed my EMC discussions, eh??


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> Actually, that is not quite accurate.
> 
> If a cable goes from one end to another, and there are no other conductive paths, then we agree completely...
> 
> If a power cord for example, has identical RLC, but one has been twisted while the other has not, the non twisted one will couple HEAVILY into a ground loop should one exist, while the twisted cord will NOT as a result of geometry..  I have the exploded capacitors to prove this. (and the dirty underwear).


 

 Ok. But dealing with IC's, speaker and headphone cables... this should be a non-issue. No?


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Ok. But dealing with IC's, speaker and headphone cables... this should be a non-issue. No?


 


 For ground loop issues, speaker and headphone cables do not really couple..IC's can do so quite easily.
   
  jn


----------



## liamstrain

Standard construction seems to avoid this though, yes?


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Standard construction seems to avoid this though, yes?


 

 No.
  Fully differential signal paths, along with a pin 1 system which is totally impervious to pin 1 currents.
   
  Unbalanced signal path interconnects do not do this.
   
  Personally, I do not worry.  No noise, no hum, no problem.  T'would be different if I really wanted to control soundstage image on a big stereo.
   
  jn


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





willakan said:


> The funny thing is, if no DBTs had even been conducted I still wouldn't believe in cables. As I see it:
> 
> 1. Existing science suggests cables do not do magical things to the sound. This is incontestable.
> 
> ...


 

 Robert Harley is correct in what he states, under blind testing differences which can be heard under sighted conditions either differ or disappear. The proof is here 
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  from the results of blind testing when compared to sighted testing.
   
  Where I think that he goes wrong is then claiming blind testing is flawed because of those results
   
  http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1
   
  He dismisses blind testing as it it does not fit in with his belief in the accuracy of sighted testing. But there is an alternative view which is that both types of test produce accurate results and that shows how sight affects sound quality.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote:  





> One thing I've never claimed is that it's due to magic or mysterious forces. Those are terms that the sceptics keep bringing up. Only the sceptics seem to get into a lather about Marketing BS. I never pay any attention to it - it's the end result that counts.


 

  Many people do make claims that are essentially magic but I wasn't directing that at anyone in this thread though.  I just joined in the thread without reading the whole thing and was only responding to the specific posts I quoted.
   
  Personally I don't get why someone who understands why its BS wouldn't at least _dislike _all the marketing BS and outright lies that permeate this market.  Personally, I get angry when I see people get scammed.  The end result is what many of us are after but doesn't the path to get there matter as well?  Unless you've got more money than free time doesn't it pay to do some research so you can try to get the most for your money?
   
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Robert Harley is correct in what he states, under blind testing differences which can be heard under sighted conditions either differ or disappear. The proof is here


 

 Maybe this is just a difference of semantics but do you mean differences that are simply _perceived _to exist or differences in the sound waves produced by the transducers actually demonstrated to be detectable by a human ear?
   
  I would argue the first kind of difference isn't something that was "heard" because it does not correlate with the sound waved detected by the ear.


----------



## TheAttorney

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *maverickronin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> .  I just joined in the thread without reading the whole thing and was only responding to the specific posts I quoted.
> *Ditto *
> 
> ...


----------



## Deadeight

Quote: 





steve eddy said:


>


 
   
   
http://www.q-audio.com/  Is this your site?
   
   
  I find it very surprising that you would be supporting arguments against cables making an audible difference when you sell them yourself (if you are indeed a member of the trade as it says below your name).


----------



## liamstrain

Not to speak for Steve, but there are a good number of usability and aesthetic reasons for nicer cables, beyond any possible audible component.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> That's akin to saying there are only open or closed headphones to choose between ... and we know and can measure differences between different models within them. Some people can tell the differences better than others, but they are measurable. Ditto wine. Thrown them in a spectrometer and you'll see the differences. This is not the case with two cables of equal resistance/inductance/capacitance but different materials.


 

 Actually what I said was I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays.....................sheeesh!
   
  A different insulator can change velocity of propagation and the capacitance.
  In addition, you can measure change in dielectric absorption dissipation factor.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> Actually what I said was I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays.....................sheeesh!
> 
> A different insulator can change velocity of propagation and the capacitance.
> In addition, you can measure change in dielectric absorption dissipation factor.


 


  Fine - though I think you'd be hard pressed to find significant differences between the most commonly used insulators and dielectrics. But now unlike esters and dissolved oils and other organic components which contribute to flavor in wine by their very nature - you need to show me first that those things can have an effect on sound. And second, that the differences between them are significant enough to be audible (or even appear in the audible measurements, never mind the ear's capabilities). Currently that's not much different than saying this wine comes with a screw cap, not a cork, regardless of any correlation to its taste (while I'm sure there would be something measurable - evaporation rate, or something, we could point to in measurements - which would have a massively minimal effect under normal use, or obviously, a bad cork).


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Fine - though I think you'd be hard pressed to find significant differences between the most commonly used insulators and dielectrics. But now unlike esters and dissolved oils and other organic components which contribute to flavor in wine by their very nature - you need to show me first that those things can have an effect on sound. And second, that the differences between them are significant enough to be audible (or even appear in the audible measurements, never mind the ear's capabilities).


 

 wine "experts" get fooled all the time by DBT wine tastings. Often the cheap wine wins.
  I think it is really pushing it to say one vintage is better than another, cos I can't tell the difference.
   
  BTW, I am merely stating that there are a lot of things you can do to a cable to change it's properties.  Maybe some mad genius will someday prove cables actually do sound different. Until then, I try to keep an open mind.
  Take a look at some of jnjn's posts.
   
  Psychology, now there's an exact science for you!
  We used to live down the street from a Psychologist. I'm fairly certain he thought his patients were an ATM. I also think he was a psychologist just so he could control other people's lives.   Man, am I off topic!


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





chris j said:


> wine "experts" get fooled all the time by DBT wine tastings. Often the cheap wine wins.
> I think it is really pushing it to say one vintage is better than another, cos I can't tell the difference.
> 
> BTW, I am merely stating that there are a lot of things you can do to a cable to change it's properties.  Maybe some mad genius will someday prove cables actually do sound different. Until then, I try to keep an open mind.
> Take a look at some of jnjn's posts.


 

 But the wines taste different... its just that sometimes the cheap one is better. Here we have not been able to show they "taste different," never mind which is better. 
   
  I can dig it. I'm just trying to stop people from making the claims "copper is warmer, silver is brighter, X connector is smoother, Y insulation is silkier" or whatever. None of that crap has ever been shown to be audible under any moderately objective test... Sure we can make bad cables that sound like crap, and we can deliberately design inductance loops and other nastiness...
   
  But it is becoming increasingly clear that any reasonably well built cable of sufficient capacitance/resistance for the load required... under normal use (no matter how high end your kit, or golden your ears), will be indistinguishable from another if you don't know what cable is in place or how much you paid for it.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> But the wines taste different... its just that sometimes the cheap one is better. Here we have not been able to show they "taste different," never mind which is better.
> 
> I can dig it. I'm just trying to stop people from making the claims "copper is warmer, silver is brighter, X connector is smoother, Y insulation is silkier" or whatever. None of that crap has ever been shown to be audible under any moderately objective test... Sure we can make bad cables that sound like crap, and we can deliberately design inductance loops and other nastiness...
> 
> But it is becoming increasingly clear that any reasonably well built cable of sufficient capacitance/resistance for the load required... under normal use (no matter how high end your kit, or golden your ears), will be indistinguishable from another if you don't know what cable is in place or how much you paid for it.


 
   
  I don't think different vintages taste different. Just my opinion. Maybe I'm just an ignorant slob!  LOL!
   
 I think if the cable controversy *ever* gets resolved (LOL!) we will find that it has nothing to do with LCR. Let's call this primary effects, for the sake of argument.
  In an interconnect, resistance is so low as to be irrelevant.
  Normally you want capacitance and inductance to be as low as possible.
  Same thing in headphone cables.
  In low fequency signals like audio you DO NOT match the impedance of the cable to the source or the load. Some folks seem to think you "match impedances" in audio analog circuits.
   
  If there really are differences in sound then it will probably come down to cable geometry, insulation material, shielding type/no shielding, etc. basically "secondary" effects.
   
  The Russ Andrews thing troubles me, the cable actually does something but Russ Andrews manages to shoot themselves in the foot by using improper test methods, inappropriate source and load termination and, What, not grounding the cable.
  As jnjn can attest to, EMC is a very arcane subject.
  Two very noted experts on this stuff, Howard Johnson & Martin Graham, actually titled their books: "High Speed Digital Design: A Handbook of Black Magic" and "High Speed Signal Propagation: Advanced Black Magic".
  BTW, they don't believe in audiophile cables. LOL!
  Howard Johnson once proposed building a speaker cable which looks a lot like Nordost's flat speaker cables.


----------



## nick_charles

.


----------



## jnjn

Quote: 





deadeight said:


> http://www.q-audio.com/  Is this your site?
> 
> 
> I find it very surprising that you would be supporting arguments against cables making an audible difference when you sell them yourself (if you are indeed a member of the trade as it says below your name).


 

 That is indeed steve's site.  And I've never seen him make any audibility claims typical of some vendors. 


  Quote: 





chris j said:


> Actually what I said was I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays.....................sheeesh!
> 
> A different insulator can change velocity of propagation and the capacitance.
> In addition, you can measure change in dielectric absorption dissipation factor.


 
  My response was to this statement of yours:
  
_*In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?*_
   
  A while back, I pretty much would have agreed with that.  My experience is no longer that.

 cheers, jn


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





jnjn said:


> That is indeed steve's site.  And I've never seen him make any audibility claims typical of some vendors.
> My response was to this statement of yours:
> 
> _*In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?*_
> ...


 

 Oh well.
  It is my fate in life to never be a wine connoisseur.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Enjot your wine in good health!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Sorry, no wine glasses available.


----------



## skeptic

liamstrain said:


> Not to speak for Steve, but there are a good number of usability and aesthetic reasons for nicer cables, beyond any possible audible component.




Yep - I look at it the same way. My wife's fancy purse doesn't actually hold her various personal effects any better than the cheapest walmart bag, but it looks really nice, feels good and is a lot more durable than many alternatives. There's certainly value to these qualities, as with any luxury item. 

Absent hard evidence of sonic benefits, I will continue to put after-market cables in the same category: desirable to audiophiles as a way of showing off to their friends, belonging to a community of sorts and making their gear look more sophisticated. 

Nothing wrong with any of this, I just prefer to spend my money elsewhere. 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> .......
> 
> Maybe this is just a difference of semantics but do you mean differences that are simply _perceived _to exist or differences in the sound waves produced by the transducers actually demonstrated to be detectable by a human ear?
> 
> I would argue the first kind of difference isn't something that was "heard" because it does not correlate with the sound waved detected by the ear.


 

 I mean perception of a difference, but a perception that people do hear as being real, so to all intents and purposes it should be treated as real. Try convincing someone who has heard a difference that they have in fact not!


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I mean perception of a difference, but a perception that people do hear as being real, so to all intents and purposes it should be treated as real. Try convincing someone who has heard a difference that they have in fact not!


 
   
  I guess its a matter of semantics then.
   
  In that situation I'd say that I _thought _I heard a difference but the evidence indicates that I didn't actually hear anything different and my perception was influenced by other factors.
   
  Loose terminology will lead to misunderstandings and outright equivocations.  I think such tight definitions are important in these types of discussions.  In colloquial usage its ok to saw that you "saw" or "heard" something in a dream because pretty much everyone understands that dreams are only in your head and saying that you "saw" or "heard" something is simply shorthand because being more precise and saying that you perceived or experienced something is inconsistent with the normal flow of casual conversation.  If you did happen to be in a discussion about the nature of dreams then you'll probably have to use more precise language to enable clear communication.
   
  For example, if you grant Harley's premise that real audible differences disappear under controlled conditions then it implies the components actually perform differently based on the listeners knowledge of them or something else along those lines.  As there is no evidence to imply that this does happen, no known mechanism to enable it, would probably overturn a great deal of well supported science if it was true, and because the listener's subjective experience is already explained by psychology such a hypothesis is untenable until it is backed up with substantial evidence.
   
  That's why precise language is useful.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I guess its a matter of semantics then.
> 
> In that situation I'd say that I _thought _I heard a difference but the evidence indicates that I didn't actually hear anything different and my perception was influenced by other factors.
> 
> ...


 

 I would argue that there often are differences in various cables which can be measured, perhaps we just can't hear them as they are buried or swamped by other distortions and/or noise.
  Or the effects are outside the audio bandwidth. In other words, insignificant.
  Russ Andrews was claiming there are measureable differences in various power cables which appears to be very true,  they lost their case because they could not prove their ultimate claim: the differences are *audible*.   If the power supplies in your audio equipment have an adequate power supply noise rejection ratio, then having a "better" audio cable or a superior power conditioner may very well be irrelevant.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I would argue that there often are differences in various cables which can be measured, perhaps we just can't hear them as they are buried or swamped by other distortions and/or noise.
> Or the effects are outside the audio bandwidth. In other words, insignificant.


 

 I get that part.  Different cables which are considered "good enough" by the usual RLC standards can measure differently by tiny but statistically significant amounts.
   
  My point was that if there are golden ears who can actually hear that sort of thing there is no reason to suggest that those differences disappear when they no longer know what cable they're listening to.


----------



## Chris J

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I get that part.  Different cables which are considered "good enough" by the usual RLC standards can measure differently by tiny but statistically significant amounts.
> 
> My point was that if there are golden ears who can actually hear that sort of thing there is no reason to suggest that those differences disappear when they no longer know what cable they're listening to.


 

 Looks like we basically agree on all this stuff.
   
  I've heard rather surprising differences in cables, but under *very uncontrolled* conditions. Could be placebo effects. I actually thought that I did not like the sound of some Cardas cables.
  I'm rather surprised that we can fairly easily hear difference in amps but find it difficult to impossible to hear differences in cables.  When I say this I am thinking of all the various differences in cable construction beyond differences in RLC:
  twisted, coaxial, flat
  shielded, unshielded
  different types of shielding
  radically different insulation materials
  rather surprising that you can do all those things when designing a cable but *NOT* screw up the sound.
 makes me want write something in the "Articles" section.


----------



## maverickronin

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Chris J* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> When I say this I am thinking of all the various differences in cable construction beyond differences in RLC:
> twisted, coaxial, flat
> ...


 

 Most of those things actually do affect RLC.  The thing is that they're generally small enough that they don't matter at audio frequencies between the most common audio components in most environments.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





chris j said:


> I would argue that there often are differences in various cables which can be measured, perhaps we just can't hear them as they are buried or swamped by other distortions and/or noise.
> Or the effects are outside the audio bandwidth. In other words, insignificant.
> Russ Andrews was claiming there are measureable differences in various power cables which appears to be very true,  they lost their case because they could not prove their ultimate claim:* the differences are audible*.   If the power supplies in your audio equipment have an adequate power supply noise rejection ratio, then having a "better" audio cable or a superior power conditioner may very well be irrelevant.


 

 It is the same for all cable makers, none can prove the missing link and mistake correlation for causation.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





maverickronin said:


> I guess its a matter of semantics then.
> 
> In that situation I'd say that I _thought _I heard a difference but the evidence indicates that I didn't actually hear anything different and my perception was influenced by other factors.
> 
> ...


 



 Agreed. My view point shifted on how it works for 'people to hear a difference, when there is no difference' because
   
  -There are so many credible reports of people hearing a difference
   
  -I have heard a difference
   
  -The results of blind and sighted testing showing that adding sight means sound quality varies
   
  -The know affects of placebos and the placebo effect. We don't really know how placebos work, but they do
   
  -The McGurk Effect and how sound and sight is linked
   
  -The contributions Albedo made on the audiophile claims and myths thread about how we hear and that if somene hears something different to what someone else hears, they are not wrong, we hear differently.
   
  So I am sure when someone hears a difference between two cables (when there is none) it is a reality for them, it is not unreasonable to hear a difference, there are good reasons why people hear a difference and it better explains what is going on with cables than the previous cyclical arguments.


----------



## olilam

I am new here but just wanted to throw in a thought:
  
 "can one assume that, within these experiments, not all variables are calculated, moderated or even known? ...yet?"
  
 science has proven itself wrong before...


----------



## higbvuyb

olilam said:


> I am new here but just wanted to throw in a thought:
> 
> "can one assume that, within these experiments, not all variables are calculated, moderated or even known? ...yet?"
> 
> science has proven itself wrong before...


 
 Common misconception.
  
 It's very easy to measure the difference between cables with modern equipment that can detect minute differences in resistance or capacitance.
  
 The issue is not that we can't measure a difference. The problem is nobody can hear a difference unless you tell them which cable is more expensive or what brand it is.
  
 Of course, this only goes for relatively short cables. The effect of very long cables is already known and well-measured.


----------



## jcx

> science has proven itself wrong before...


 
 actually it is the case that more refined theories expand the range of phenomena that can be explained -  Newton's Laws are fine for designing cars, describing baseballs, bullets - not so good when things start to go close to the speed of light or accounting for 43 arcseconds per century of Mercury's orbital precession
  
 the "excess" 43 arcseconds precession of Mercury's orbit that requires General Relativity to explain was a known "problem" seen in measurements, calculations before Einstein
  
  
  
 the "unknowns" in electrical measurements of wires and cables, the effects on the signals they transmit are almost always way below any estimate of human ability to hear the effects in a home sound system - certainly when talking headphones, desktop source, amps
  
  
 many of us browsing from home, on desktop machines are using DSL modems that push few Mbaud data over km of twisted pair voice telephone cable - often laid down 1/2 a century before in major cities
  
 you should really look into the engineering literature on characterizing, compensating those cables electrical/signal transmission of signals now several 100x as fast, complex as voice audio they were designed for
  
 or really think about what Physicists have been doing, that electronic instruments are the intermediary of the most detailed measurements of the physical world - think they wouldn't have found any of the "issues" with wiring? http://home.web.cern.ch/about/engineering
  
 then try saying with a straight face that "conventional engineering is missing important, clearly audible things about wires"


----------



## x838nwy

Okay, seeing that I have some time to spare here's my take on this subject. I'm not saying it must be right and I'm not saying it explains all there is to explain. Just my thoughts.
  
 1.) Blind tests for cables are over-rated. For me, I do not often come across "first note" moments where something is recognizably better after a few notes. I think like most, I have to listen for quite a lot of music to make up my mind. The more subtle the difference, the longer it takes, usually. Sometimes, for a number of factors, some thing stands out but that's quite rare to detect that at first sitting. I fear I am not alone. May be I am...
  
 With this in mind, it's going to be difficult to tell apart cables as they're switched back and forth. Specially if there are quite a lot of them to be swapped around and if not enough time is given for each one. (definition of "enough" really depends on the magnitude of the difference, imo.) So there's probably a detectable difference, but is it enough to reliably differentiate or identify a particular cable? Probably not. Even in my home system, sometimes I hear things I've never noticed before without adding or changing anything. Hell I'm sure we've all swapped left and right channels and went for days without noticing. I know I have.
  
 So my criticism isn't really against blind tests exactly, but putting people in a room and swapping one cable then the next (repeat etc) and asking them to actually identify which after a day of listening to all of them which is which is probably wishful thinking. I know that for me it would be, most likely.
  
 Cables don't make THAT much of a difference, IMO. Our gear have characteristics that underlie those of the cables. It's like watching tv through sunglasses. Your TV's image quality primarily determines the image quality you see, comparable to your amplifier/source/etc. in the case of cable tests. So I feel blind tests, at least in the way it is commonly conducted, do not really give meaningful results.
  
 2.) Expectation bias works both ways. I don't mean just people expecting cheaper = worse, but people expecting things to NOT sound different at all will more likely find they're right because that is their expectation. Rarely is this talked about, but it works just as effectively as people expecting their $5k power cable to deliver sonic nirvana.
  
 If you combine this with (1) then it's easy for someone with a "no difference" expectation bias to quickly dismiss changes they have not yet heard or stumbled upon.
  
 Since we cannot really whip out sodium thiopental and pump audiophiles full of the stuff before tests, it's hard to really be certain who expects what before testing, it gets even more complicated as audiophiles as a group are probably more expectant of differences than other groups, but then again, there are a significant group among audiophiles that are of the Objective2 camp. All in all, it's a bit of a mess…
  
 3.) The pricing scale is absurd. This basically leads people into thinking that it must all be snake oil and hocus pocus. Surely something you get for free cannot really be taken to heights where it costs tens of thousands? Can it?
  
 I'm not in the wire/cable industry, but as far as I know, cables and wires are usually made in hundreds of meters. Each production lot is probably miles long and it probably has to do with the batch size the machines are capable of. If it's minimum 400 lbs/batch then you'll have to order 400 lbs of the stuff however long that is. Probably a little more just to ensure decent quality. It is also likely that people with the best/newest machinery and best quality controls tend to be large suppliers with larger machines.
  
 Now if you're looking to make a very particular design just for you, then there's a problem with production vol. vs. possible market vs. complexity vs. stocking fees vs. your bank account. Long story short, it's probably a crazily exponential increase in cost to go from a fairly common type of wire to a bespoke one. And bear in mind that most audio cables are hand terminated or even hand made still. So more than anything else in the chain of audio equipment, the diminishing returns effect sets in extremely very quickly.
  
 If you look at it another way, it's not that these things are expensive (well I'm talking within reason here) but the common types of wires are just crazily cheap because of mass production techniques and common stocks etc.
  
 Does it cost Nordost thousands of dollars to make a pair of Valhalla speaker cables? Only they can say, but I don't expect it to be cheap by any means. But that really should have no bearing on whether or not it is better/same/worse than the free ones you got. Sadly most people let this get to them and form eventually a bias in (2).
  
  
 So what's my point? Many, many companies and dealers offer trials and returns of cables. It's perhaps best to find out for yourself rather than blindly following blind tests feeling that they are the be all and end all of truths. After all, neither the cable manufacturers nor the blind tester will be listening with you.
  
 But that's just me saying stuff...


----------



## SircussMouse

Yeah,  I don't care what the science says or if A/B testing conclusively illustrates the point.  I can taste extra neutrinos in my cheerios when solar activity increases.
  
 SB


----------



## x838nwy

sircussmouse said:


> Yeah,  I don't care what the science says or if A/B testing conclusively illustrates the point.  I can taste extra neutrinos in my cheerios when solar activity increases.
> 
> SB




I sort of said a lot about the testing and how it may not be suitable for this particular job. But sure, do your thing.


----------



## x838nwy

Just one more thing, really. People ask about measurable results. Some have posted and there is more on the web.

Now it's about whether or not we can hear the difference caused by said results.

So it comes full circle back to the simple question of whether or not any difference is detectable by an unbiased listener. Now i'd add that said listener should be trained or at least familiar to what they're listening to (music and components) and one shouldn't expect night/day difference heard over a few minutes/hours but over a longer period of time. May be days with each cable.

Think of it as a car reviewer spending days with a car instead of a couple of laps.


----------



## Steve Eddy

x838nwy said:


> Just one more thing, really. People ask about measurable results. Some have posted and there is more on the web.
> 
> Now it's about whether or not we can hear the difference caused by said results.




What results? Did they show anything other than what would be expected by differences in simple resistance, inductance, and capacitance?




> So it comes full circle back to the simple question of whether or not any difference is detectable by an unbiased listener. Now i'd add that said listener should be trained or at least familiar to what they're listening to (music and components) and one shouldn't expect night/day difference heard over a few minutes/hours but over a longer period of time. May be days with each cable.
> 
> Think of it as a car reviewer spending days with a car instead of a couple of laps.




Tom Nousaine had done long term ABX listening tests with people using their own systems, in their own homes, over long periods of time. Nada.

se


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> Now it's about whether or not we can hear the difference caused by said results.
> 
> So it comes full circle back to the simple question of whether or not any difference is detectable by an unbiased listener. Now i'd add that said listener should be trained or at least familiar to what they're listening to (music and components) and one shouldn't expect night/day difference heard over a few minutes/hours but over a longer period of time. May be days with each cable.




I agree with you that when it comes to measurements, audibility is the most important thing. However, you are completely throwing out the controls when you talk about how you would test for audibility. Human perception is very fickle. If you don't place careful controls on it, you'll end up with incorrect results.

Scientists have done a great deal of testing on the limits of human perception. The first thing you should do is compare the specs to the specs for human hearing. If they aren't even in the same ballpark, you know you aren't going to be able to hear it. Secondly, you need to remove all bias. This means comparing samples blind. If you don't do that, your results are flat out useless. Thirdly, you need to understand how human hearing works when you set up your listening test. You may think that your detection of subtle differences improves from long periods of listening, but studies have shown that the duration of auditory memory in human beings lasts no more than a few seconds. Direct A/B switchable comparisons are the best when the differences are subtle. Line level matching is also important. Humans naturally think "louder is better sound".

Likewise, you should know what heightens the effect of bias in comparison tests... sighted tests with brand names, texures and colors, and build quality can all throw you off. If you put a maroon velvet covered amp next to an identical shiny gold one, you can bet that you are going to think the maroon one sounds richer and less bright. Put a nice chrome Cadillac logo on one set of headphones and a plastic Yugo one on the other, and it's going to skew your results. Every day here in HeadFi we see people judging the quality of headphone amps by how much they weigh. If I was an amp manufacturer, I would build a brick into each unit just to make people think it sounds better.

The best way to determine subtle differences is to put controls on your biases and understand completely how sound and your hearing works. It isn't hard, but you have to follow the facts, not just your feelings.


----------



## x838nwy

http://www.nordost.com/downloads/NewApproachesToAudioMeasurement.zip

^ some measurements that may be of interest.

Audibility: the posted trace (of a square wave) is perhaps not audible on its own. However, i'm not sure how it might affect connected equipments. Again i'm just stipulating. In any case distortion is distortion. A square wave is basically a combination of a whole bunch of odd number sines. If that distorts, then there's a good chance that it's not just confined to that particular case alone.

Steve, can you send me a link to the test? Thanks


----------



## bigshot

Looking to a high end cable manufacturer for info on audibility of high end cables is like putting a fox in charge of your chicken house.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> Looking to a high end cable manufacturer for info on audibility of high end cables is like putting a fox in charge of your chicken house.




Have you read it?
I understand where you're coming from, really i do. But if we don't trust manufacturers (cos's they're evil) and we don't trust magazines/web sites (cos they're sponsored by evil companies) then we are left with very little to go on.

Us mere mortals tend not to have the resources, access to equipment or experience to properly set up the tests. And finally as mentioned earlier, it's going to be impossible to be sure if a test is done by a group which is not biased one way or another in any case. Which is why i'm interested in the one to which steve refers.


----------



## Steve Eddy

x838nwy said:


> http://www.nordost.com/downloads/NewApproachesToAudioMeasurement.zip
> 
> ^ some measurements that may be of interest.




Seems rather a dog and pony show. Why are all the scales in the graphs unreadable? Their methodology doesn't appear to be terribly rigorous either. The results could easily be due to measurement error. 



> Steve, can you send me a link to the test? Thanks




This was discussed years ago on the Usenet newsgroups. Get in touch with Tom and I'm sure he'll be happy to answer any questions. http://www.nousaine.com

se


----------



## TheAttorney

I started a thread on the Acuity partnership when it first started a few years ago - it looked like the best chance of anybody being able to explain sound differences of cables etc by measurements. But the first sets of published results were poorly presented (e.g. no scale printed on graphs), so I lost interest, and the Sound Scientists tore it apart.
  
 This latest set from Nordost looks much better presented. Of course, anyone selling anything will want to present the most positive spin they can, but Steve asked for evidence and here is some. Can the Sound Scientists put their prejudices aside for long enough to actually examine the evidence?
  
 Edit: Ah, Steve, posted whilst I was typing. Yes, the scales are hard to read, but the principles of what the're saying is at least food for thought.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I don't doubt that different cables measure differently. I just don't think the differences are audible. Instead of graphs and charts based on electrical measurements, I'd like to see well controlled double blind tests demonstrating there is an audible difference. Once an audible difference is established, then I'd like to see tests that demonstrate which configuration is most accurate.


----------



## wewewho77

IMHO double blind testing does measure the difference between cables or component as well as testing the listener capability to differentiate between things that being tested(if there was any difference)


----------



## Steve Eddy

theattorney said:


> Edit: Ah, Steve, posted whilst I was typing. Yes, the scales are hard to read, but the principles of what the're saying is at least food for thought.




Hard to read? Try absolutely impossible to read.

As for the principles of what they're saying, they're simply talking about difference testing. That's been around for decades. And consider what they're doing. They're taking a wav file, running it through a CD player's digital to analog converter, then running the output of that through an analog to digital converter with apparently no synchronization of the two clocks, comparing them to the original wav file and saying "Oh look! There's a difference!" And the "difference" trace doesn't even look like what you'd expect to see in a difference trace. It looks for all the world like a waveform snippet from a piece of music. Whatever it is, it's certainly NOT the difference of the two snippets shown above it.

It's amateurish and laughable. This "test" shouldn't even be brought up in any sort of serious discussion.

se


----------



## x838nwy

I'm sure an email to nordost would sort this out? I'll give that a try.


----------



## Steve Eddy

x838nwy said:


> I'm sure an email to nordost would sort this out? I'll give that a try.




Go for it.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Oh, and while you're at it, ask them why this "groundbreaking" work of theirs has never been published except as marketing literature. The pro audio guys are always publishing in peer-reviewed journals such as the JAES. But the so-called "high end" audio guys (who often look down their noses at pro audio) never seem to get beyond marketing literature.

se


----------



## Mambosenior

A big fan here of Science Fiction.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> I'm sure an email to nordost would sort this out? I'll give that a try.


 

 You can do that.  I have.  More dog and pony replies.  There are many things wrong with the test.  Search www.diyaudio.com from some detail critique when it first came out.
  
 If nothing else, they emphasize how the difference is greater on transients.  You see transients are another way of saying higher frequencies.  And difference testing shows the most difference at higher frequencies when there is a phase difference or timing mismatch.  That to me is the largest most obvious failing they have.  There are a few others.  In short, we can discuss it in more detail, but you are wasting your time.  This is bogus.


----------



## ab initio

Since we seemed to have revived this ancient thread, let me remind you all to keep an open mind as posted previously in this thread on page 7:
  

  
 Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

Sent this on their "contact us" page
  


> Hi, I have a question regarding your document "New Approaches to Audio Measurement". I know how this might sound like another smart-arse trying to prove himself, but I am a fan of your products and have been for a long time so I'm not trying to do any of that crap.
> Anyhow, on head-fi there's yet another thread about whether cables actually make a difference. The documents cited in favor of audiophile cables include yours. Criticisms are abound mostly regarding the plots and scales that do not appear to be legible or in fact what they claim to be.
> The thread itself is at http://www.head-fi.org/t/572588/audiophile-cables-an-interesting-question/
> I wonder if anyone from Nordost care to comment.
> ...


 
  
 Hopefully they will reply either here or to me. Any I receive, I will post here.


----------



## x838nwy

ab initio said:


> Since we seemed to have revived this ancient thread, let me remind you all to keep an open mind as posted previously in this thread on page 7:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers




  
 Well, that's great. Though I must also point out that things are not always as clear-cut as they seem. A great deal of people who claim that cables make no difference seem to consider placebo to be the only possible explanation for any differences claimed. Along with that, there seems to be a false trust in double-blind tests - subjects who go into the test believing that there is NO difference between any of the cables will give results exactly according to his/her assumption/bias/belief. Is this scientific?
  
 So one side clings on to (a) placebo and (b) the holiness of the double blind test.
 The other keeps banging on about (c) I can hear it, so it must be real and (d) pseudoscientific concepts.
  
 I don't see one side as more rational than another. In fact, I see more evidence sympathetic to the latter. Consider that:
 1.) There're a lot of places that do a 30 day return on cables. There are many places that lend out cables for home trials.
 2.) Places like Audiogon, eBay, Head-fi, etc., etc. allow people to list their cable, unimpeded from the manufacturers.
  
 These two facts make trying to fleece people for huge bucks on cables that do practically nothing different to the free one they got very, very hard, surely. We're not talking about a cable that's perhaps not worth the price difference, but we're talking about something that's NO DIFFERENT from what you had earlier so okay, let's say 50% of the time, the placebo effect takes hold and people spend their thousands on the new cable, but the 50% would be sent back, surely.
  
 Searching on eBay, I'm getting 182 results for Nordost, 283 for Cardas, and 11 for JPS labs. These guys have been selling cables since time began, so there should be more of their alleged scams being sold off on the web surely? (6,585 for Monster Cable, incidentally.) And I'm including fake cardas's and nordosts's here too, btw.
  
 If one goes by logic, if I've paid $1,000 for a pair of interconnects that don't do anything I got for $50, then why keep them both and waste $1,000? Why not sell the expensive one  for 5-600 or something? Better yet, return them? Of all unaffected by the placebo effects, surely 100% would take this route as such we should see way more of them for sale, surely?
  
 We also have the fact that people willing to throw thousands at their cables tend to compare different brands. I wonder how expectation bias works here? Say Cardas being proven, tried and tested, Kubala Sosnas being new and different… so how are we going to go with this? Where will the bias take us? Is it really complex enough to also reflect in totally imaginary differences between brands too? If it's all that, surely we should be look at reviews of amps, headphones and all sorts of stuff in a different light, but then again, are those measurable differences between amps actually audible?
  
 Lastly (3) brands keep coming up with different models of cables.
 I'm from the far east, so I know about fake things and things pretending to be what they're not. The thing i find odd is that if someone, say JPS labs makes totally normal cables that perform no different to 'normal' ones but sell them at outrageous prices, then what's the need to make more or newer models? If the answer is to re-fool the fool who paid for the old model then surely this is going to be a smaller and smaller market and not really a great model to go on. If it's to drum up the market and get people excited and rush out to buy their stuff then why do they come up with new cables very rarely? It's not like car makers with their 5 year cycle or whatever, cables seem to be released new very rarely and with very little fanfare.
  
 May be they're amazing con-men, but this does not appear to be activities of people who make things that don't really work. If I were to try to make as much money as I can selling crap cables, I'd make crazy claims, use similarly crazy pricing and I will be out of a business in no time. But guys like George Cardas have been at this for a long time and remain respected members of the industry. Also many component manufacturers use internal wires from a specific manufacturer. Why would they want to use these expensive components if there's no difference between these and plain simple wires? (Before you say it's for boutique-value, how many actually advertise that they use specific brands of internal wires?)
  
 It seems to me that there are many more factors we should take into account before putting it all down to cons and placebos. Again, that's may be me being close-minded.


----------



## bigshot

The reason that I don't go running off after every "cable breakthrough" that comes along isn't because I have bias and don't think scientiifically... It's because I've been down that rabbit hole too many times in the past.

I only have so many days of life to live. I have a stereo. I want it to sound good. I'm going to spend my time on things that make a significant difference, not the things that people can't even decide if there *is* a difference.

Assuming I did suspect that cables made a difference, after hitting the wall a few times, I would give up. Even if I still believed cables were important after getting shown they don't, I would just drop the subject and move on to other things. But it seems that cable fans can't do that. Their egos make them keep grabbing at any straw that comes along over and over and over... I don't have the patience or tenacity for that.

For me, it's a matter of priorities, not bias. I have bigger fish to fry.

I'd address your questions about the psychology of snake oil too, but again, been there, done that. (no offense intended)


----------



## x838nwy

I thought we are here to discuss matters, not each other's egos. If you feel you time is better spent elsewhere, that's awesome. There's no need to criticize the discussion, is there? If you've "hit the wall" a few times and have given up, that's awesome too. (Do you have any cables to sell, may be?)

Again, it's the criticism of those in favour. Why am i (or a few others with similar opinions) suddenly a "cable fan" and why must it be my ego in question here? Surely the "no difference" group has just as big an ego since they also came in droves to express their opinions. One group believes in one thing and another in the other. Each has their say. Why is one more desperate than another?

As for "break-throughs" i don't see many about. But what i was talking about was new models (i guess that's the right word). If they can bring out new models, i assume that means some kind of change over the old. If it's all bs then what need is the new? It's expensive to re-tool and manage stock. If the old bs sells then why go through all that crap?

And talking about wasting time, i've always recommend that one takes advantage of borrowing from dealers to test things out. Probably saves time looking at plots and graphs and all sorts.


----------



## bigshot

Don't get all upset. Do what I always try to do. Keep from being invested in the argument and just try to learn from the folks around you. There are people here in sound science with a ton of useful knowledge. Inevitably, whatever road you're going down, there's bound to be someone here who has been down that road before. Take advantage of that.

The real enemies are the high end audio salesmen who lie through their teeth and the snake oil equipment manufacturers.

Great sound isn't difficult or expensive. It is simple and cheap if you take advantage of the experience of folks who know what they are talking about and aren't there just to pick your pocket. In order to get useful advice, you have to ask the right questions. "Do cables make a difference?" isn't the right question.


----------



## bigshot

By the way, there are occasional "break throughs". You just need to be able to spot them. I'm not big on randomly borrowing stuff from dealers to try out. It is a LOT of work to set up a fair unbiased test. I'm not going to go to that trouble unless I know going in that there is a good chance I'm going to see an improvement.

What I do is to carefully research what I need for my system, identify what appears to be the best solution for my problem, buy what I need with a money back guarantee, then bring it home and test it thoroughly. If it works, I keep it. If not, back it goes. That has worked well for me in the past.

It's important to understand how your system works. Then you can identify the weak points and address your problems directly. Cables are almost never the weak point in a system. Spending time trying out various cables isn't going to get you very far.


----------



## Don Hills

bigshot said:


> ...
> It's important to understand how your system works. Then you can identify the weak points and address your problems directly. Cables are almost never the weak point in a system. Spending time trying out various cables isn't going to get you very far.


 
 It can get worse.... Your preamp and power amp will have less than absolutely perfect output and input stages respectively, and their performance can be altered slightly by using cables with different characteristics (resistance, capacitance, inductance). You swap cables until you find some that provide what you judge to be the best sound. Then you start swapping the preamp or power amp in an effort to optimise that component. But that new component likely has a different susceptibility to cable differences, so your cable choice may no longer be optimal.


----------



## wakibaki

I know you guys are enjoying proceeding as though cables make a difference, but do you have any new evidence that they do?
  
 If not, I don't know what you're doing in this section of the forum, unless you're trying to provoke a flame war. Take it elsewhere.
  
 w


----------



## cjl

(in reply to Don, 2 posts above me)
  
 Assuming you have a remotely decent amp (and sufficient gauge cables without any crazy capacitance or anything like that), the more likely scenario is that your amplifier is audibly perfect (not hard, for a modern amp), your cables are audibly perfect (trivially easy, unless you have a really, really long run of cable), and any changes you hear from changing either of them are purely psychologically driven.


----------



## bigshot

I'm with cjl... If I bought a solid state amp and it was anything other than "a wire with gain", I'd pack it back up in the box and return it. I have yet to find an amp that isn't that way, but I don't buy esoteric audiophile equipment or homebrewed designs. I buy big brand midrange solid state amps and have no problems.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> By the way, there are occasional "break throughs". You just need to be able to spot them. I'm not big on randomly borrowing stuff from dealers to try out. It is a LOT of work to set up a fair unbiased test. I'm not going to go to that trouble unless I know going in that there is a good chance I'm going to see an improvement.
> 
> What I do is to carefully research what I need for my system, identify what appears to be the best solution for my problem, buy what I need with a money back guarantee, then bring it home and test it thoroughly. If it works, I keep it. If not, back it goes. That has worked well for me in the past.
> 
> It's important to understand how your system works. Then you can identify the weak points and address your problems directly. Cables are almost never the weak point in a system. Spending time trying out various cables isn't going to get you very far.




Okay. I'm not disagreeing to any of that but what i feel you've missed is my point. I'm not suggesting everyone goes out and borrow a bunch of cables and it will all be sorted out. I'm not even talking about upgrading or fixing any ailments in anybody's system.

The matter at hand is whether or not cables affect sound quality and there are people who feel they do and those who feel they do not. What i've been saying is that both sides have holes in their verifications of the facts and may be the best way to find out is to try it and see for yourself.

I am not and really have not invested particularly in this and believe me i have nothing to gain from this, i am just interested as i'm sure you are in the facts of things in general.


----------



## x838nwy

wakibaki said:


> I know you guys are enjoying proceeding as though cables make a difference, but do you have any new evidence that they do?
> 
> If not, I don't know what you're doing in this section of the forum, unless you're trying to provoke a flame war. Take it elsewhere.
> 
> w




Thank you for pointing that out. If you do bot have time to read the past few pages, i can summarize them for you:

(My starting point is arbitrary)
1.) i posted a reference to a file (pretty old) posted by nordost. It tries to show measurable differences and effects from cables and supports etc.
2.) a number of members pointed out that more details are needed.
3.) i contacted nordost asking for the above.
4.) i put forward a few thoughts i have, all of which i feel are valid and logical as to why i feel the audiophile cable industry cannot all be bs.

I don't really want to paraphrase or summarize too much of other people's posts but safe to say a few people have expressed their disagreement and some are probably waiting for what nordost has to say. (Although a few are not expecting much.)

So i think we're still keeping things reasonable and i don't see anyone flaming anyone. Do you?


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> I'm not suggesting everyone goes out and borrow a bunch of cables and it will all be sorted out. I'm not even talking about upgrading or fixing any ailments in anybody's system. The matter at hand is whether or not cables affect sound quality and there are people who feel they do and those who feel they do not.




If two cables sound different, there is only one reason for that... one of them is more accurately passing the signal across than the other. If a cable is distorting the sound in my system so badly that I can hear it, I want to be able to identify that problem and know how to correct it. Altering the signal is a problem, and randomly swapping cables in and out isn't a very good way of solving it.

I really don't think the folks who feel cables do have a sound have much credibility. I base that opinion on all of the less than credible people who share that belief that I have run across in the past.

Here is a much more productive question for the purpose of this forum and one that will get you a lot farther... x838nwy, If you're not totally happy with the sound you are getting, what do you think are the limitations in your own sound system and how do you plan to correct those problems?


----------



## x838nwy

Really bigshot i think we're talking about different things. Again just saying that if folks are questioning whether cables *can* affect sound all they need to do is borrow a few to try.

There are other topics of discussion elsewhere i just happen to be on this one as i sit in traffic on my way to work so it's kindda okay with me.

As for my own system, i'm pretty happy with the way it sounds. A little harsh at times but may be it's due to the nature of digital files. But i think we're always looking for and wondering if this is the best our systems could sound. I don't think anything needs to be 'wrong' necessarily but looking for ways to optimize the .flac->eardrum pathway is a worthwhile persuit for me. I'm not saying buying $10,000 cables will give me that, but just saying that in my experience, cables contribute.


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> As for my own system, i'm pretty happy with the way it sounds. A little harsh at times but may be it's due to the nature of digital files.




Assuming you aren't listening to low bitrate lossy, you're attributing that harshness to the wrong thing. Digital audio is not inherently harsh. I'm sure all of us here at Sound Science would be happy to help you track down the source of the problem.


----------



## wakibaki

x838nwy
  
 You have advanced a number of arguments.
  
 Sophisticated arguments well suited to the defence of some hapless criminal in the dock.
  
 I don't intend to refute them severally, I will merely say that they have this in common; they are inappropriate.
  
 This is not a debate. No jury will hand down a verdict. I for one am happy to grant that you are clever and eloquent.
  
 Correspondents here do depend on the results of double-blind testing, and deprecate attempts to discredit it. You should not propagandize against DBT here.
  
 Unless you have new evidence regarding audible effects of cables, i.e. some new double-blind scientific study, you are merely rehearsing numerous of the arguments which survive outside of the Sound Science forum.
  
 My advice to you is that you should reexamine your position. I, for one, wouldn't really regard you as an asset in a zombie apocalypse.
  
 Quote:


x838nwy said:


> 4.) i put forward a few thoughts i have, all of which i feel are valid and logical as to why i feel the audiophile cable industry cannot all be bs.


 
  
 Keep it to yourself or tout it on parts of the forum where reality checks are explicitly prohibited. I'm not interested in what you consider valid and logical, you've demonstrated that you're not qualified to hold an opinion.
  
 w


----------



## bigshot

That's a bit strong... I didn't see him saying that DBT weren't valid. Of course they are. Measurements without controlled listening tests are meaningless, especially when the differences measured are pretty clearly below the threshold of human perception.

Yes wires may measure different. It takes a double blind listening test to determine if those differences are audible. You can't say, "I think I hear a difference." and then go looking for a measurement to back that up. That is totally backwards.


----------



## wakibaki

x838nwy said:


> ...there seems to be a false trust in double-blind tests...


 
  
 Last thing I need on my side in a zombie apocalypse is another _wishful-thinker_.
  
 w


----------



## bigshot

I prefer to think of them as sleep walkers, not zombies. You can't wake up a zombie, and I have actually seen a few sleep walkers wake up if you ask them just the right question.

Zombies just eat my brains when I try to wake them up.


----------



## esldude

I see x838nwy as doing the same old thing we have seen before.  Some think A, some think B, everyone's opinion is valid, go try it for yourself.  Sorry, no everyone's opinion is not valid.  I am with Wakibaki on this one.  Time for a reality check.  If you insist your opinion is so clever you can bypass or ignore the reality check then you are better served  posting in other forums than sound science.
  
 Cable as generally used is nowhere near being audible.  DBT's show that, measurements using scientific principles show nothing that should be audible going on, knowledge of the human hearing mechanism show the same.  Knowledge of human perception show one is highly likely when just trying to see for themselves to perceive a difference which actually isn't there. 
  
 So x838nwy do you have any evidence contradicting that audiophile cables sound the same as non-audiophile cables?  Saying I listened and heard different or some people think they are different is not acceptable evidence in this forum.  You said you think cables contribute, why do you think that?  If the answer is I tried a few and some sound different, you need to just learn why that was accidental self deception.


----------



## bigshot

Actually, saying "I listened and heard a difference." is allowed in Sound Science. The thing is though, that here that is the first thing said, and it's posed as a question. It's not the last thing said intended as a conclusion.

One of the truest things I've ever heard said....

"The truth rarely lies halfway between two completely opposite opinions."


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Actually, saying "I listened and heard a difference." is allowed in Sound Science. The thing is though, that here that is the first thing said, and it's posed as a question. It's not the last thing said intended as a conclusion.
> 
> One of the truest things I've ever heard said....
> 
> "The truth rarely lies halfway between two completely opposite opinions."


 

 I should have been more explicit I suppose.  Of course you can say I listened and heard a difference.  In regard to cables, saying that I heard cables sound different contradicts plenty of evidence to the contrary.  So in that context, ignoring all testing and other knowledge about how wire works at audio frequencies to proceed with the idea cables contribute because you thought you heard a difference doesn't fit in with a rational approach to the subject at hand.


----------



## x838nwy

wakibaki said:


> Last thing I need on my side in a zombie apocalypse is another _wishful-thinker_.
> 
> w




Okay. Here's the thing. There are elements to a double blind tests and their results that perhaps require more than people in rooms. What i've been saying is that may be there are factors that influence their results, time and bias being a few the important ones i can think of. Last night i tried a 3D function on my pre-amp and heard no appreciable difference through my speakers at all for the first hour or so. Then then i noticed that a particular song had a more spacious sound to it (at the expense of a tight solid soundstage). Knowing what to look for, i found that it did indeed have an effect. Had i been asked what the toggle switch does earlier, i would have said it does nothing. Had i been asked to identify on/off state of the 3D thingy, i would not have been able to do so reliably up to that point. Now we're talking an actual circuit, put in place to actually do stuff to the signal. I was even biased that it must do something (there's a switch, darm it!). So no, i don't think everything that is set up to look like a double blind test is one or at least one that will give a meaningful answer.

So we're back to your demand for evidence. Sadly the only ones you will accept are double blind test results. At this point i'd go back to reading what i posted earlier once again. It's incredible how so much of your science adheres you to the name of the tests. Because it is a double blind test its results must be somehow holy or something.

And thank you for letting me know that i cannot hold an opinion. The fact that i have an opinion and am willing to discuss it seems to cause you problems. Perhaps we should do a double blind test on whether or not i really do have one.

I am in the process of writing to the site to which steve referred to ask for details of their tests. Will post replies also.

To be honest, there are many cons in the hifi industry. One only needs to look through hifishock.org for some of them. But at this point, i still feel there is some substance on cables. I am open to facts on either side as i am sure most are. But people being rude just drives the wedge between reason and belief that gives even more room for people who are actually trying to sell standard belden cables for thousands.


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> I see x838nwy as doing the same old thing we have seen before.  Some think A, some think B, everyone's opinion is valid, go try it for yourself.  Sorry, no everyone's opinion is not valid.  I am with Wakibaki on this one.  Time for a reality check.  If you insist your opinion is so clever you can bypass or ignore the reality check then you are better served  posting in other forums than sound science.
> 
> Cable as generally used is nowhere near being audible.  DBT's show that, measurements using scientific principles show nothing that should be audible going on, knowledge of the human hearing mechanism show the same.  Knowledge of human perception show one is highly likely when just trying to see for themselves to perceive a difference which actually isn't there.
> 
> So x838nwy do you have any evidence contradicting that audiophile cables sound the same as non-audiophile cables?  Saying I listened and heard different or some people think they are different is not acceptable evidence in this forum.  You said you think cables contribute, why do you think that?  If the answer is I tried a few and some sound different, you need to just learn why that was accidental self deception.


 
  
 I think cables make a difference because they have electrical properties. Measurements for example of a square wave someone posted earlier showed a difference. A step response is indicative of its frequency response and therefore the difference exist in the frequency response curves of the two situations. Whether or not that difference is audible is debatable. Let's not forget that there really is not a lot of data for going 32 bit in dynamic range but a lot of folks seem to find it helps so audibility is may be not as solid a thing as it should be.
  
 I don't know what you mean by audiophile and non-audiophile cables. All I am saying is that different cables can sound different. I don't care if it's a coat hanger or a $5k cable wrapped in angel's pubic hairs. If that fact is so, I'd guess people who make audio cables will use or enhance that difference in the way that gets the best results.
  
 Again, I cannot prove anything I experienced is not self deception. Not any more than anyone, may be including yourself can prove that what they/you DIDN'T experience wasn't down to self deception. Going into these things believing that there is no difference is just as dangerous as going into them with the opposite view, surely.
  
 I think A but I am willing to look into the possibility of B. Sadly those who believe B seems to only want things wrapped in a 'double blind' wrapping. So my suggestion would be for them to try for themselves seeing that they won't accept reasonable alternatives.
  
 Checking things out for one self is still considered science, right?
  
 When you say "contradicts plenty of evidence" you are really talking about only the stuff that you'd consider evidence but dismissing what others would. If all one must go on are these results I quote from a thread on head-fi:
  


> 2 - Effects of Cable, Loudspeaker and amplifier interactions, an engineering paper from 1991.
> 
> http://www.apiguide.net/04actu/04mus...teractions.pdf
> 
> ...


 
  
 So, do you mean to say it's all bs? If one takes these results as gospel, then cables DO sound different.
  
 And the Pioneer is a bargain of the century.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> _snippage........._.
> 
> To be honest, there are many cons in the hifi industry. One only needs to look through hifishock.org for some of them. But at this point, i still feel there is some substance on cables. I am open to facts on either side as i am sure most are. But people being rude just drives the wedge between reason and belief that gives even more room for people who are actually trying to sell standard belden cables for thousands.


 
 You_ feel_ there is substance to cables.  Why do you feel this?  If it is only feeling, then you need something more to be sound science.  It might even be a correct feeling, but feeling only isn't science.
  
 What gets called rude is often people telling someone they are barking up the wrong tree.  What is the nice way to tell someone they are wrong or mistaken, or lack some useful understanding? 
  
 In this case of cables, beyond LCR effects, there is nothing else going on at audio frequencies.  So if you are open to to facts then good.  The finest measurements with the finest equipment which are far more sensitive in most ways than human ears find nothing in cables to be heard.  Difference testing cables shows nothing to be heard.  There don't seem to be DBT's confirming differences being audible.  Science is always open ended to knew information or contradictory results.  Feeling something is not new information without more confirmation.  Known aspects of human perception explain how that works. 
  
 DBT cannot prove the negative.  The notable result with DBT's is finding a non-null result, a result indicating something was perceived.  Those seem hard to come by for cable.  DBT is really the last resort in some ways.  You measure and find nothing to differ.  Yet someone says they perceive a difference.  With DBT you don't need to know why or how or anything.  One either gets positive results indicating something is audibly real or not.  Getting 'not' doesn't disprove something entirely (but enough negatives get highly suggestive).  Often when the result is negative the tendency is to say DBT isn't discriminating enough or corrupts the results.  But DBT do find differences when they are known to exist above certain levels (often surprisingly small levels of difference).  These DBT's also work quite well in other fields.  Seems unlikely they work just fine except for the human sense of hearing.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> I think cables make a difference because they have electrical properties. Measurements for example of a square wave someone posted earlier showed a difference. A step response is indicative of its frequency response and therefore the difference exist in the frequency response curves of the two situations. Whether or not that difference is audible is debatable. Let's not forget that there really is not a lot of data for going 32 bit in dynamic range but a lot of folks seem to find it helps so audibility is may be not as solid a thing as it should be.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by audiophile and non-audiophile cables. All I am saying is that different cables can sound different. I don't care if it's a coat hanger or a $5k cable wrapped in angel's pubic hairs. If that fact is so, I'd guess people who make audio cables will use or enhance that difference in the way that gets the best results.
> 
> ...


 
  
 A step response will indicate a difference in frequency response.  But that difference might be at several hundred thousand hertz.  Both could still be completely flat to 20 khz.  Meaning they differ at some frequency far above what can be heard, and they are not audibly different to human listeners in terms of frequency response.  And that is what you will find with audio interconnects.  Speaker cables can exhibit a little bit of response variation in the audible range, but nothing that requires thousands of dollars to design around.  The fact about those who make audio cables is they will use whatever spiel and suggestion mechanism sells their expensive products the best.  Most would appear to know more about human psychology than they do human hearing.
  
 What I consider evidence, what is acceptable evidence on the Sound Science forum is reality based, objective evidence.  Not feelings, not that a million people have some opinion, or buy some product based upon some idea.  Contradicting plenty of evidence is just that contradicting plenty of objective physical repeatable evidence.  Things like frequency response measurements that are indistinguishably flat past 20 khz, or measured distortion of all known types that is a percentage with a decimal and several zeroes following it over the range up to 20 khz., the models based upon physics which work at predicting results into the gigahertz range that also accurately predict signal propagation at audio frequencies that predict wire doing nothing that is audible for most purposes.  All those things are solid evidence. 
  
 Can you try things out for yourself?  Sure.  If you hear something different it contradicts all that evidence in the previous paragraph and more.  Plus it fits in exactly with knowledge of the science of human perception which has shown repeatedly that humans are highly prone to perceive differences even when nothing has changed.


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> You_ feel_ there is substance to cables.  Why do you feel this?  If it is only feeling, then you need something more to be sound science.  It might even be a correct feeling, but feeling only isn't science.
> 
> What gets called rude is often people telling someone they are barking up the wrong tree.  What is the nice way to tell someone they are wrong or mistaken, or lack some useful understanding?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Wrong wording. I have found articles and literature supporting claims that cable construction and make-up affects the sound quality produced by audio equipment.
  
 I didn't call you rude. I called wackybacky rude.
  
 DBT's showing audible differences are on the thread I quoted. Search for audiophile myths or something on head-fi.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Wrong wording. I have found articles and literature supporting claims that cable construction and make-up affects the sound quality produced by audio equipment.
> 
> I didn't call you rude. I called wackybacky rude.
> 
> DBT's showing audible differences are on the thread I quoted. Search for audiophile myths or something on head-fi.


 

 Yes, I understood you were speaking to Wakibaki.  He wasn't being rude.  He was being direct.  They guy knows what he is talking about.
  
 Loudspeaker cables can cause frequency response and damping variations in speakers.  Not news, and you don't need expensive cables to fix.  Not mysterious.  LCR, inductance, capacitance and resistance is the cause.
  
 Bob Carver simply showed that a  flat, wide bandwidth, low distortion amp is capable of having its output impedance, frequency response and a few other factors altered (degraded actually) to sound like a lower fidelity amplifier.  Yes, despite the Conrad Johnson he duplicated the sound of costing several times more it was higher in distortion, output impedance, lower in max power and had a non-flat frequency response.  Again not mysterious or unexpected in a scientific way.


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> Yes, I understood you were speaking to Wakibaki.  He wasn't being rude.  He was being direct.  They guy knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Loudspeaker cables can cause frequency response and damping variations in speakers.  Not news, and you don't need expensive cables to fix.  Not mysterious.  LCR, inductance, capacitance and resistance is the cause.
> 
> Bob Carver simply showed that a  flat, wide bandwidth, low distortion amp is capable of having its output impedance, frequency response and a few other factors altered (degraded actually) to sound like a lower fidelity amplifier.  Yes, despite the Conrad Johnson he duplicated the sound of costing several times more it was higher in distortion, output impedance, lower in max power and had a non-flat frequency response.  Again not mysterious or unexpected in a scientific way.


 
  
 Wakibaki was being rude in my view. I sort of felt that saying I am not entitled to an opinion is rude, regardless of what he knows or doesn't know.
  
 I'm not really into looking at things as being mysterious or newly discovered. I too think the important parameters are LCR, but there may be others. Or perhaps same parameters measured at different points or something (like impulse response etc.). Kubala Sosna claims their cables behave differently to others in terms of LCR, so if theirs do, others may also. How these parameters affect the input/output stages I am not clued up enough to know, but as I said, an amount of information have led me to think they do and in some cases audibly.
  
 http://www.kubala-sosna.com/news/technology/technology.htm <- nothing to prove or disprove anything, just interesting reading.
  
 If these parameters have an affect to the magnitude that the connected equipment behaves differently, then there is a change. I guess it depends on the system as to how audible it is. Again, we're back to not whether or not cables cause a change in signal transfer, but the audibility of the result of the change. I think this is reasonable enough a place to arrive at and no voodoo.
  
 BTW, in many DBT's subjects were asked to pick a "better sounding" system. Who is to say that folks prefer the sound of the same systems audiophiles prefer?


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> Okay. Here's the thing. There are elements to a double blind tests and their results that perhaps require more than people in rooms. What i've been saying is that may be there are factors that influence their results, time and bias being a few the important ones i can think of.




Sorry, you're dead wrong. If you won't accept double blind listening tests, then you won't accept the scientific method when it comes to research into human perception. It's established in the scientific method and it works.

If you won't accept the scientific method, you're wasting your time in this forum, I'm afraid. I must have missed the post where you dismissed double blind testing. I'm wasting my time trying to help you. Looks like you're just like the rest... trying to think up excuses to prove your preconcieved conclusion.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Wakibaki was being rude in my view. I sort of felt that saying I am not entitled to an opinion is rude, regardless of what he knows or doesn't know.
> 
> I'm not really into looking at things as being mysterious or newly discovered. I too think the important parameters are LCR, but there may be others. Or perhaps same parameters measured at different points or something (like impulse response etc.). Kubala Sosna claims their cables behave differently to others in terms of LCR, so if theirs do, others may also. How these parameters affect the input/output stages I am not clued up enough to know, but as I said, an amount of information have led me to think they do and in some cases audibly.
> 
> ...


 
 Don't know which DBTs asked for subjects to pick better though there may be some.  Typically, overwhelming when done by people researching and not selling, you hear A, you hear B, you hear an unknown to see if you can tell whether A or  B. 
  
 You are entitled to an opinion.  Your opinion just by having one is not automatically informed by reality. 
  
 Try avoiding those with gobbledygook papers trying to look technical and scientific and yet posting graphs with the axis obscured so you can't even read what it is supposed to be.  Try avoiding throwing up as evidence things from people trying to separate you from your money when you don't even know what it is about.  Yes, clearly you don't (you may take it as rude, but it is just the case) or you wouldn't have linked to such non-sense as the kubala-sosna advertising.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> Sorry, you're dead wrong. If you won't accept double blind listening tests, then you won't accept the scientific method when it comes to research into human perception. It's established in the scientific method and it works.
> 
> If you won't accept the scientific method, you're wasting your time in this forum, I'm afraid. I must have missed the post where you dismissed double blind testing. I'm wasting my time trying to help you. Looks like you're just like the rest... trying to think up excuses to prove your preconcieved conclusion.




My reference was towards the head-fi thread (audiophile myth or something). There double blind tests seem to cover some odd meanings and strange conclusions. One seems to ask participants to choose a "better sounding" system (the one with the system covered by a red piece of cloth) which seems strange as better is different to various folks.

I'm not against them (dbt's) as a whole, but some seem more valid than others. So not all dbt's are worthy of the name or at least the scientific credibility their names suggest.

As for the K-S stuff, i'm looking at it in a qualitative manner. Just to support that their cables are different. Certainly i do not know the scale used and i don't know what the other cables are that they're measuring. But it's just to say that theirs are different. Not in heebie geebie different but lcr-characteristic different. My point? I don't know if it makes it sound better, but not all differences are made-up voodoo crap.

As for graphs and stuff, i know what you mean and it's frustrating for me also. I know a scientific paper when i see one, and clearly those i have linked to are nothing close. But neither are those dbt results to which i've been referred. Kindda goes both ways...


----------



## bigshot

To test cables, the first thing to do would be to do a double blind test to determine whether there is a difference between them at all. Two cables, randomly sampled, as long a listening period as the test subject wants, on their own home equipment if they want, enough trials to eliminate chance.

This has been done many times. The result is always the same. You won't want to hear the result.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> To test cables, the first thing to do would be to do a double blind test to determine whether there is a difference between them at all. Two cables, randomly sampled, as long a listening period as the test subject wants, on their own home equipment if they want, enough trials to eliminate chance.
> 
> This has been done many times. The result is always the same. You won't want to hear the result.


 
  
 That's more like it. Links please. The ones I can find seem to only loosely focus on cables and more or silly comparisons like car battery jumper cables vs. 10k cables.


----------



## bigshot

Check out the myths thread. There have to be a few in there.


----------



## higbvuyb

x838nwy said:


> I think A but I am willing to look into the possibility of B. Sadly those who believe B seems to only want things wrapped in a 'double blind' wrapping. So my suggestion would be for them to try for themselves seeing that they won't accept reasonable alternatives.


 
 Do you not understand what 'double blind' means?
 To test if something is audible, you *must* do a *listening test*. Double blind simply means that the effect of extraneous variables is removed, which is *mandatory* for any rigorous result.
  
 Nobody cares if you can measure a difference that nobody can hear.
  


> So, do you mean to say it's all bs? If one takes these results as gospel, then cables DO sound different.


 
 The effect of cables is known and well-measured. Nobody is saying cables have zero effect. In longer runs, the type of cable is important.
 In that first test, it shows that even for 3 metre lengths, even the worst cable was within at worst 0.5 dB of the best performers at extreme frequencies (20khz). This is likely to be far below the threshold of audibility.
 The cable designed by real engineers for digital (high frequency) transmission, which costs something like $2 per metre, did better than the 'audiophile' cables designed by quacks.
  
 Effectively this means that if you are using very long cables, you may need to spend a few more dollars per metre to buy a cable designed for real purposes by real engineers. This is the exception and most people can happily use jumper cables and hear no difference.
  
 The second example shows that there are differences between amplifiers; however amplifiers are not cables.


----------



## x838nwy

higbvuyb said:


> Do you not understand what 'double blind' means?
> To test if something is audible, you *must* do a *listening test*. Double blind simply means that the effect of extraneous variables is removed, which is *mandatory* for any rigorous result.
> 
> Nobody cares if you can measure a difference that nobody can hear.
> ...


 
  
 I don't think you've been reading, but I understand. It's all a little dry. It is understood that extraneous variables must be removed. But does the knowledge/belief that there is no difference before test count? In fact, knowing that they're testing for differences in cables sets up all sorts of biases in people's minds. Some will try to look for things that might not exist, while others may become blind to whatever might be there. Other factors such as those others that I have mentioned must also be considered and dealt with properly also. My general reservations include the fact that the finer points of our hobby is a bit of an acquired taste and requires developed senses and some are more acute at picking up these things than others. This can play a big factor on results. For example, if one expects a bunch of people to be the indicator to whether cables make a difference, do we know if the same group of people would agree on another test in the same environment but with  changes that are actually more pronounced and deliberate? To me it's like measuring something without first calibrating your measuring equipment. Anyway...
  
 And I was under the impression that a lot of people are saying that cables have no effect as long as they are functional. (We ARE including wire hangers, after all.) So they do have an effect on the sq now? That's good to hear, thank you.
  
 0.5dB difference is in audible? It's not all that far below audibility. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=0.5 some people can go better than that. It's amazing.
  
 I don't think I've said anywhere that cost=performance. It's an interesting result, nonetheless. It sort of shows that that particular $2/meter cable sounds "better" than the 'audiophile cable'. So if we call the $2/m cable an audiophile cable, would that change things? The point here is whether or not cables can make a system sound different or not (i'm refraining from 'better' here). The $2/m cable seems to say that it does.
  
 So at the magic 3 m, it somehow matters. As I do not see anything intrinsically magical about the number 3,  i assume the same factors whatever they are that matter at 3 m remain important at 10, 19 or 1 meter, correct? May be at a lower magnitude but still there, may be? This kindda goes against the "all cables are the same and if you think they're different you're imagining things" posts I've been reading.
  
 You know, I'm sort of with you on this one, though. Between my gungnir and mjolnir I use the schitt cables at 6" and I can't think of anything that will better them cos 6" of decent cabling should at least do less damage (if it does at all, granted) than anything 1 m long, no matter how amazing. So up to a point, if you go extremely short, things probably don't matter. I think there's a wireworld youtube clip where the guy talks about this. But I don't think this discussion has any limits on length however.
  
 You seem to have respect for proper engineering of things and so do I. Given that, I'm sure you also know that there is no such thing as "the best" design in engineering. That $2/m cable I'm sure can be made better too. If the task is taken up by someone who works for a company that makes audio cables and he/she ends up improving on it and sells it for $20/m, would that be somehow a scientific impossibility suddenly?
  
 Finally, I included the second link to which you refer as an example of how a dbx test may not be so successful at times. Or at least sometimes results are not entirely reliable.


----------



## higbvuyb

x838nwy said:


> I don't think you've been reading, but I understand. It's all a little dry. It is understood that extraneous variables must be removed. But does the knowledge/belief that there is no difference before test count? In fact, knowing that they're testing for differences in cables sets up all sorts of biases in people's minds. Some will try to look for things that might not exist, while others may become blind to whatever might be there. Other factors such as those others that I have mentioned must also be considered and dealt with properly also. My general reservations include the fact that the finer points of our hobby is a bit of an acquired taste and requires developed senses and some are more acute at picking up these things than others. This can play a big factor on results. For example, if one expects a bunch of people to be the indicator to whether cables make a difference, do we know if the same group of people would agree on another test in the same environment but with  changes that are actually more pronounced and deliberate? To me it's like measuring something without first calibrating your measuring equipment. Anyway...
> *It's already been stated that you cannot prove the null hypothesis. However cable enthusiasts and sellers who claim to be able to hear an obvious difference should be able to tell in a DBT. Unless they're being fooled by placebo. It is only common sense to treat these claims with suspicion, let alone spend a thousand dollars on them.*
> 
> And I was under the impression that a lot of people are saying that cables have no effect as long as they are functional. (We ARE including wire hangers, after all.) So they do have an effect on the sq now? That's good to hear, thank you.
> ...


----------



## bigshot

The thread is a whole lot of words that doen't mean anything. Sometimes I think being an audiophile has more to do with being able to spew our reams of vague descriptions and logical obfuscation than talking about getting better sound.

For me, anyone who honestly wants to improve the quality of sound in their setup is my pal. X838NWY, you mentioned your system has a significant flaw... harshness. I'd be happy to help you solve that problem, and I'm sure I'd be able to help you, but I'm not interested in talking in circles about wires until you do as much research on the thresholds of human perception as much as you have manufacturer sales sheets.

The differences between properly designed and manufactured audio cables are inaudible. Controlled DBT has shown that.

NEXT!


----------



## x838nwy

Well it's not really call "significant" but it does affect my enjoyment of the system. Good news is, I think I've narrowed it down to the actual quality of the mastering itself. Seems a lot to do with clipping actually in the recording and some occasional pops and clicks. I first thought it was my DAC but it showed up on other DACS I own too once I hook them up to a decent amplifier or use a more revealing pair of iem's (borrowed). I tried similar songs at similar levels and played perfectly fine. I think it was just that my amp was capable enough at digging up the details that this became apparent. To be honest, if we're going OT and talking about system improvements, I must say I'm a little disappointed by my PWD (mkII). Not THAT disappointed, but sometimes it does sound a bit artificial sounding for some reason. Compared to something like a Chord Qute, it seems a little dry. I'm not good enough to put it to words, but that's about it. I'm hoping the DirectStream upgrade where PS goes from DAC chips to FPGA's will go some way to help this. I'll have to wait and see.
  
 Still, I take your point about cables. To summarize, you say that cables must be properly designed to function correctly. But onec a certain level of functionality is reached (let's call it a functionality threshold),  any change as long as it does not reduce the functionality below a certain point, is inaudible to humans. Do I get this correct? I just happen to think that there is no threshold and that things can be improved. I am still looking for time to look properly into the details of those DBT's and am waiting (foolishly perhaps) for replies from cable manufacturers.


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> To summarize, you say that cables must be properly designed to function correctly. But once a certain level of functionality is reached (let's call it a functionality threshold),  any change as long as it does not reduce the functionality below a certain point, is inaudible to humans. Do I get this correct?


 
  
 Yes... but I've never run across a cable that messed up sound myself. In anything under a 20-50 foot length, it is extremely unlikely. The cables from China that come with your blu-ray player, three dollar cables at mono price, fifty dollar fancy cables... all of them are the same. However very high end boutique cables marketed to audiophiles are much more likely to be deliberately designed to not conduct properly. The screwed up performance is referred to as "house sound".
  
 I'd be happy to try to help you figure out the "artificial sound" in your system. I seriously doubt your guess about the cause of it is correct. I suspect something quite different.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> .... a $5k cable wrapped in angel's pubic hairs.


 
  
 I bet that would sound _heavenly_!
  
 Here are my 2cents on the cable debate (and whether or not we should be having it).
  
 Look over at the non-Science forums here at head-fi. There are many active threads which contain discussions about cables as if there are important sonic characteristics that only high-end cables can provide.
  
 Now look at Sound Sicence, there is only this one discussion of cables in a scientific setting and it's filled with skeptics who refuse to discuss the topic.
  
 Do you guys know how that appears to budding audio enthusiasts from the outside? People don't often do an exhaustive search inside of headfi and read through all the thousands of posts about cables (or whatever they happen to be searching for). Many folks are either googling a topic and clicking google links direct to threads, or they're browsing the active topics at the top of each forum listing. These causal head-fiers, head-fi-lurkers, and google-fiers are getting a very low signal-to-noise regarding high-end cables, and unless they happen to have a heavy training in electrical engineering, they are most likely getting a very skewed idea about the importance of high-end cables and their supposed audible effects.
 Most folks read a statement like "silver cables sound bright, copper cables sound warm. This is because if different resistivity of copper vs silver" and think 'ooh! that sounds like a scientific explanation' rather than thinking "hey, the difference in resistivity between a 10 foot silver and copper interconnect is vanishingly small compared to the input impedances of a typical line level device, that supposed audible difference doesn't make a lot of sense, let me find my electrical engineering textbook and refresh my understanding of impedance bridging..."
  
 If we don't continue to address the notion that high-end cables sound different than reasonably well built cables, then the myth of cable sound will continue to be perpetuated to the next generation of hi-fi enthusiasts.
  
 Also, I'm going to gripe a bit about this: there is no bijection between double blind testing (i.e., DBT) and science. Double blind testing is a method by which one can test the hypothesis that a difference exists between two populations. Science is the generation of new knowledge by testing falsifiable hypotheses using systematic methods and reasoning. Double blind testing is a valuable tool for performing scientific tests, but it is only a subset of the tools available to science.
  
 Here's free information on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

The Admins should sticky this link in the header for the forum.
http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## jcx

there is "too cheap" construction in RCA cables at the lowest end of the retail chain
  
 the shield can be pigtailed under the moulding, leaving a open loop for magnetic couping when it should be 360 degree terminated for effective RF shielding
  
 very cheap RCA cable may have < a dozen strands in the shield, coverage factor <10% - so allows capacitive coupling of external noise, EMI/RFI, may only be loosely spiraled rather than braid and can open up area on bends
  
 and these skimpy "shields" have too high resistance - in SE IC like RCA the only defense against chassis current errors is extremely low shield/gnd resistance
  
 Bill Whitlock from Jensen - not just an anyone's opinion:
  


jcx said:


> MOGAMI - The Cable of the PROS
> 
> or if you can diy:
> "'Exotic cables will not stop noise. Expensive cables, even if double or triple shielded, made of 100% unobtainium, and hand woven by virgins will have no significant effect on hum or buzz. Only the resistance of the grounded conductor can make a difference.' If you have to use coax, Belden 8241F, with a low-resistance copper-braid shield, works well for audio and video."
> ...


----------



## higbvuyb

x838nwy said:


> I just happen to think that there is no threshold and that things can be improved.


 
 This is trivially false - there must be some level where a difference is too small to be heard (unless you can demonstrate the existence of a perfectly accurate sensor)
 The concept of a sensory threshold has been around for decades in neuroscience and is not controversial.
  
 Yes, you can use sophisticated measuring devices to assemble a set of equipment that is 'improved' beyond the threshold of audibility. However, this forum is about human beings listening to music, not about people seeing how close they can get graph A to graph B.


----------



## bigshot

Researching the thresholds of human perception is just as important as researching specifications and measurements. Without applying perceptual thresholds, all those graphs and charts are meaningless.


----------



## bootdsc

Leaving audiophile jargon aside, long as the wire can carry the required amps, has essentially no resistance and has proper shielding to keep out stray emi nothing else matters. Now its totally possible the stock cable has no shielding and is such a low gauge it can't handle the amps so re-cabling might change the sound signature but when it comes right down to it, who cares?
  
 If you like pretty cables(which i do) then by all means go nuts. Like the saying goes, if it aint broke mod it!


----------



## x838nwy

Before people take my posts the wrong way, what I meant by "threshold" in the context of my post was not the auditory threshold. Well, not exactly.
  
 What I meant is this:
  
 If there's a specification to which a cable must conform (say have a certain value of LCR at a particular frequency and voltage input and a bunch of other parameters) what most seem to suggest is that if a reasonably made cable can adhere to these specifications at the stated conditions, the cable is deemed to be functional. If the specification calls for a particular tolerance, say X +/- Y microH for example, as long as a cable can keep within these limits, it is functional. Let's call this cable "A".
  
 At the same time, what most seem to be saying also is that if another cable (let's call it "B" since I have lots of imagination) can perform to within X +/-G microH, it will sound identical to cable "A" as long as G < or = to Y.
  
 In effect, the spec +/- Y is like a threshold beyond which no audible difference will result at the ears of the listener. Effectively that the cable spec tolerances for a threshold below the human auditory threshold. Perhaps I used the same word too many times and I must apologize for any confusion.
  
 What I question (foolishly according to most of you guys) and it's really the essence of all that I've been blabbing about is whether or not the difference between G and Y matters in ways that produce audible results. I propose that it does. Perhaps as a result of the design choices of input/output stages or s/pdif implementation and so on and so forth. A lot of people it seems are of the view that the specifications are suitable and the differences between wires cause inconsequential changes to their variations from the spec. Or something like that.
  
 *Please note that I am simply clarifying what I'm saying and not dragging up anything in an attempt to troll.
  
 It's been a few days now and no response from manufacturers. Some of you might enjoy this fact.


----------



## SircussMouse

x838nwy said:


> Before people take my posts the wrong way, what I meant by "threshold" in the context of my post was not the auditory threshold. Well, not exactly.
> 
> What I meant is this:
> 
> ...


 
 Freedom of speech...........
  
 SM


----------



## bigshot

Audibility depends a lot more on human ears than it does specifications of wires. Do you *know* how the specs you're looking at compare to human audible thresholds? If you don't, you can't say one way or the other whether something is audible or not. Just because there is a measurable difference, it doesn't mean it's audible.

The reason we are dismissing your stuff is because we know how ridiculously small the differences you are pointing to are compared to our ability to hear them.

Go find a solid specification on a difference in sound between cables. It's probably going to be measured in dB and frequencies, maybe a distortion level. See if you can fiind one and we'll compare it to human thresholds.


----------



## castleofargh

x838nwy said:


> Before people take my posts the wrong way, what I meant by "threshold" in the context of my post was not the auditory threshold. Well, not exactly.
> 
> What I meant is this:
> 
> ...


 
  
 we all agree here that different kind of cable will make "some" differences, we just don't care because we put it into perspective. look how many times the signal had to go from one metallic component to another one, do you think those components are able to treat all frequencies equally when a wire can't? why is nobody asking about silver integrated circuit and circuit board? why not bigger paths on the board to reduce skin effect? don't you think about all the very little changes you could get with that? and the soldering material, what a shame, not even copper. it must really mess up the sound.
 all this to say that the quest for perfection is nice as an idea, but slightly silly at this level when you consider the bigger picture and the entire signal path.
  
 you're looking at differences smaller than the differences between 2headphones of the same model. smaller than the differences of left and right drivers. and sometimes smaller than the balance precision of the amp. it's just not worth it.


----------



## bootdsc

castleofargh said:


> we all agree here that different kind of cable will make "some" differences, we just don't care because we put it into perspective. look how many times the signal had to go from one metallic component to another one, do you think those components are able to treat all frequencies equally when a wire can't? why is nobody asking about silver integrated circuit and circuit board? why not bigger paths on the board to reduce skin effect? don't you think about all the very little changes you could get with that? and the soldering material, what a shame, not even copper. it must really mess up the sound.
> all this to say that the quest for perfection is nice as an idea, but slightly silly at this level when you consider the bigger picture and the entire signal path.
> 
> you're looking at differences smaller than the differences between 2headphones of the same model. smaller than the differences of left and right drivers. and sometimes smaller than the balance precision of the amp. it's just not worth it.


 
 Well said.


----------



## superjawes

castleofargh said:


> we all agree here that different kind of cable will make "some" differences, we just don't care because we put it into perspective. look how many times the signal had to go from one metallic component to another one, do you think those components are able to treat all frequencies equally when a wire can't? why is nobody asking about silver integrated circuit and circuit board? why not bigger paths on the board to reduce skin effect? don't you think about all the very little changes you could get with that? and the soldering material, what a shame, not even copper. it must really mess up the sound.
> all this to say that the quest for perfection is nice as an idea, but slightly silly at this level when you consider the bigger picture and the entire signal path.
> 
> you're looking at differences smaller than the differences between 2headphones of the same model. smaller than the differences of left and right drivers. and sometimes smaller than the balance precision of the amp. it's just not worth it.


This is very well said. Yes, better cables will offer improvements from an academic perspective, but the changes are so small that, as you point out, the improvement would be lost in practical applications. And that's not even getting into the value perspective...


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Before people take my posts the wrong way, what I meant by "threshold" in the context of my post was not the auditory threshold. Well, not exactly.
> 
> What I meant is this:
> 
> ...


 

 You do realize you are contradicting even yourself.  You have the paragraph about specs of inductance and within certain parameters differences are inaudible.  Okay, and that part is fine.  Then you have the part where you go ahead and say such differences you propose do cause audible results.  Sorry, but no they don't.  Such effects are way far below audibility thresholds.  When cable A has a response roll off at 3 megahertz and cable B at 1 megahertz yes that is a difference.  One you will never come close to hearing with your hearing limited to 20 khz or so.  Both cables are completely flat for all audible purposes.  Ditto for most any other measure you can come up with.  Give it a rest.  You don't have anything to back up what you propose other than you think you need to propose it. 
  
 As for hearing back from cable makers.......you are having the same experience I have.  They pretend to be all happy you asked questions until you ask the wrong one, and you will get excuses or nothing.  Usually nothing from them.  The reason being they have nothing to stand upon.  It isn't that I enjoy this fact.  It is one of those simple facts.


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> You do realize you are contradicting even yourself.  You have the paragraph about specs of inductance and within certain parameters differences are inaudible.  Okay, and that part is fine.  Then you have the part where you go ahead and say such differences you propose do cause audible results.  Sorry, but no they don't.  Such effects are way far below audibility thresholds.  When cable A has a response roll off at 3 megahertz and cable B at 1 megahertz yes that is a difference.  One you will never come close to hearing with your hearing limited to 20 khz or so.  Both cables are completely flat for all audible purposes.  Ditto for most any other measure you can come up with.  Give it a rest.  You don't have anything to back up what you propose other than you think you need to propose it.
> 
> As for hearing back from cable makers.......you are having the same experience I have.  They pretend to be all happy you asked questions until you ask the wrong one, and you will get excuses or nothing.  Usually nothing from them.  The reason being they have nothing to stand upon.  It isn't that I enjoy this fact.  It is one of those simple facts.




No self-contradiction here. I'm paraphrasing what others said, then saying what i think/propose. Read it again. And we are talking about cables of all types including s/pdif and aes/ebu and so on, right. So not a max 20kHz then.

As for me proposing anything, well thank you. Putting forwars an idea followed up be reasoning is quite literally reasonable. And since someone mentioned it, there are many instances where people notice differences between pairs of headphones of the same model (T1, LCD's, and HD800's). Two of the three i used as examples are made by big names with presumably quality control rigs costing millions of dollars and made with sota machines to ensure total consistency. I'm quite sure their drivers are made to tolerances which only result in differences that are inaudible by the human ear. But yet people reliably notice variations.

Actually, i have given my ideas a rest until i get any actual data and i've said that i am waiting. I sadly have neither the measuring equipment nor the expertise to use the necessary gear so i cannot post any more than logical thoughts and experiences of my own. So i must rely on figures from elsewhere which have yet to arrive. 

Can someone please send me a link to details of a really good cable dbx, please. Thank you.

C


----------



## bigshot

Why don't you do a DBX yourself? I get the impression that finding out for yourself is the only way that you won't be tempted to pick and choose results.

A real simple test would be to just run a fancy cable into the left channel of your headphone amp and a cheap one into the right. Hide it from your view. Then close your eyes and have someone put your headphones on your head. Try to guess which ear is the fancy cable. Then have your friend swap the cables on the amp randomly to left and right a bunch of times and do it again. See if you can discern a pattern in 50 or 60 randomized trials.

Good luck!!!


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> No self-contradiction here. I'm paraphrasing what others said, then saying what i think/propose. Read it again. And we are talking about cables of all types including s/pdif and aes/ebu and so on, right. So not a max 20kHz then.
> 
> As for me proposing anything, well thank you. Putting forwars an idea followed up be reasoning is quite literally reasonable. And since someone mentioned it, there are many instances where people notice differences between pairs of headphones of the same model (T1, LCD's, and HD800's). Two of the three i used as examples are made by big names with presumably quality control rigs costing millions of dollars and made with sota machines to ensure total consistency. I'm quite sure their drivers are made to tolerances which only result in differences that are inaudible by the human ear. But yet people reliably notice variations.
> 
> ...


 

 What would convince you that cables are a non-issue?  Until you can answer that question you will, as you have done in this forum, infinitely regress to some other position without accepting what others are telling you here.
  
 Perhaps it is worth parsing out which wire/cable you are talking about in each instance.
  
 Interconnects.....barring strange impedance values it all sounds the same.   And when it doesn't the way to deal with it is simply paying attention to impedance interactions with LCR.  This does not cost lots of money. 
  
 Speaker cable......there are some usually minor effects from gauge and other LCR effects reacting with uneven speaker impedance values.   Some may be audible.
  
 SPDIF/AES/EBU .........all the same for any competently designed cable.  Competent design does not cost lots of money.  Literally cables for a handful of dollars.
  
 USB...................same as above, any good decent cable meeting USB 2.0 specs will do the job. 
  
 As Bigshot has said, go convince yourself.  With the proper methodology see if you can hear differences or not.  If you find you cannot, then you know what you need to know.


----------



## wakibaki

Logical thought and reasoning 2000+ years ago led the Ancient Greeks to conclude that the world was made up out of admixtures of 4 elements, Earth, Air, Fire and Water.
  
 20 centuries or so later a few of us have come to the realization that logical thought and reasoning alone are insufficient tools with which to examine some issues.
  
 This is, however, still news to some people.
  
 w


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> Why don't you do a DBX yourself? I get the impression that finding out for yourself is the only way that you won't be tempted to pick and choose results.
> 
> A real simple test would be to just run a fancy cable into the left channel of your headphone amp and a cheap one into the right. Hide it from your view. Then close your eyes and have someone put your headphones on your head. Try to guess which ear is the fancy cable. Then have your friend swap the cables on the amp randomly to left and right a bunch of times and do it again. See if you can discern a pattern in 50 or 60 randomized trials.
> 
> Good luck!!!




Funny you should mention this. I was designing this yesterday evening. I don't think using different ears would produce a meaningful result - my hearing could be different between the two and i'll be working with/against the stereo mix and whatever else is going on. I think i'll stick with changing both cables.

I have a pair of Nordost Blue Heaven 1m RCA just arrived from an ebay seller yesterday. They're the same length as my wireworld equinox 7 (a quick word to say that wireworld's rca plugs are really nice and smooth. Really well designed and won't mark your terminals. Good design and not crazy expensive too.)

For simplicity, i'll use a mini to rca adaptor and go from geek out -> lehman linear then to a pair of k702 annies.

Will use the long stock cable for the annies so i won't see the set up. Will cover it up also with a blanket. Player will be jRiver from my mbp controlled through my iphone.

A couple question:
what would be a significant number of tests?
I assume i'm allowed a break in between tests?
Will you guys believe my results?
Can someone good at stats let me know what percentage of correct identification is significant? (I mean, if i can tell there's a difference like 55% of the time does that say anything? What about 53%?) actually tell me later after results come in.
I am thinking that would it be more meaningful if the test is whether i can correctly tell if there's been a change of cables. Not identifying cable A or B but if there's been a change. Everytime the music stops, cables will be unplugged and plugged back in. I identify whether the dude used a different set or not. Are we all cool with this?
Any other suggestions?

I will get round to doing this on the 16th. The gear is at my office and we're on holiday till then. If i can do it earlier, i'll let you guys know.


----------



## x838nwy

And if we all play nice (and i know you know the difference between concise and obtuse) i'll even put cable directionality into play too. So we'll have 4 virtual cables.

And even I don't believe they have directions.


----------



## bigshot

Your challenge is going to be overcoming auditory memory. You need to be able to do direct A/B comparisons to detect small differences. Anything over a second or two between samples will kill your test. The more cables you test, the more inputs you are going to need into your preamp switcher.
  
 I find it is always best to test in mono rather than stereo.
  
 ALWAYS use a second person to switch and keep score so you yourself are totally blind. (It also helps keep you 
  
 Whether or not we are convinced by your test doesn't matter. You are finding out for yourself. If you care to know, you'll do what it takes to find out. If you don't, you'll just fudge it and not tell us. Either way, we don't matter.


----------



## x838nwy

Very good points.
The most i can do with auditory memory is choosing a dac with a mini jack output and a proper line out so my assistant can change quickly. But yes, i take your point. The problem i see is taking enough time to actually notice any change but still retain what i heard last.

Finally, I won't fudge the results, i promise


----------



## ab initio

I look forward to the results! I always have fun testing things out, I hope you do too. Happy experimenting!

Cheers


----------



## higbvuyb

x838nwy said:


> what would be a significant number of tests?
> 
> Can someone good at stats let me know what percentage of correct identification is significant? (I mean, if i can tell there's a difference like 55% of the time does that say anything? What about 53%?) actually tell me later after results come in.


 
 The more tests you do, the better your results. Around 15 trials would be a good number.
 The significance of your result is known as the p-value, i.e the probability that such a result could occur due to pure chance.
 http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_bino.htm
 This is a table of values.
 <0.05 is often considered to be significant but replication of these results would be expected to confirm the validity.


----------



## x838nwy

I'm contemplating using one of these to switch between sources http://schiit.com/products/sys-passive-preamp
  
 I could use the short pyst cable between this and my amp and connect the two cables into different sources. I can hook both up to my gungnir as it has two pairs of RCA outs. This would make the changes quicker and no plugging/unplugging.
  
 Does anyone know of an (possibly cheaper) alternative?
  
 I'll see when this can get there without going express or whatever. This should be interesting...


----------



## x838nwy

x838nwy said:


> I'm contemplating using one of these to switch between sources http://schiit.com/products/sys-passive-preamp
> 
> I could use the short pyst cable between this and my amp and connect the two cables into different sources. I can hook both up to my gungnir as it has two pairs of RCA outs. This would make the changes quicker and no plugging/unplugging.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Bugger that. Order placed. If 49.99 + shipping is the price for truth then so be it. If not, at least I have a handy source selector and these small Schiit boxes are wife-friendly (hopefully she'll think it's the Vali or the Modi. Best not have them all in the same room at once).


----------



## Joe Skubinski

I’ve done this exercise in the past to see where the pitfalls are. For me it was not a matter of proof but rather to see why blind tests are so difficult to use as proof of an audible change between two devices. 

Looking back on my notes I can give you some things you’re going to need to do in order to improve your chances of making any comparisons successful. Blind testing for audible differences by repeated comparisons requires training and takes time to obtain meaningful results, as in lots of hours over a long period of time, like days or weeks. The good news is your ability to determine minute changes will get better with experience. The bad news is you need to continue to work at it until you reach your goal, whatever that may be. 

Broken down into stages…

1. Train yourself as to what the differences are that you are listing for between two components under test. Take notes to narrow the comparison process you’re ultimately going to create. In other words, you’re not going into this blind but with as complete an understanding of the sonic characteristics of each device under test as you care to learn. The more you know about them the easier comparisons become. To not do so is the equivalent of expecting a dog to follow a scent without having smelled it.
If you have never done comparisons like this before, it would speed the process to have someone with you who has as they can quickly point out changes for you to hone in on. It all begins with hearing one difference, then comparing, and contrasting that with other devices under test; then the next difference, then the next, and so on, building a mental library so to speak.
2. Locate specific sections of song tracks that exemplify these differences. Note what you hear and the time index.
3. Create a play list of these short portions of specific tracks in a planned order to target differences and shorten test time.
4. Repeat.

Suggestions…

1. Volume should be kept the same during any change, however it can and should be varied (while at the listening position) while a device is under test. Certain aspects become glaring at slightly higher volumes. Once you hone in on a sonic signature, the volume may not need be increased for the same result next time. 
2. Quickly changing the devices under test then trying to listen over and over is tedious and stressful- ultimately this method of comparison does not work well. Even if the change is instantaneous as with a remote switch, there is no long-term benefit to this method nor is it a short-cut to discerning audible differences. You must learn differences while always second guessing yourself to confirm. 
3. If you’re using speakers, don’t be afraid to move your head or listening position to better hear things within the soundstage. I’ve seen too many people stay fixed in the sweet spot even though what you really want to hear may not be exactly in that spot for different recordings. If you do not have a stereo image or soundstage within your set-up, this MUST be resolved first. Many differences are not huge but are easily heard as changes within the soundstage, for example vocals being more distant, nearer, or cleaner.
4. If using headphones, move the headphones about on your head track to track in an attempt to adjust acoustics, similar to above. With some headphones this may not make a difference but it’s worth a try.
5. Keep in mind you are always training yourself to hear an increasing number of differences in or signatures related to each device under test in order to more easily pick it out when you hear it again.
6. If there is any gap in making a change, say more than a minute, be sure not to make any rash judgments when listening resumes. Listen to a number of tracks to reinstate your memory. We’ll call this the one minute rule.
7. Create 10-15 tracks, and if possible shorten to just the portions where you hear a difference to ultimately have one continuous playback with gaps for quicker comparisons. Note order may matter.
8. Create a scoring method for the above. Maybe choose device A or B for each track section, and add the results. More A’s, must be device A.

Turns out doing blind listening comparison testing is not as easy as it would at first seem, even if you already know the outcome☺. It can be done with 9 out of 10 results, but it takes A LOT of practice. 

The more practical approach to understanding the sound characteristics of a device is to listen to it over a period of time; hours, days, even weeks. This averages out to a better understanding of the sonic characteristics of the device within the context of your long-term listening style, and also allows time to assess other portions of the system and how their interaction may relate to what you are hearing. Always remember you are listing to the sum of the parts of an entire system, including the original recording venue and set-up. Tendency is to point at the last change as the culprit when it just might only be the messenger.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Bugger that. Order placed. If 49.99 + shipping is the price for truth then so be it. If not, at least I have a handy source selector and these small Schiit boxes are wife-friendly (hopefully she'll think it's the Vali or the Modi. Best not have them all in the same room at once).





I really like the little schitt passive pre. It's a handy switch for monitors to choose between modi or my fiancée's imac for a source. Im sure you can find a good everyday use for it Once youre done experimenting with it.

Best part: i havent noticed any clicking when it switches. Thats a big plus for blind testing

Cheers


----------



## esldude

joe skubinski said:


> I’ve done this exercise in the past to see where the pitfalls are. For me it was not a matter of proof but rather to see why blind tests are so difficult to use as proof of an audible change between two devices.
> 
> Looking back on my notes I can give you some things you’re going to need to do in order to improve your chances of making any comparisons successful. Blind testing for audible differences by repeated comparisons requires training and takes time to obtain meaningful results, as in lots of hours over a long period of time, like days or weeks. The good news is your ability to determine minute changes will get better with experience. The bad news is you need to continue to work at it until you reach your goal, whatever that may be.
> 
> ...


 

 I mean no disrespect to you, but the above is almost a recipe for how not to come to meaningful conclusions unless I misunderstand.    I am sorry I am short on time today and cannot fully explain why, but will do so later.  One example: While one needs to vary volume to reach a comfortable level for a listening test, item #1 in any such comparison is once you are ready to switch components you must maintain precisely the same volume.    I have tried it personally, it has been tested a number of ways and a number of times.  Almost everyone feels more comfortable in their judgments when done over long times like hours or days.  And in every test with significant results it is short term listening with relatively rapid switching which is the more discriminating method.  Due to echoic memory it is suggested each selection not last longer than 20 seconds before switching.  Again nothing against you personally Joe Skubinsky, but I find most of your suggestions to be wrong.


----------



## wakibaki

The difficulty of obtaining useful results from listening tests is frequently exaggerated by those who for some reason or another, find the results disagreeable.

Here's a link to an excellent how-to from Stuart Yaniger.

http://www.linearaudio.net/images/LA%20Vol%202%20Yaniger(1).pdf

w


----------



## Joe Skubinski

My suggestions had nothing to do with the administration of a standardized test. They had everything to do with understanding that hearing subtle differences is not something you can walk into and obtain useful results without knowing what it is you're listening for.


----------



## bigshot

If you have to jump through hoops to even hear a difference, odds are the difference doesn't mean jack diddly to sound quality when listening to music.

A difference is a difference. Set two things next to each other with all other things being even and a difference should be clear. I think that most people who think hearing differences is a difficult thing are training themselves to hear differences that just aren't there.


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> I mean no disrespect to you, but the above is almost a recipe for how not to come to meaningful conclusions unless I misunderstand.




You don't misunderstand. Just about every one of those numbered suggestsions would make it MORE difficult to hear subtle differences, not easier.


----------



## TheAttorney

So, x838nwy, you thought that running your own DBT would somehow clarify the matter? No chance, this is just the beginning… of your nightmare
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 Joe makes some thoughtful points, which I think are particularly valid if you need to know how the said component is to perform in a range of circumstances (essential for a designer) and I largely agree. However, every single variable in such a test will conspire to confuse your poor overworked brain. So if you just need to know if A is different to B, I think you need to try remove all possible variables , including your circumstance and mood (e.g. time of day).
  
 I think that fast-switching DBTs are unbeatable at removing Expectation Bias, and excellent at instantly spotting gross tonal/colouration differences that you typically get with headphones (frequency response that looks like a cross-section of the Himalayas) . But the same tests are unreliable IMO at spotting more subtle-but-significant differences that you get with relatively neutral components like DACs and cables (ruler flat frequency response, negligible THD etc). Not imposible, just unreliable because of the mind tricks that have been fruitlessly debated a million times.
  
 What this means is that if you run your fast-switching-DBT and find no difference between components A and B, I simply won't accept that result until you repeat the DBT in a longer term test, of a style that I would deem to be fool proof.
  
 The only thing that can be completely guaranteed with such a test is that the side that disagrees with your  end result will nit pick your method to death, and the side that agrees with your end result will quietly overlook the same flaws.


----------



## elmoe

So basically DBTs are completely unreliable since they rely heavily on how well the tester's ears are trained. Best thing for you to do is just test things out yourself and decide from that without being influenced by either side.


----------



## higbvuyb

theattorney said:


> But the same tests are unreliable IMO at spotting more subtle-but-significant differences that you get with relatively neutral components like DACs and cables (ruler flat frequency response, negligible THD etc). Not imposible, just unreliable because of the mind tricks that have been fruitlessly debated a million times.
> 
> What this means is that if you run your fast-switching-DBT and find no difference between components A and B, I simply won't accept that result until you repeat the DBT in a longer term test, of a style that I would deem to be fool proof.


 
 How do you know that these significant differences exist?
 If they are so subtle why are they so significant?


----------



## jcx

audio pretraining is legit in DBT - Double Blind just means controlling the source of information about the selection in each trial so there is no way to tell except by listening  - but the overall test protocol can tweaked for all sorts of hypothesis
  
 there are positive and negative controls possible too - include some tests known to be audible, only score the subjects results on the unknowns that get the known audible tests right - detects the hypothetical "nocebo" bias, fatigue, or just plain inability
  
 there are incompetent/pseudoscientific and well meaning but naïve listening tests all round - but those passionate about their pet audiophile theories, or taking money for their "professional" subjective reviews of audio equipment have in most cases had 30+ years for most audiophile controversies to refine, evolve scientifically acceptable listening tests proving their "night and day" sighted subjective opinions - and most audiophile verities still haven't made the jump into psychoacoustic text book knowledge yet


----------



## castleofargh

I think some are missing a point here. is the test done for myself, or is it done for truth/everybody to acknowledge.
  
 I do my tests for myself and draw my own conclusions. nothing wrong with that as it only concerns me listening to my music. I don't mind sharing what I heard, but then I wouldn't come here telling everybody that I know the truth. because I don't, and didn't have enough control over my experiments to remove uncertainty.
  
 dbt is the next best thing available after measurements, and the most simple way to know for real if something is humanly audible or not. real dbt, not whatever switch done by myself. people tend to call dbt a lot of things that are not it.
 if a few people come with a clear result from a real dbt done enough times to be statistically valid, and all settings of the experiment correctly done, then yes I will tend to believe in the conclusions of that dbt.
 one person telling me he heard something, is just one person giving an opinion. just his pseudo, will be a bias to my trust in his opinion. what w838nwy decided to do will only serve to convince himself of something he wants to hear. it has zero value for us all, except being an opinion. I will gladly read it, it will not change my own. only dbt can do that to me because I trust the method.


----------



## wakibaki

wakibaki said:


> The difficulty of obtaining useful results from listening tests is frequently exaggerated by those who for some reason or another, find the results disagreeable.


 
  
 Sameold sameold...


  
 Quote:


theattorney said:


> So, x838nwy, you thought that running your own DBT would somehow clarify the matter? No chance, this is just the beginning… of your nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 TheAttorney is giving you notice that he intends to obscure any result to the best of his ability, so better not to try. Your nightmare, at his hands, is about to start. The Internet, don't you love it?
  


wakibaki said:


> Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, But four times he who gets his blow in fust.


 
  
 w


----------



## x838nwy

castleofargh i think you just posted nearly what i wanted to for most of your post.

I'm doing this largely to satisfy my own curiosity. Whatever answer i obtain will be my own and through my own ears. Happily i will share my findings with members by posting them here.

I understand that whichever direction my results indicate they will not manifest the final say on the subject. But i thank you for your suggestions.

Joe Skubinski raised some valid points, though. For example, I mean the listener should at least be aware that differences may be extremely subtle and that the listener should perhaps be familiar with the music.

Setting up a test that ticks all the boxes is very difficult to say the least, but i'll be mighty fun and very interesting.

As for now, i'm waiting for my Schiit to ship! If we're lucky, i may be doing this going between my pwd and LAu.

Funny how both of these have JPS power cords on them  but that's perhaps another story...


----------



## x838nwy

It is also possible - and actually not all that unlikely - that the only conclusion we will be able to draw from the test is that it is easy to confuse the crap out of my brain.

Oh and for your information, there will be another person switching (or not switching) the source selector. I will set up an excel sheet so that a set of random numbers are generated. The numbers will be unknown to me, but my assistant will see it. He will switch if the number is even and not switch if the number is odd.

I will do the test at the same volume. I get what Joe is suggesting, but for the sake of brevity, I will try the tests at constant volume for now.

I will allow myself to go ocd with positioning of the headphones also.

When i have all the necessary gear to conduct this, i will let you guys know.

C


----------



## Steve Eddy

x838nwy said:


> Oh and for your information, there will be another person switching (or not switching) the source selector. I will set up an excel sheet so that a set of random numbers are generated. The numbers will be unknown to me, but my assistant will see it. He will switch if the number is even and not switch if the number is odd.




That would make it only single blind and subject to such biases as the Clever Hans Effect.

se


----------



## x838nwy

steve eddy said:


> That would make it only single blind and subject to such biases as the Clever Hans Effect.
> 
> se




Not quite following you here. Any suggestions,Steve?


----------



## Steve Eddy

x838nwy said:


> Not quite following you here. Any suggestions,Steve?




Yes, my suggestion is that the test should be made double blind. See if you can find a used QSC ABX comparator (they stopped making them in 2004).

se


----------



## TheAttorney

higbvuyb said:


> How do you know that these significant differences exist?
> If they are so subtle why are they so significant?


 
 Nothing clever. Just years of experience of working out when it is and isn't safe to trust my ears. The way the results have panned out has satisfied me that I haven't been unduly influenced by Expectation Bias. Of course, I can never be completely sure about that, but if I'm been double deluding myself, then I'm happy living with the consequences.  No method is fool proof. My main point here is that Expectation Bias is not the only mind trick in town, and fast switching DBTs actually introduce different mind tricks whilst successfully nailing the big one.
  
 The reason why subtle can be significant is in the effect it can have on musical enjoyment and greater insight into the performance. The difference between a good sounding hifi system and "you-are-there" is objectively small. The clues that help you "see" a 3D image of a performer are pretty tiny I assume, as concepts like "Soundstage" and "space around each instrument" are not readily explained by typical frequency response and THD measurements. And if you try to objectively analyse what's behind those differences, you can easily tie yourself in knots. A carefully chosen cable can subtly add focus to the images, bringing each instrument out of the mix. It doesn't create the details, it just brings them out more. Getting a step closer to "you-are-there" can be a very satisfying experience - it might even occasionally be "night-and-day", but only once, as you soon get used to the new sound.
  
 One example of what I mean: You've listened to a track hundreds of times with component A. The very first time you listen to new component B, you hear the slight "ting" of a triangle that you've never noticed before. You may think that B must therefore be better than A. But then you go back to A and you also here the ting now. So now you're a bit confused and you swap back and forth and then get really confused because sometimes A seems better than B, and sometimes A seems better than A, so you know there's no point in continuing. There could be at least 2 different explanations for this:
  

B really is better than A, but because you've noticed the new sound, you'll keep noticing it with whatever component you subsequently listen to.
There is no difference, it was just greater concentration on this particular test that caused you to notice a new sound.
  
 Fast switching tests aren't much help in deciphering such examples because you (or at least I) can quickly get into a muddle. Fast switching tests encourage you to listen out for sounds, not follow the musical performance. Much better  to enjoy the music in a way that the sound differences come to you - no need to agonise swapping back and forth looking for tiny differences. You can do that blind too, but much less practical to achieve.


----------



## x838nwy

steve eddy said:


> Yes, my suggestion is that the test should be made double blind. See if you can find a used QSC ABX comparator (they stopped making them in 2004).
> 
> se




This is where I have a bit of a problem. Any abx swutcher I can find are either not made anymore or I can't find an easy way to buy one. And they all look expensive.

As for the test, two different sets of cables will used. I may be listening to a or b as randomly determined. I will express whether I hear a difference between sessions. Noticed differences will be tabulated against switched/not switched. The goal is to find out if there is a difference as opposed to identifying A or B. If there IS a difference between the cables then everytime he changes cables should correlate with I hear a difference and so forth. Is this okay, you think?


----------



## TheAttorney

> Originally Posted by *wakibaki* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> TheAttorney is giving you notice that he intends to obscure any result to the best of his ability, so better not to try. Your nightmare, at his hands, is about to start. The Internet, don't you love it?


 
 That's a bit mean.
 I was actually thinking of a thread a while back when a pro-cable guy decided to have a go at his own blind testing. However, he wasn't an expert in this field and didn't do it to the level that enabled the results to be statistically valid. The Sound Scientists basically tore into him in a rather unpleasant manner. They could have have at least given some encouragement for even trying, but no prisoners were taken. I think he just gave up in the end.
  
 It's why many have given up coming round here. I've also promised myself not to return, but very occasionally I just can't resist dipping in. But don't worry, it's rarely for very long )


----------



## Steve Eddy

x838nwy said:


> This is where I have a bit of a problem. Any abx swutcher I can find are either not made anymore or I can't find an easy way to buy one. And they all look expensive.
> 
> As for the test, two different sets of cables will used. I may be listening to a or b as randomly determined. I will express whether I hear a difference between sessions. Noticed differences will be tabulated against switched/not switched. The goal is to find out if there is a difference as opposed to identifying A or B. If there IS a difference between the cables then everytime he changes cables should correlate with I hear a difference and so forth. Is this okay, you think?




But again, you're talking about a single blind test. 

se


----------



## wakibaki

I'm only being mean to you in the nicest possible way.
  
_w_


----------



## bigshot

I would NEVER delude myself into thinking that I'm not subject to expectation bias. If I ever say that, feel free to ignore everything I have to say after that.

But to be honest, I really don't need really controlled tests. I work in broader strokes. When I compare two things, I want to hear significant differences and improvements, not ones I have to strain to hear. Direct A/B line level matched comparisons without blind controls tell me what I need to know. I'm not married to anything that doesn't make things significantly better.

If you labor under the delusion that you need to finnesse things that are extremely subtle, I'd argue that you're already suffering from expectation bias. Audiophools spend all their time worrying about gnat wings' differences and never address the elephant in the corner. Everything is relative and has to be put in context... how much of a difference/improvement it makes, whether or not the difference/improvement is noticeable to human ears, and whether all of the major problems are already addressed.

If I start off doing a clean A/B and I'm having a lot of trouble discerning differences, I usually just give up and say it's a waste of time. Differences in cables are a total waste of time. I can be pretty sure that if someone is worrying about cables, odds are they have huge problems in their system that they're not addressing because they flat out don't understand how sound works.


----------



## esldude

Yeah, single blind is not necessarily a waste of time, but it does suffer from the Clever Hans effect.  Look for it on wikipedia. 
  
 Foobar will do abx testing for you.  You need two audio digital files.  You could record the same piece of music over first one and then another set of cables.  Using the ADC in a soundcard or similar depending on what you have.  It would be a good first step.  Then you get two versions of each piece of music you record and Foobar will handle everything making it a double blind test. 
  
 Of course we tried to save you all the trouble by explaining how you are chasing a ghost and cables don't sound different.  But if you have to show it to yourself this is one approach.


----------



## esldude

theattorney said:


> Nothing clever. Just years of experience of working out when it is and isn't safe to trust my ears. The way the results have panned out has satisfied me that I haven't been unduly influenced by Expectation Bias. Of course, I can never be completely sure about that, but if I'm been double deluding myself, then I'm happy living with the consequences.  No method is fool proof. My main point here is that Expectation Bias is not the only mind trick in town, and fast switching DBTs actually introduce different mind tricks whilst successfully nailing the big one.
> 
> The reason why subtle can be significant is in the effect it can have on musical enjoyment and greater insight into the performance. The difference between a good sounding hifi system and "you-are-there" is objectively small. The clues that help you "see" a 3D image of a performer are pretty tiny I assume, as concepts like "Soundstage" and "space around each instrument" are not readily explained by typical frequency response and THD measurements. And if you try to objectively analyse what's behind those differences, you can easily tie yourself in knots. A carefully chosen cable can subtly add focus to the images, bringing each instrument out of the mix. It doesn't create the details, it just brings them out more. Getting a step closer to "you-are-there" can be a very satisfying experience - it might even occasionally be "night-and-day", but only once, as you soon get used to the new sound.
> 
> ...


 

 This is really just a rehash of the audiophile defense of how long term listening and subtle differences take time.  And are missed by rapid switching.  Sorry, rapid switching is most discriminating at finding perceptible differences.  If you can't perceive it you can't react to it.  Pretty straightforward.  Instead it is a host of other things that convince you of A over B (or the reverse) due to how human psychology works.  Sound stage, space around the instrument, 3D etc. etc. are all encoded in the signal to each channel.  That simply must be so.  As those signals can be so identical as there being nothing different to perceive those varying perceptions are usually due to other factors.  Any such subtle effects are in fact in the signal if they are real.


----------



## bigshot

Perceptual testing has shown that direct A/B switching back and forth is the best way to determine subtle differences between two sounds. Spend more than a few seconds on any sample and your auditory memory completely forgets what you heard before and imagination steps in to fill the gap.

Feel free to use long sample times, but it will make your detection of subtle differences LESS accurate, not more accurate.


----------



## x838nwy

Well, i cannot really go fully double blind but i could may be find a way to reduce all interactions between me and my assistant. I could perhaps blindfold myself so i don't see him (or anything else, in fact) but i'll need to operate the JRemote app so that's not possible. However, the dude won't know what's going on, just that he presses the switch on not and he would not be seeing my scorecard. So instead of the clever hans effect, he'll be wondering what the hell i'm doing so i guess we can call it the "bewildered hans" effect...


----------



## Steve Eddy

Also have to deal with audible cues, such as flipping a switch.

se


----------



## esldude

There are more scholarly works of course.  But this one is readily accessible.  The case against long term listening.
  
 http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf
  
 Read it and weep or rejoice. 
  
 As Bigshot says, more than a couple dozen seconds and your aural memory is shot.  Your brain will do a nice job filling in the details.  Further you will feel much more confident of those longer term results.  Put to the test such confidence is very misplaced.


----------



## esldude

Yes, don't let the flip of the switch be audible.  Such a thing, at very marginal levels has been shown to corrupt blind results.  Without even knowing what your brain is doing it will perceive and use the sound of that flip of the switch or the gentle snap of a relay to 'cheat' on the choices made.  Clever Hans is an interesting phenomenon all on its own.  The human mind will be devilishly good at finding anything and everything available to it to make choices all without conscious awareness.  One of those areas where the science of sound, the processing of the human brain, and how it works is actually far more discriminating and fascinating than the audiophile mind even imagines.


----------



## x838nwy

steve eddy said:


> Also have to deal with audible cues, such as flipping a switch.
> 
> se




I think it was ab initio who mentioned that there's no click. If there is no external click (as in the springs on the switch itself) what i'll do is between switching the selector i will unplug my headphones. If i could hear things from external sources during the switch (external = not from the dac/selector/amp i will use my alphadogs in place of the 800.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> I think it was ab initio who mentioned that there's no click. If there is no external click (as in the springs on the switch itself) what i'll do is between switching the selector i will unplug my headphones. If i could hear things from external sources during the switch (external = not from the dac/selector/amp i will use my alphadogs in place of the 800.




There is no electrical pop while switching between sources; however, there is a little mechanical click from the latch on the toggle button. You would want to try and muffle that sound if you use speakers or open headphones. Otherwise, the switcher is pretty solid.

When pressing the toggle button, there is a brief amount of range of motion where both sources are electrically disconnected, but before the mechanical latch flips. Therefore, the brief fraction-of-a-second cutout of a switch event can be emulated by the operator without actually switching.

I recommend that your assistant emulates the brief signal dropout on ever trial that isnt switched, therefore 'switching' and 'not switching' events sound the same

Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

It just so happens that i placed an order for a 10ft cable for the alpha dogs a couple of weeks ago.  but Peter does take his time though. (Nothing against the guy, he has vast amounts of orders it seems and he does do meticulous work so i can wait.)

We could solve this problem by buying 2 of these schiit selectors and press one or another. But seriously, even though i have more dacs and amps than one person should have (according to my wife, what does she know!) having two of these is a little excessive... Let's see if i can hear the click from Xft away on my hd800 (+ stock cable). If not we'll go further with the 702 annies which seems to have the longest stock cable in the world. If not it's the ad + peter's cable.


----------



## higbvuyb

theattorney said:


> Nothing clever. Just years of experience of working out when it is and isn't safe to trust my ears. The way the results have panned out has satisfied me that I haven't been unduly influenced by Expectation Bias. Of course, I can never be completely sure about that, but if I'm been double deluding myself, then I'm happy living with the consequences.  No method is fool proof. My main point here is that Expectation Bias is not the only mind trick in town, and fast switching DBTs actually introduce different mind tricks whilst successfully nailing the big one.


 
 There are plenty of people with 'years of experience' and no idea what they're talking about. Can you demonstrate these tricks that DBTs introduce?  


> The reason why subtle can be significant is in the effect it can have on musical enjoyment and greater insight into the performance. The difference between a good sounding hifi system and "you-are-there" is objectively small. The clues that help you "see" a 3D image of a performer are pretty tiny I assume, as concepts like "Soundstage" and "space around each instrument" are not readily explained by typical frequency response and THD measurements. And if you try to objectively analyse what's behind those differences, you can easily tie yourself in knots. A carefully chosen cable can subtly add focus to the images, bringing each instrument out of the mix. It doesn't create the details, it just brings them out more. Getting a step closer to "you-are-there" can be a very satisfying experience - it might even occasionally be "night-and-day", but only once, as you soon get used to the new sound.


 
 Soundstage is easily explained by FR changes, ILD, ITD, and phase differences.
  
 I have to admit that (especially in live performances) I've never worried that much about the exact xyz coordinate of each musician, let alone listened to the empty spaces between instruments. I only listened to the actual instruments themselves. I can't really imagine what empty space sounds like; I thought it didn't have a sound.
 I'm sure that if a carefully chosen cable could subtly add focus to the sound there would be evidence for it, and you shouldn't have been using a fundamentally broken cable in the first place. It would really be a pity if these differences suddenly disappeared in a blind test, even a fast-switching one (in photography it doesn't take an eternity to determine which photo is more in focus either).
  
  



> One example of what I mean: You've listened to a track hundreds of times with component A. The very first time you listen to new component B, you hear the slight "ting" of a triangle that you've never noticed before. You may think that B must therefore be better than A. But then you go back to A and you also here the ting now. So now you're a bit confused and you swap back and forth and then get really confused because sometimes A seems better than B, and sometimes A seems better than A, so you know there's no point in continuing. There could be at least 2 different explanations for this:
> 
> 
> B really is better than A, but because you've noticed the new sound, you'll keep noticing it with whatever component you subsequently listen to.
> ...


 
 They're an excellent help because
 1. they encourage you to pay attention, rather than randomly 'notice' things that you may or may not have missed in the other device
 2. you can listen to the same 'ting' in both devices, right after the other, and directly compare them
 3. If you can tell the difference when furiously switching back and forth but can't tell the difference when enjoying the music, that isn't exactly a strike against fast-switching
 4. The reason why that muddle exists is because there is no audible difference.
  
 But if you can reliably detect these magical differences between cables in a DBT without having to switch back and forth quickly, more power to you (but be careful, one of your cables is probably broken).


----------



## bigshot

higbvuyb said:


> I have to admit that (especially in live performances) I've never worried that much about the exact xyz coordinate of each musician, let alone listened to the empty spaces between instruments. I only listened to the actual instruments themselves.




Placement of the performers in a dimensional sound stage can be very important to chamber music or small group jazz where you want complete separation of each voice weaving through the music. But a wire won't affect that, and you aren't going to get it with headphones. Clearly defined dimensional sound stage is something you only get with speakers.


----------



## higbvuyb

bigshot said:


> Placement of the performers in a dimensional sound stage can be very important to chamber music or small group jazz where you want complete separation of each voice weaving through the music. But a wire won't affect that, and you aren't going to get it with headphones. Clearly defined dimensional sound stage is something you only get with speakers.


 
 Instrument separation is more reliant on the relationship between the fundamental and harmonics than actually localising it to a specific point in space. You can have a narrow soundstage and still be able to differentiate between the instruments easily.
  
 As for headphones, even the best 'soundstage' possible with headphones is pretty laughable so there's no point chasing headphones with 'good soundstage' IMO.


----------



## bigshot

higbvuyb said:


> Instrument separation is more reliant on the relationship between the fundamental and harmonics than actually localising it to a specific point in space. You can have a narrow soundstage and still be able to differentiate between the instruments easily.




It's dependent on the placement in the stereo spread left to right and the distance between your speakers. A narrow soundstage may allow you to differentiate between instruments, but if you want a realistic soundstage, you need to have a distance between your speakers close to the actual distance from one side of the performers to the other. My system has the mains 16 feet apart, which comes out after the spread coming out from the speakers to close to 24 feet or so... the size of a string quartet or jazz trio. from the main listening point, it's also about the size of a symphony orchestra from the 14th row in the hall. Scale makes a big difference to sound stage. But most music only people don't talk about that... just home theater folks.

By the way, you can't get a spread of 16 feet without having a solid center channel to keep it from dropping out in the middle. That means 5:1 sound.


----------



## higbvuyb

bigshot said:


> It's dependent on the placement in the stereo spread left to right and the distance between your speakers. A narrow soundstage may allow you to differentiate between instruments, but if you want a realistic soundstage, you need to have a distance between your speakers close to the actual distance from one side of the performers to the other. My system has the mains 16 feet apart, which comes out after the spread coming out from the speakers to close to 24 feet or so... the size of a string quartet or jazz trio. from the main listening point, it's also about the size of a symphony orchestra from the 14th row in the hall. Scale makes a big difference to sound stage. But most music only people don't talk about that... just home theater folks.
> 
> By the way, you can't get a spread of 16 feet without having a solid center channel to keep it from dropping out in the middle. That means 5:1 sound.


 
 Instrument separation and soundstage width are two separate issues. This is totally subjective, but personally I do not find soundstage width to be particularly important.
  
 As for realism, I don't think speakers can get close to a good binaural recording through earphones, though I haven't listened to a setup on par with yours.


----------



## bigshot

Most two channel systems have clear sound stage. But it takes 5:1 to do a sound stage in the proper scale. Until you hear what that sounds like, you can't imagine what it sounds like. Not many people have 5:1 setups optimized for music.

Anything you can do to remove the layers of artificiality that is part of recorded sound makes it easier for the brain to fill in the blanks. Scale was a huge help for me. When I close my eyes, I can place *people* in front of me, not just instruments.

Binaural is an interesting effect, but I don't know if it's more than just an effect for me. I have a problem with the forward/back, up/down axises. For instance, sound in front of me snaps behind my head if I don't focus on it and hold it in place. The effect sounds really good, but it keeps changing on me if I don't maintain my focus on the sound. That isn't good, because I get lost in music sometimes.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot, i think the problem i have is that most 5.1 or (anything >2 channel for that matter) systems aren't set up correctly or at least not correctly for music. I find coherence a problem also. Any recommended source of information on how to set them up properly? (And what format do you listen to with your 5.1 system, btw? I'm new to the whole multichannel thing.). I pre-ordered an Oppo 105D and it's coming end of this month and there seems to be good multichannel deals around. Probably not the best quality, but for casual listening should be okay??


----------



## bigshot

I'm recovering from surgery right now, but when I am up to snuff again, I'm going to do a post on how I set up and calibrated my 5:1 system. It's a big subject, and like you, I couldn't find anything useful online. I figured it out through trial and error.
  
 In general though, the most important things are to balance the levels of all the channels so it creates an even sound field... Equalize each channel carefully to produce a flat response... and make sure the room itself isn't causing problems.
  
 I have a media server Mac Mini packed with high bitrate AAC files. I play stereo through the 7:1/Stereo DSP in my Yamaha AV amp. Yamaha is the best for DSPs.


----------



## wakibaki

bigshot said:


> Anything you can do to remove the layers of artificiality that is part of recorded sound.




I can understand that you might feel like that, being a largely classical listener (If I'm not mistaken), but as a popular music fan, I really regard the production as an integral part of the artwork. Modern music puts an acoustic guitar in a mix with drums, bass, electric guitar, maybe an orchestra, and vocals. These diverse parts generate disparate volumes, to consider only one feature, but modern techniques and repeated exposure mean that most listeners do not even remark this fact. All this taking place in an imaginary sound space, with no effort being given over to creating what is described as a soundstage, or 3D illusion, but rather with instruments, generally close-miked, distributed across 1 dimension, left-to-right.

Just one way in which modern music has a total disconnect from reality is the multi-tracking of vocal parts, enabling artists to sing their own harmony. No possibility there of the 'soundstage' being anything other than artificial.

So the majority of what I listen to, I listen to without the anticipation of any illusion of depth.

w


----------



## bigshot

Yeah, with pop music there is no fixed sound stage. It's synthetic and it changes all the time.


----------



## x838nwy

This is fairly interesting:
  
The TQ Effect


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## cjl

x838nwy said:


> This is fairly interesting:
> 
> The TQ Effect


 
 I'm calling BS on everything in that PDF. All of their graphs look worse to me than any reasonable cable should measure - 10 feet of 14AWG wire in a twisted pair should have a capacitance around 300pF, and a resistance of about 25mOhm, which gives a time constant of about 10 picoseconds. That's flatter than every single cable in that PDF (and it would look exactly like their reference signal on the first graph, and be flat on the second within the resolution visible on those pictures). I use cheap, fairly narrow gauge wire at work all the time to measure signals in the tens of megahertz (and higher, though you do start having to be careful when you get to really high frequencies), with no significant attenuation. No reasonable cable, cheap or otherwise, should show the kind of abysmal rise time and frequency response of any of the cables shown in that PDF (including their "ultra black" cable). Any cable with a reasonably low impedance at all audio frequencies makes no difference at all to the sound, and attaining a low impedance at all audio frequencies is trivially easy unless you're running very impressive lengths of cable (dozens to hundreds of feet).


----------



## cjl

herbie12389 said:


> How is this a legit post. Of course cables make a huge difference! One of the best ways to tune a system.


 

 *citation needed


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> This is fairly interesting:
> 
> The TQ Effect


 
  
 This is about speaker wire, but it touches on interconnects too. This guy knows his stuff...
 http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

What sort of comment are you expecting? You're in the sound science forum. Just about everything you say there is incorrect and contrary to the scientific principles of how wires work. You aren't going to get very far around here with this line of approach.

A wire, if it is properly designed and manufactured and isn't several city blocks long, has no sound at all. If it alters the sound, it's defective and should be returned. I don't doubt that there are cables deliberately hobbled to alter sound. Those are the crappy ones. Thankfully Monoprice is well stocked with inexpensive cables that perform perfectly.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

Here's some advice for you, because you seem to be having problems putting things in relative perspective.

Speakers, Headphones, Room Acoustics, Signal Processing matter A LOT.

Amps- The only things that really matter are power and features

DAPs, CD/DVD/Blu players- Features are the only thing that matter

Cables- Don't matter at all as long as they aren't shorted out

Your opinions on cables are SO far from being correct, it's going to get you nothing but grief in the Sound Science forum. If you aren't prepared to discuss the science behind why you think cables have a sound, you might as well just quit and go to the cable forum where you can get by with purely subjective opinions. Around here, we have the right to require listening tests and science to back up opinions.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> There is a difference without a doubt. Please choose to use your ears with several a/b tests. Some cables it only needs one listen to know the difference. Its shocking how night and day it is. What happens on paper and graphs happens on paper, how our ears and brain processes it is a completely different thing.




You might want to spend an afternoon with this thread. There are several good A/B tests on cables. Sorry, no audible difference.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths


----------



## herbie12389

I'm just sharing my opinion, I think its fair for people to listen to some of these fine components. You owe it to yourself. Its not my business to talk about the science of how a cable is made, mostly very smart people already did the thinking for me, the only job I have left to do is judge and evaluate what it does to my system in between each piece. You're cheating yourself by not trying man.


----------



## Steve Eddy

herbie12389 said:


> Its not my business to talk about the science of how a cable is made...




Then you're in the wrong forum.

se


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

Just a friendly warning... You are heading down the wrong road. If you don't know anything about how the science of cables works, you'd do better to listen around here rather than talk. You might learn something useful. It seems to me that you are absolutely right about having a lot more to learn.

As I said before, check out the link.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Do I dare bring it up?




Not unless you're prepared to back it up with scientific theory and citations of double blind listening tests.

Now you're going to tell me that we can hear things with our ears that can't be measured and that double blind tests aren't a good way to determine sound quality. Then you're going to launch into purely subjective impressions describing imaginary sounds in colorful ways and I'm going to tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and then you are going to get mad and say that the people in Sound Science are horribly rude.

I've been down the rabbit hole before. You're heading for an emotional outburst, and I'm just trying to do you a favor and let you know that if you have no intention of learning from the people around you in this group, there's no reason to post here.

By the way, have you checked out the link yet? It will give you a good idea of what we expect around here...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

There is a forum for discussing music, and there is a forum for discussing objective "impressions" about cables. This happens to be the forum about science. We are the ones who get to say that if you "don't want to exercise your mental nut" that you are just flat out wrong and don't have anything to back up what you say.

I'm not in the least bit emotional when I say that when it comes to a lot of things in home audio, you haven't done the research required to express an informed opinion yet. Now you can feel free to ramp up your anger again and share some more colorful coloquialisms with us.

important link for you
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

You're just trolling. Good night.

Oh, and that link again...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## x838nwy

I think most would say babble quite a bit. But I feel herbie12389 here has taken things to new heights.


----------



## cjl

herbie12389 said:


> Copper is typically a warmer heavy or weighted sound. It can often be muddled at times lacking detail. What if my system sounded bright and over analytical to my music causing stress or fatigue while listening, maybe even perhaps a but thin sounding? Copper is a great way warm a system up, give the music a bit more body and smooth things out. Silver on the other hand seems to be a bit more active, can carry extreme amounts of detail and clarity. This is great for a system experiencing the opposite problems (VAGUE I KNOW, so feel free to jump in and comment). What it all boils down to is the process it takes on how that wire is drawn. Some companies do it better than others and the price usually does reflect in audiophile dollars but on the other hand, other companies offer a extreme value for what it can do to musically enhance your system.  Its fun to find out what each do to your system and between each parts. Odds are you'll find yourself using a good mix and match when you give your ears some homework.


 
 The truly entertaining thing about this claim? There is a bigger difference in electrical resistance (by a factor of 5 or so) between two copper wires differing by 1AWG (for example 16AWG vs 15AWG) than there is between an identical gauge copper and silver wire. Inductance and capacitance depend more on the geometry and insulating materials than they do on the conductor. Despite all this, you don't hear people going on about how replacing all the 14AWG wire in their speaker setup with 12AWG suddenly made it "bright" and "analytical". On the other hand, for no conceivable reason, the "warm" colored metal sounds "warm", and the "bright" colored metal sounds "bright". That fact alone should make you stop and wonder if there could be something psychological going on, rather than a real effect. Similarly, if you have a pair of headphones with a 5 foot copper cable, you'll get a similar change in resistance if you either 1) replace it with a silver cable of identical dimensions or 2) replace it with a copper cable 4'9" long. Despite this, you don't see people rushing out to chop 3 inches off of their cables to increase the detail they can hear. The type of solder used (as long as you have a good electrical and physical connection between the cable and plugs), and all kinds of fancy cable geometries are similarly irrelevant.
  
 (and yes, I'll freely admit that I'm ignoring things like skin effect, reflections, and characteristic impedance. Why? Because they are completely and totally irrelevant at anything remotely near audio frequencies. If you're running a hundred meters of 10AWG wire to your high-power tweeters on the other side of a gymnasium, you might start to care about skin effect, but in normal home audio applications, all you really need to care about is the cable resistance.


----------



## bfreedma

herbie12389 said:


> Back on topic...
> 
> Copper or silver baby...
> 
> ...


 
  
 Enough already - this is the Sound Science forum.  Either contribute something that fits this forum or move your unicorn and fairy dust discussions to somewhere they belong.


----------



## x838nwy

It is my personal belief that the difference between silver and copper result is due to the fact that as comparisons are normally done between similarly priced cables, the silver cable in the comparison is usually smaller in section/awg. And yes, i remain of the Moulder camp on this one still.

And my unicorn told me the source selector arrived today at my forwarder. I should have it next week to play with.


----------



## elmoe

Cables are simple to figure out, just look at the metal's properties
  
 Copper: has a warm color, reddish/brown - cable believers thus say it is a "warm" sounding, "muddy" cable.
  
 Silver: silver is shiny gray used by jewelers, whats easily associated with "speed" and " attention to detail", cable believers thus say it is a "fast, detailed" cable.
  
 Gold: dark yellowish color, gold is the best of both worlds, both "fast and detailed" yet also "warm".
  
 Look at cable reviews and 99% of them say exactly what I just said above. Basically, cable believers correlate the cable's color to the type of sound, and all science and measurements aside, if that doesn't prove it's a load of rubbish I don't know what will.


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> Cables are simple to figure out, just look at the metal's properties
> 
> Copper: has a warm color, reddish/brown - cable believers thus say it is a "warm" sounding, "muddy" cable.
> 
> ...




Which explains why my cables - made from angel's pubic hairs - sound fuzzy.


----------



## bfreedma

x838nwy said:


> It is my personal belief that the difference between silver and copper result is due to the fact that as comparisons are normally done between similarly priced cables, the silver cable in the comparison is usually smaller in section/awg. And yes, i remain of the Moulder camp on this one still.
> 
> And my unicorn told me the source selector arrived today at my forwarder. I should have it next week to play with.


 

 Your personal belief does not line up with vetted science.
 Why does it seem like every couple of months, someone believes that they are about to discover something new about cables with such a basic and obviously previously tested model?  One that has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect in DBT and other valid testing methodologies?  And also shows no measurable audible differences?
  
 Or another tact:
 If silver is significantly better than copper, why don't we use it in applications that actually matter - those where lives are at risk?  Do you believe that the space shuttle, airplanes, and medical devices use silver rather than copper?
  
 Any cable that changes sound is either fundamentally broken or intentionally designed to be inaccurate.  No issue with anyone who likes those characteristics, but personal choice isn't a functional cable property.  The previous statement assumes we aren't discussing something ridiculous like a 1000 mile long cable.


----------



## x838nwy

Befreedma, you missed my point.

Dude, i'm stating that basically as a fact. For the same cost, the silver will be smaller gauge thus it's like comparing copper wires of different gauges which there are several proofs that gauges matter up to a point. So comparing silver vs. copper is usually not actually about materials but more about comparing wire gauges as the physical size difference matters more that material differences. This is demonstrable by calculation. If size has no audible effect, material difference has effects orders of magnitude lower. Jesus, stating things humbly isn't allowed any more?

The reason i was not totally definitive is that i cannot possibly comment on ALL cable comparisons ever published by man, Is that okay?


----------



## bfreedma

x838nwy said:


> Befreedma, you missed my point.
> 
> Dude, i'm stating that basically as a fact. For the same cost, the silver will be smaller gauge thus it's like comparing wires of different gauges which there are several proofs that gauges matter up to a point. Jesus, stating things humbly isn't allowed any more?


 

 First you can link the list of tests that fit your criteria.  Some general statement of cost has no relationship between actually testing two specific cables.  Which two cables are you comparing?  What are the wire gauges of those two cables?  Do you know the length of the cable that would be required to generate a difference within the realistic realm of human hearing?
 Then you can explain the relative signal loss between the conductor sizes and correlate that with audible differences.
  
 Good luck - you're going to need it.


----------



## cjl

bfreedma said:


> Or another tact:
> If silver is significantly better than copper, why don't we use it in applications that actually matter - those where lives are at risk?  Do you believe that the space shuttle, airplanes, and medical devices use silver rather than copper?


 
 In some cases, airplanes (and possibly the Shuttle, though I don't know about that one) use aluminum for wiring because its conductance per unit weight is better than copper (even though its absolute conductance is worse than copper). That of course is an entirely different issue than the supposed difference between silver and copper wiring for audiophiles though.


----------



## bfreedma

cjl said:


> In some cases, airplanes (and possibly the Shuttle, though I don't know about that one) use aluminum for wiring because its conductance per unit weight is better than copper (even though its absolute conductance is worse than copper). That of course is an entirely different issue than the supposed difference between silver and copper wiring for audiophiles though.


 
  
 Absolutely correct - aluminum is used because of the significant weight difference which outweighs the requirement for a larger gauge to make up for the lower conductance.  As you suggest, it isn't used because copper isn't an acceptable metal to allow for safe signal transmission.
  
 If x838nwy's claim was that silver (or aluminum) was preferable because he wanted a lighter weight or more ergonomic cable, that would be a different discussion.  The claim that there is a material and audible difference in sound between silver and copper is where I take issue with his statement.


----------



## bfreedma

x838nwy said:


> Befreedma, you missed my point.
> 
> Dude, i'm stating that basically as a fact. For the same cost, the silver will be smaller gauge thus it's like comparing copper wires of different gauges which there are several proofs that gauges matter up to a point. So comparing silver vs. copper is usually not actually about materials but more about comparing wire gauges as the physical size difference matters more that material differences. This is demonstrable by calculation. If size has no audible effect, material difference has effects orders of magnitude lower. Jesus, stating things humbly isn't allowed any more?
> 
> The reason i was not totally definitive is that i cannot possibly comment on ALL cable comparisons ever published by man, Is that okay?


 

 Since you edited your post, some additional information.
  
 Everything you need to know about wire conductivity can be found here:  http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
  
 No need to rebuild the wheel.


----------



## x838nwy

bfreedma said:


> First you can link the list of tests that fit your criteria.  Some general statement of cost has no relationship between actually testing two specific cables.  Which two cables are you comparing?  What are the wire gauges of those two cables?  Do you know the length of the cable that would be required to generate a difference within the realistic realm of human hearing?
> Then you can explain the relative signal loss between the conductor sizes and correlate that with audible differences.
> 
> Good luck - you're going to need it.




Dude, have you read my posts?
There are several articles about speaker wire gauges. Google them. They're quite scientific and some has maths in them. Heck, it's probably on wikipedia.
What i'm saying is that if we keep cable prices constant, a silver wire is usually smaller than the copper wire. It's just a cost thing. People compare them and think the difference is due to materials but in fact it's more to do with wire size because it has more of an effect on electrical properties of the wire.

Off the top of my head:
Resistance = ro x length / cross section
Ro of copper and silver are very close (1.6 vs 1.7 or something) which is accountable by a ~3% increase in sectional area. I recall things like capacitance have similar formulas.

So size matters more than material.


----------



## bfreedma

x838nwy said:


> Dude, have you read my posts?
> There are several articles about speaker wire gauges. Google them. They're quite scientific and some has maths in them. Heck, it's probably on wikipedia.
> What i'm saying is that if we keep cable prices constant, a silver wire is usually smaller than the copper wire. It's just a cost thing. People compare them and think the difference is due to materials but in fact it's more to do with wire size because it has more of an effect on electrical properties of the wire.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I already posted a link to Roger Russell's wire guide.
  
 Run the math - post exactly how much difference there is in two 6 foot cables - one silver (slightly smaller gauge) and one copper (slightly larger gauge).  Then run the math that demonstrates that the difference is audible.  The point I'm making is that the differences in gauge that you describe are simply not audible.  Given that, I also disagree that people hear actual differences between cables, whether of different material or slightly different gauge. 
  
 Do you really think this is the first time this topic has been discussed and that the results are still a mystery?


----------



## oriolesmagic

x838nwy said:


> This is fairly interesting:
> 
> The TQ Effect


 
  
 Just popping in to point out that none of those graphs are measurements. They're spice simulations (looks like LTSpice to me).


----------



## x838nwy

bfreedma said:


> I already posted a link to Roger Russell's wire guide.
> 
> Run the math - post exactly how much difference there is in two 6 foot cables - one silver (slightly smaller gauge) and one copper (slightly larger gauge).  Then run the math that demonstrates that the difference is audible.  The point I'm making is that the differences in gauge that you describe are simply not audible.  Given that, I also disagree that people hear actual differences between cables, whether of different material or slightly different gauge.
> 
> Do you really think this is the first time this topic has been discussed and that the results are still a mystery?




Okay, in the link you posted, go down to the table where it says maximum wire length for 2 conductor copper wires.
I the speaker is a 4 ohm load and the test length is 10ft. One wire at 20awg would be considered fine but another at 22awg would be not okay according to the table. So a 22awg silver wire would not be as good as a 20awg copper. In fact, they two could both be copper and the same results will stand, give or take a little.


----------



## elmoe

cjl said:


> In some cases, airplanes (and possibly the Shuttle, though I don't know about that one) use aluminum for wiring because its conductance per unit weight is better than copper (even though its absolute conductance is worse than copper). That of course is an entirely different issue than the supposed difference between silver and copper wiring for audiophiles though.


 
  
 God man, don't give cable builders any new ideas... Now we're going to see "aluminum cables" - "as seen in airplanes and space shuttles!!" ads.


----------



## x838nwy

bfreedma said:


> If x838nwy's claim was that silver (or aluminum) was preferable because he wanted a lighter weight or more ergonomic cable, that would be a different discussion.  *The claim that there is a material and audible difference in sound between silver and copper is where I take issue with his statement.*




Found it.
This was never my claim. My claim was that for the same price point, silver wires tend to be a smaller gauge and the size difference accounts for any difference audible. Not the material.


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> God man, don't give cable builders any new ideas... Now we're going to see "aluminum cables" - "as seen in airplanes and space shuttles!!" ads.




You'll be pleased to know there already is a range of audiophile cable called aluminata. I hear it's awesome.


----------



## Sal1950

Cables are just one example of the absurdity of the costs in High End Audio. Have you glanced at Stereophiles Recommended Components lately? $200k turntables, $15k phono cartridges, $60k phono preamps, etc, etc.
There is no way these costs can be justified on the basis of performance, although the golden ear reviewers would have you believe so. 
At least in world class supercars their costs can be justified or demythed with repeatable measurements.
 Much of high end audio is pure snake oil!


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> You'll be pleased to know there already is a range of audiophile cable called aluminata. I hear it's awesome.




It sounds lighter without a lot of heaviness and weight to the sound I bet.


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> I already posted a link to Roger Russell's wire guide.




I posted it too, but he hasn't bothered to look at it.

What's the point of helping someone figure something out when they don't make any effort themselves to do their homework?


----------



## TheAttorney

Sal1950, I agree that the prices at the very top end have gone wild.
  
 But why get so angry about that when there has never been a wider range of low cost great vfm components around. Just look all the well reviewed DACs that cost a couple of hundred bucks or less.  And there's every price range in between.
  
 It's as if you just want to get angry about something - but when you look at the total picture, consumers have never had it so good in the hifi world.
  
 Take one cable company I'm quite familar with: Transparent Audio. Their Opus balanced i/c "starts" at $20k.This is so beyond my budget that there's no point in me even thinking about what value this could possibly bring me. But I don't fret about it. TA's entry level i/c costs $90, which is still too rich for many, but no longer seems quite so ridiculous if the rest of your system costs thousands. And if you don't want to spend $90, there's Blue Jeans and all sorts of well made cables for less.


----------



## bigshot

theattorney said:


> Sal1950, I agree that the prices at the very top end have gone wild.




At monoprice, you can get the exact same sound for two bucks. Spending anything over that on cables hoping for better sound is dumb.

Imagine buying a pair of $100 shoes and putting $75 shoelaces on them. "With these shoelaces you can walk faster and walk farther!" $20 shoelaces aren't any smarter when you consider you can get laces at the market for a dollar.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> It sounds lighter without a lot of heaviness and weight to the sound I bet.


 

 Depends
 I soldered together a bunch of aluminum cans of Pabst and the cable sounded great for top 40 - light, airy, almost like nothing was there.
 I did the same with a bunch of cans of Boddingtons and it was great for dark music and metal.  You could almost smell the stale beer at the old venue where the live CD was recorded...
  
 Might have had something to do with all the beer I drank prepping the cans for their transformation to wire.
  
  
 Ok - sorry for the absurdity but really, is that any more ridiculous than some of what's being put out as "serious" discussion?


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> At monoprice, you can get the exact same sound for two bucks. Spending anything over that on cables hoping for better sound is dumb.
> 
> Imagine buying a pair of $100 shoes and putting $75 shoelaces on them. $20 shoelaces aren't any smarter when you consider you can get laces at the market for a dollar.


 
  
 I agree, though frankly would have no issue with someone buying $75 laces if they preferred them.  Just don't claim they increase your vertical and make you a better jump-shooter.
  
 It's the same reason I bought an aftermarket cable for my LCD3s.  I needed a longer cable than the stock Audeze cable and wanted a lighter and more flexible cable than the stock with the softest sleeve I could find.  After reading through various threads on Head-Fi, it looked like Q-Audio had what I was looking for.  Going to their site and NOT seeing a bunch of unsupported claims about cable sound only made me more confident that the cable would be well built.  Just the facts about the cable construction and notes on ergonomics.  Since I didn't feel like I needed a shower after visiting the site, I bought the cable.
  
 Was really pleased with the ergonomics when it arrived.  Since my expectation bias was that the Q-Cable would sound the same as the stock, I got what I expected.


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> Dude I can read... What great secret is out there with the Internet now a days... I didn't join this solely to discuss the science of how things work... you'll know when something catches my eye as being break through. Then I'll flex my mental nut for you, until then I'll go by the volume of different gear that I'm exposed to ... seeing as how new I am to this site for you all, my comments will seem alarming to some but rest assured I'm only hear to share opinions on how things sound.  We are talking about music after all when it all boils down to it. Right? Sound. Id say ears are more important than eyes when it comes to music... CAN I GET A RAY CHARLES UP IN HERE. lol


 
 Ears more important than eyes?????  Most people like you seem much more influenced by what they see while claiming it is all about what they hear.  They have to see the fancy stuff, read the fancy claims from the guys making the Big Boy toys, post pictures of the highly expensive equipment they use.  Then suddenly, and not at all surprisingly, what they have seen helps them hear (or so they say) much more.  And it all seems to just vanish when those guys don't get to use their eyes.  Your quite the comic without realizing it.


----------



## bigshot

One small note... The photos of the "big boy toys" weren't of equipment he personally uses. They were pictures he pulled off the web.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> At monoprice, you can get the exact same sound for two bucks. Spending anything over that on cables hoping for better sound is dumb.
> 
> Imagine buying a pair of $100 shoes and putting $75 shoelaces on them. "With these shoelaces you can walk faster and walk farther!" $20 shoelaces aren't any smarter when you consider you can get laces at the market for a dollar.


 
 .


----------



## bigshot

Someone's off his meds again


----------



## herbie12389

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> One small note... The photos of the "big boy toys" weren't of equipment he personally uses. They were pictures he pulled off the web.


 
 .


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> One small note... The photos of the "big boy toys" weren't of equipment he personally uses. They were pictures he pulled off the web.


 

 Yes, I knew that.  But he seemed to think they were examples that validated his opinions.  Examples of his working in the most expensive area and hearing the most expensive equipment.


----------



## herbie12389

Picture


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> Yes, I knew that.  But he seemed to think they were examples that validated his opinions.  Examples of his working in the most expensive area and hearing the most expensive equipment.


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> I'M GOING TO START TO TAKE PICTURES WITH ME IN THEM. LOL
> 
> THE SHOP I WORK FOR DEALS IN WESTERN ELECTRIC. WANNA TALK ABOUT HOW REAL MEN ENGINEERED THINGS? GOOD OL FASHIONED AMERICA


 

 Yes, actually I do want to talk about that.  Was it Western Electric engineering policy to ignore technology and science knowledge to develop products?  I don't think that idea is defensible.  Were the great 300 B tubes developed for in some way greatly different than credible products are developed now?  I don't think so.


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> Yes, actually I do want to talk about that.  Was it Western Electric engineering policy to ignore technology and science knowledge to develop products?  I don't think that idea is defensible.  Were the great 300 B tubes developed for in some way greatly different than credible products are developed now?  I don't think so.


----------



## herbie12389

herbie12389 said:


> WE 300b tubes are nothing like any new ones. Fact. I get to AB that all the time for customers.


----------



## bigshot

The drawer isn't over abundant with sharp knives.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

Yeah, I guess the qualifications to be an audiophile aren't particularly strenuous.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> Yeah, I guess the qualifications to be an audiophile aren't particularly strenuous.


 
   .


----------



## oriolesmagic

herbie12389 said:


> Only on the ears sir.


 
 So, no brain required?


----------



## herbie12389

oriolesmagic said:


> So, no brain required?


 
    .


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> Western Electric is way ahead anything that is being done in the tube world... makes everything else seem limp and dull after.


 

 So what is the point of you being most unscientific in the Sound Science forum?  Do you believe there is an aspect of sound that Western Electric manages that other amplifiers cannot?  Devices employing the single ended tubes are demonstrably colored.  It is okay to prefer that.  Do you think none of us have any experience with similar items?


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Only on the ears sir.




The qualifications for us is strenuous on the patience.


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> So what is the point of you being most unscientific in the Sound Science forum?  Do you believe there is an aspect of sound that Western Electric manages that other amplifiers cannot?  Devices employing the single ended tubes are demonstrably colored.  It is okay to prefer that.  Do you think none of us have any experience with similar items?


 
     .


----------



## herbie12389

herbie12389 said:


> Well yes I will agree that thus far I havent chosen to add anything scientific of its sorts to this post...


 
  .


----------



## herbie12389

picture


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> ...Thus far
> 
> The perfect storm is a brewing gentleman


 

 Well we are all so grateful for you enlightening participation....................sheeesh!


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> Well we are all so grateful for you enlightening participation....................




NEXT!


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> Well we are all so grateful for you enlightening participation....................sheeesh!


----------



## Steve Eddy

herbie12389 said:


> I'M GOING TO START TO TAKE PICTURES WITH ME IN THEM. LOL
> 
> THE SHOP I WORK FOR DEALS IN WESTERN ELECTRIC. WANNA TALK ABOUT HOW REAL MEN ENGINEERED THINGS? GOOD OL FASHIONED AMERICA




The key word in the above being "engineered." If those "real men" saw what "high end" audio has come to today (outside of the professional side of things), they'd be laughing their asses off.

se


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> The key word in the above being "engineered." If those "real men" saw what "high end" audio has come to today (outside of the professional side of things), they'd be laughing their asses off.




They'd also be designing solid state equipment because it outperforms their older designs. Herbie, don't kid yourself. Those old guys weren't putting distortion into their equipment because it was "euphonic". They were compromising by putting the distortion in areas where it didn't matter as much. If they had the option to have no audible distortion at all, they would have jumped on it.


----------



## herbie12389

steve eddy said:


> The key word in the above being "engineered." If those "real men" saw what "high end" audio has come to today (outside of the professional side of things), they'd be laughing their asses off.
> 
> se


----------



## herbie12389




----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> If you guys weren't such sticklers it would be easier and Id be more willing. I just simply stated with my experience with using different cables and how it makes a difference.I also stated that the way that the metals are cured and drawn play a big factor of how that cable is going to react with signal traveling through it. Sure what happens on paper happens on paper and there might not be much information on graphs to prove that there is a difference between using different materials in cables. Science is flawed when it comes to how our brain perceives the information we take in with these changes.
> 
> I'm curious as to what your take on Vinyl is?


 

 Okay, on cables you are wrong.  Care to learn why I can say that?  Or just steadfast that your ears are infallible in this regard?  (Your ears/brain are easily fooled under the right circumstances btw, care to learn more?)
  
 Care to explain what your purpose is in a Sound Science forum with a beginning premise saying Science is flawed?
  
 As for vinyl, it can be musically quite nice.  Amazing achievement worked out by lots of smart people considering the limitations of the medium.  You can digitally record it with near flawless fidelity.  It is, like tubes, generally rather colored.  If you are one of these who believe vinyl is the reference against which to judge all other formats well you have yet another ill conceived preconception which makes us wonder about your participation here in this forum. 
  
 In any case troll on.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Science is flawed when it comes to how our brain perceives the information we take in




I just got a phone call from Science and I asked him what he thought... he feels the same way about you!


----------



## Steve Eddy

herbie12389 said:


> If you guys weren't such sticklers it would be easier and Id be more willing. I just simply stated with my experience with using different cables and how it makes a difference.




That's fine, but that's what all the other forums are for. This is the Sound Science forum where one's purported subjective experience alone doesn't carry any particular weight.



> I also stated that the way that the metals are cured and drawn play a big factor of how that cable is going to react with signal traveling through it.




I seem to have missed that. Where did you show these signal reactions?

se


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> or "Sweet jesus that not how you make a transformer" followed by a firm backhanding.


 

 You really do live in the land of pixie dust and magic if you think those engineers from the 30's would still be building with tubes and transformers while refusing transistors on principle were they alive and acting now.  Care to explain how modern engineers, trained by those guys from back when ended up making modern SS gear when the chance arose as technology advanced. 
  
 Troll on some more.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> I seem to have missed that. Where did you show these signal reactions?




I'm guessing that was his "copper is warm sounding, silver is cold sounding" post.


----------



## herbie12389




----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> I'm guessing that was his "copper is warm sounding, silver is cold sounding" post.


 

 That is because graphs don't show enough information.  You have to resort to much higher precision as evidenced by the above.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> I'm guessing that was his "copper is warm sounding, silver is cold sounding" post.


----------



## herbie12389




----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> Dude tell me what I have already read a million times. please. I'm simply as strong minded as you are because I too have been proven something. When I can hear it... It validates it for me. It should for anyone in the audiophile community. What a machine reads is way different than a brain takes in information.


 

 Okay, so you are a dyed-in-the wool if I hear it it must be so audiophile.  There is plenty you can learn here, but you seem to be having none of it.  Your position is not scientifically tenable.  Your experience is not sufficiently perceptive to be the final word as your hearing is too influenced by non-sound factors.  But I am sure you won't believe that.  Your belief no doubt takes precedence in your mind to evidence.  But that is of course not how it works here.  Your impressions and experiences carry no over-riding weight or credibility.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> What a machine reads is way different than a brain takes in information.




That is undeniable. Machines are much more accurate and precise than ears and they aren't subject to psychological factors like expectation bias (and inflated audiophile ego).


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example




You'll enjoy chatting about that subject with SE!


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example


 

 No, you should start talking about how copper will transmit a signal that is different than silver in a way that is audible in the audio bandwidth.  The answer for most well designed equipment is that it does not.  But for something to sound different the signal must be different if one is not being fooled.


----------



## Steve Eddy

herbie12389 said:


> They would be laughing their asses off. Lol. Saying "MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONEEE? GET THAT TRANSISTOR OUTTA HERE!"




No, they'd be embracing the transistor and wishing they'd had them to work with back in the '20s, '30s and '40s.

se


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> Okay, so you are a dyed-in-the wool if I hear it it must be so audiophile.  There is plenty you can learn here, but you seem to be having none of it.  Your position is not scientifically tenable.  Your experience is not sufficiently perceptive to be the final word as your hearing is too influenced by non-sound factors.  But I am sure you won't believe that.  Your belief no doubt takes precedence in your mind to evidence.  But that is of course not how it works here.  Your impressions and experiences carry no over-riding weight or credibility.


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> Okay, so you are a dyed-in-the wool if I hear it it must be so audiophile.




Didn't he say he was a high end stereo salesman? That puts his credibility even lower... somewhere between personal injury attorney and used car salesman..


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> I'm not worried about gaining credibility.




And I have to say, you're doing a bang up job of it!


----------



## herbie12389

steve eddy said:


> No, they'd be embracing the transistor and wishing they'd had them to work with back in the '20s, '30s and '40s.
> 
> se


 
 It would be amazing to see what they would do if that technology was available at that time. No doubt about that.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> And I have to say, you're doing a bang up job of it!


 
 .


----------



## bigshot

If they had solid state technology that basically solved all of their problems with audio fidelity, they would probably move on to psychoacousics and multi-channel sound (much like Bell Labs).


----------



## Steve Eddy

herbie12389 said:


> Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example




Conductivity just boils down to simple resistance. The conductivity of silver is about 6% greater than copper. Which means if you simply use a tiny bit more copper, you can end up with the same rsistance as a given diameter and length of silver.

se


----------



## cjl

herbie12389 said:


> Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example


 

 As I mentioned earlier (I think it was in this thread at least), the difference in conductivity between a 13AWG copper wire and a 14AWG copper wire is something like 5 times larger than the difference in conductivity between a 14AWG silver wire and a 14AWG copper wire.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> If they had solid state technology that basically solved all of their problems with audio fidelity, they would probably move on to psychoacousics and multi-channel sound (much like Bell Labs).


 
 .


----------



## herbie12389

cjl said:


> As I mentioned earlier (I think it was in this thread at least), the difference in conductivity between a 13AWG copper wire and a 14AWG copper wire is something like 5 times larger than the difference in conductivity between a 14AWG silver wire and a 14AWG copper wire.


 
 Someone did the work for me. Thanks man!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> If they had solid state technology that basically solved all of their problems with audio fidelity, they would probably move on to psychoacousics and multi-channel sound (much like Bell Labs).




And of course Western Electric was the manufacturing arm of AT&T, and Bell Labs it's research arm. One big happy family.

se


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Someone is a lil jelly monster... Do I have to call the jelly police on you?  Perhaps the jelly academy is taking new students.




Oh yeah! I go to bed at night and dream of owning audio equipment that has audible distortion and coloration... I'm green with envy of those who spend large amounts of cash on complete boondoggles. I wish I could be taken advantage of by high end stereo salesmen too!


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> Oh yeah! I go to bed at night and dream of owning audio equipment that has audible distortion and coloration... I'm green with envy of those who spend large amounts of cash on complete boondoggles. I wish I could be taken advantage of by high end stereo salesmen too!


 
 .


----------



## bfreedma

Why does there seem to be an entirely different set of rules in the Sound Science forum than everywhere else on head-fi?  It wouldn't have taken 10% of these posts to get the poster swatted down if science were the topic of discussion on virtually any other forum here.
  
 As stated previously herbie, your posts belong elsewhere on head-fi.  You should move them there because frankly, you're in way over your head here or are simply trolling.


----------



## Steve Eddy

herbie12389 said:


> You make valid points sometimes,but when you stay narrow minded and don't explore the hobby to the fullest potential you can miss out on learning things.




I would assert that you are by a good margin the more narrow-minded.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Oh my gosh! Will you look at that! A Western Electric _transistor_! How can that be? 



se


----------



## bfreedma

steve eddy said:


> Oh my gosh! Will you look at that! A Western Electric _transistor_! How can that be?
> 
> 
> 
> se


 
  
 Probably Photoshopped
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  We all know that the old time engineers would have rejected modern technology and the gains it has brought.....  or not.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Dude its just different strokes for different folks, that's all. I shared my opinion like yours.




All opinions are not created equal. Some of them are informed, and some of them are completely incorrect.


----------



## herbie12389

steve eddy said:


> I would assert that you are by a good margin the more narrow-minded.
> 
> se


 
 .


----------



## esldude

steve eddy said:


> Oh my gosh! Will you look at that! A Western Electric _transistor_! How can that be?
> 
> 
> 
> se


 
  
  
 Nice!  Here is a whole page.  They even came in nice boxes.
  
 https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manufacturers/western-electric
  
 You also can get them on ebay.  Perfect for building those homebrew SS amps from real men with real engineering know how.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> All opinions are not created equal. Some of them are informed, and some of them are completely incorrect.


----------



## Captain Duck

WOW. I first was pitched on the Monster Cable 3 strand thickness BS in 1984. They are unquestionably much better marketers than scientists or engineers. The primary reason that changing  cables offers "improved sound" (aside from the purchase bias) is that the contacts are cleaned in the process. I've also had a small sample space test of cleaning the contacts of everything plugable and all switch contacts. Nothing was changed. All items that were unplugged (semi-conductors and tubes) were replaced in the same sockets. All wiring was re-connected. The difference was quite audible to people familiar with the equipment and music. Without their knowledge.


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> Nice!  Here is a whole page.  They even came in nice boxes.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manufacturers/western-electric
> 
> You also can get them on ebay.  Perfect for building those homebrew SS amps from real men with real engineering know how.


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> That takes the point of an opinion away...


 

 No that is the point actually.  An uninformed opinion is worth nothing or perhaps worth less than nothing except to the person holding the opinion.  Holding an incorrect uninformed opinion leads to incorrect choices or limited ability to make progress or understand things.  That is your problem.  Your audio opinions are relatively uninformed.  You think a wide experience validates those opinions.  But they are still wrong and narrow minded.


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> I dont understand how I could be more narrow minded when I'm open to the exposure of all sorts of equipment to achieve what I feel is a more hi fi system for me. I really don't mean to give the impression that I'm trolling. No one benifits or learns anything from that. Still just sharing my opinion on what cables have done for me. The reason why this post started. Take a look at my post count. Clearly new to the whole forum thing and have without a doubt posted in the wrong section, but the topic of cables caught my eye so I posted my accounts without reallllly reading into where I was posting. I have some solid years of experience in the hobby and am very lucky to work where I do to be exposed to such cool stuff all the time. I went to school for music, I judge things by sound and what I hear, doenst make me a pro with golden ears, its just how I think when it comes to audio equipment.


 

 But see your cables didn't do anything for you.  I know you heard it, I have heard it too.  But you know what, the signal didn't change, nor did the sound even though you perceived it differently.  That is what psycho-acoustics investigates among other things.  The electronics, signal-theory side of it informs us about what is really going on to a large extent.  It is advanced enough to show that wires didn't change your sound.  Since you did hear it differently you will have to look further into why that was.  It wasn't the cable, the material, the insulation or any of that.  It simply wasn't.  I am not just saying that being close minded.  It is what the physics of the situation confirmed by experiment and correct prediction of results show.  Though you perceived a difference you couldn't physically hear something that did not change.
  
 Do you care to learn why that occurs and under what circumstances?  To learn why your ears alone cannot be trusted implicitly?  Yes, yes I know how confident and certain your experience was.  Yet it was mistaken.  Very comfortable to simply accept the raw experience and difficult to reject that as mistaken, but until you do you are the one boxed in and confined.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> I dont understand how I could be more narrow minded when I'm open to the exposure of all sorts of equipment to achieve what I feel is a more hi fi system for me.




"High fidelity" means that sound reproduction comes very close to being true to the original. Solid state electronics and digital audio have gone a step further to "perfect sound". Tubes and analogue can get close to being a true copy of the original. Solid state and digtial audio *are* a true copy.

I started out in the 70s as a hifi nut. Back then, everything was imperfect, and everything was a compromise. Today, with perfect sound I don't need to worry about equipment having its own sound, or music not being a completely accurate transcription. It's liberating. I can focus on other things that matter a lot more, like multichannel sound, signal processing and room acoustics. Those areas allow me to create a system that blows away anything from the past.

I'd never go back to the 70s. Everything I dreamed about back then has come true... and a lot more that I couldn't even dream of. I can't wait to find out what comes next. I think I know what that is, and it would be really cool.


----------



## bfreedma

herbie12389 said:


> That takes the point of an opinion away...


 

 This is a science based forum - the only one on this board.  Facts and supportable theory are the basis for discussions, not uninformed opinions.
  
 Edit:  ESLdude beat me to it.


----------



## herbie12389

I'm not claiming the signal changed... The path from which it travels on from a to b does have variance in it.


----------



## herbie12389

bfreedma said:


> This is a science based forum - the only one on this board.  Facts and supportable theory are the basis for discussions, not uninformed opinions.


 
 .


----------



## esldude

herbie12389 said:


> I'm not claiming the signal changed... The path from which it travels on from a to b does have variance in it.


 

 No, it doesn't. Not in any audible way.  Unless you were using strange equipment with strange impedance values.  Even then the change is simple LCR effects, not related to conductor material.  Now if the signal exiting the cable is not different how would it sound different?


----------



## herbie12389

esldude said:


> No, it doesn't. Not in any audible way.  Unless you were using strange equipment with strange impedance values.  Even then the change is simple LCR effects, not related to conductor material.  Now if the signal exiting the cable is not different how would it sound different?


 
 .


----------



## bfreedma

herbie12389 said:


> It just does man. Hahaha. Ive been testing this all day while on the forums at work. I gotta get my ears checked I guess. lol
> 
> Ive used everything from radio shack to parts express wire with all sorts of gauges. Cardas, snake river, audionote, xlo, dana, audience, supra, krystal cable, monster, NBS, Shunyata.... The free stuff that comes with sonos players... Im running out here. Dude I'm trying so hard to get it.


 

 So much snake oil to sell and so little time...


----------



## herbie12389

Not a fan of Snake River if that's what you are referring to. Overpriced for what it is. Hahaha.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> Overpriced for what it is. Hahaha.




Aren't they all? Hahaha.


----------



## herbie12389

Nah dude they aren't. Some are deff gimmicks and illusions, others are great tools in a system.


----------



## herbie12389

herbie12389 said:


> Nah dude they aren't. Some are deff gimmicks and illusions, others are great tools in a system.


 
 Not tools, components.


----------



## bigshot

You don't have any interest at all in learning about things you might be clueless on. You're just here to strut your ego and enter into pointless back and forth over ignorant opinions with no basis in fact. What a waste of time.


----------



## herbie12389

bigshot said:


> You don't have any interest at all in learning about things you might be clueless on. You're just here to strut your ego and enter into pointless back and forth over ignorant opinions with no basis in fact. What a waste of time.


 
 .


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> They aren't ignorant opinions, when you and I base our opinion on a difference set of facts. One proven on paper and the other through practice in use of actual audio equipment.




What does "use of actual audio equipment" involve? Turning on the power and listening to a record? Because if that is experience, I'm about the most experienced person in the world. I have hundreds of thousands of hours logged doing that.

The trick to getting the useful answers is asking the right questions.



herbie12389 said:


> Any suggestions as to what I should try next at work?




Ooo! That's easy to answer! I suggest you try controlled testing techniques... blind tests, level matching, a/b switching... the works.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

herbie12389 said:


> I had someone set my cables up for me. Couldn't see behind the rack. I tried controlling it like that.


 
  
 There is a LOT more to controlled listening tests than that. If you are interested in going to the trouble to do a proper comparison test, there are plenty of folks here who would be happy to give you advice. We've all done tests like these ourselves.


----------



## wakibaki

herbie12389 said:


> Dude I have been reading what people write learning all sorts. I like how you said "might be clueless on" Could you be warming up to me?


 
  
 Charming don't cut it here.
  



herbie12389 said:


> They aren't ignorant opinions, when you and I base our opinion on a difference set of facts.


 
  
 You have yet to demonstrate that you understand the rules of evidence sufficiently to establish a scientific fact.
  


herbie12389 said:


> I could be crazy but there are a lot of crazy people


 
  
 Fine, you won't be lonely.
  


herbie12389 said:


> Any suggestions as to what I should try next at work?


 
  
 Get an honest job, like, say... a lawyer, or a real estate agent.
  
 w


----------



## esldude

You are on a roll today Wakibaki.  You got a couple laughs out of me with that last post.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> I posted it too, but he hasn't bothered to look at it.
> 
> What's the point of helping someone figure something out when they don't make any effort themselves to do their homework?


 
  
  
 I have and it was one of the links to which I referred with I mentioned articles about wire gauges. I also referred to it in my post.


----------



## bigshot

What did it say about audibility?


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> What did it say about audibility?



It says a lot about it. Which specific parts are you referring to? It's mainly about speaker wire gauges and how that affects sound etc. there's a lot about audible and inaudible differences.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## x838nwy

herbie12389 said:


> Would you say that you hear a difference from your own experience? Speaker cable or interconnect?




Yup. But i have stuff coming in which will allow me to set up a sort of home-brew dbt (or at least 1.5x blind). It should be interesting.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## bigshot

I LIKE PURPLE!


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> It says a lot about it. Which specific parts are you referring to? It's mainly about speaker wire gauges and how that affects sound etc. there's a lot about audible and inaudible differences.


 
  
 Did you see this part? And did you take note of Roger Russell's resume?
  
*The Big Picture*​ There is big money to be made in wire, not only speaker wire but all kinds of exotic wire—hookup wire, audio cables, power cables and a wide variety of speaker wire including the new term of “speaker cables.” The term cable implies more robust and heavy duty qualities than wire.
  
 I have learned from one wire company that much of this exotic wire is not manufactured in the USA at all. It comes from places like Taiwan and China. It can be bought in industrial quantities at surprisingly little cost and sold for tremendous profits. Custom runs in large quantities, can be purchased having any number of different features and are not a problem for versatile wire manufacturers. It can even be made with various terminals already installed.
  
 The strategy in selling these products is, in part, to appeal to those who are looking to impress others with something unique and expensive. There is also pride of ownership and the belief that if it costs that much it must be good. It reminds me of the Percy Bysshe Shelley poem _Ozymandias_ but for speaker wire it translates to “Look upon my expensive wires ye mighty and despair.” It will always sell to those who want the latest thing and would spend as much for a Rolex watch as they would for wire. Of course, there are ordinary watches that will tell time accurately they but don’t have that name or that price.
  
 Another part of the strategy is to capitalize on the lack of truth in advertising, particularly the whole truth. Perhaps the two words “truth” and “advertising” are on opposite extremes but half of the truth can be worse than a lie. I don’t think the average consumer is any match to cope with the persuasive sales “hype” of professional salesmen praising a questionable wire science and doubtful benefits.
  
 When confronted with the truth, believers do not want to hear about it. They want to remain in the magical world of fantasy where they think they can hear improvements in their wire, often arrived at by making listening tests without adequate controls or understanding of the problems involved including speaker impedance and amplifier stability. One of the prime tools in creating such a faith for the average consumer is by capitalizing on fear and ignorance as in many other things that aren’t readily apparent. There is fear that the wire currently in use is not good enough. There is ignorance because most people do not have scientific knowledge in this area and lack adequate measuring equipment to prove otherwise.


----------



## x838nwy

herbie12389 said:


> Sweet dude. What about your cables do you like that made you choose them?




For the test:
MBP -> (black cat cable special edition usb) -> gungnir -> 2 sets of interconnects
1.) WireWorld equinox rca
2.) Nordost Blue Heaven LS
-> into a Schiit SYS -> (schitt pyst cable) -> headphone amp -> hd 800


----------



## bigshot

You should put a $2 mono price RCA to RCA in there, maybe the Chinese cables that come with cheap CD players.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## herbie12389

.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> For the test:
> MBP -> (black cat cable special edition usb) -> gungnir -> 2 sets of interconnects
> 1.) WireWorld equinox rca
> 2.) Nordost Blue Heaven LS
> -> into a Schiit SYS -> (schitt pyst cable) -> headphone amp -> hd 800




I look forward to your results! 

Cheers


----------



## bigshot

controlled test day is rebirth day! it's going to be interesting.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> Did you see this part? And did you take note of Roger Russell's resume?
> 
> *The Big Picture*​ There is big money to be made in wire, not only speaker wire but all kinds of exotic wire—hookup wire, audio cables, power cables and a wide variety of speaker wire including the new term of “speaker cables.” The term cable implies more robust and heavy duty qualities than wire.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The man has credibility, I don't doubt that for a second. However...
  
 Quite a bit of the above extract deals with the wire's origin. Now if we're talking science here, it really should not matter where wires come from. It could come from California or Cambodia for all that matters is the various parameters of the wires. And the bulk price is always a known factor and I have mentioned this also. If you take the proportional costs of say an amplifier, you'd probably find that manny +$1k amps are made from may be $300 in parts at most. Transistors, transformers and all kinds of parts can be purchased in bulk for a very, very low price. But surely that does not discredit the amplifier industry, similarly I don't see the relevance of the whole industrial pricing and origin in this discussion.
  
 Of course there are people who want to impress others with how much they have to throw at seemingly senseless pursuits. There are people who buy amplifiers and DACS and record players to impress others. You find people like that in all sorts of hobbies. I also do not see how this has to do with any of the scientific facts regarding this matter.
  
 With regards to the truth… I am all for the truth, but for a number of reason which I have already stated, it is my opinion that it may not be so clear-cut. I hope to better form this opinion after my test.


----------



## bigshot

Once you've determined the truth for yourself, the next question is going to be "why do people pay so much more for nothing?" That is one of the most discussed topics around sound science, and it does reflect on science, because the question also infers "why do people trust salesmen more than science?" The science of this is cut and dried and tested a million times already. But still people doubt it and cling to beliefs that there's no scientific basis to back up. I really have no idea why that is, but it involves ego and the issues Roger Russell raises.


----------



## SilverEars

I can understand higher cost because of low volume and labor(the cables that are used here are not made in bulk as the market isn't that large and they are hand made which takes time), but there are some blatantly overpriced cables.  I won't comment on sonics, but some pricing is a rip-off.


----------



## bigshot

I even think Blue Jeans cables are overpriced!


----------



## dBel84

I am sure that this has been stated a million times over and I will preface this by saying I am not much of a cable guy. Not much because I would not use winflew to wire up my stereo or headphones. 
  
 To a large extent , it is where you find yourself in the hobby. An analogy, something else that relies heavily of sensory interpretation and experience. Wine or single malt whisky. If you take someone who is ignorant of the subtleties or nuances of flavour and present them with a dram of $12 / $60 / $150 / $600 or $1500 flavours from the same district eg Speyside ( we are talking whisky here )  - this would equate to an audio noob being presented with twinflex, monoprice, etc etc to the esoteric world of cables. 
  
 For the whisky, it is probably easier to discern the $12 from the $600 but it still requires training your palate , in much the same way it requires tweaking your system to optimize the sound you like. For those who strive for absolute institutionalization, this quest drives them into the depths of insanity ( or at least most people feel this way ) . I have been fortunate in that I managed to get "high end" gear early on in my journey and I can hear things like coupling capacitor changes, and yes, the benefits of wiring. For my own peace of mind I recently lent out my LCD3 with 3 cables, stock and 2 cables made from wire that is deemed "audiophile" and I was able to hear differences between them. The Audeze stock cable is not rubish, in fact it amazes me that people buy a top tier headphone and immediately switch out the cable. The HD800 is probably higher grade than most replacements. 
  
 I know I have been rambling on but the message really is that this is your system - when you get to the point that you question or find fault in your system, that is the time to look at the elements of your system, and wiring is not a trivial part of the equation. Don't forget the loaner programs either - Cable Co or a trusting headfier could loan you some cables to try , if you don't hear any benefit or worse yet, perceive a deterioration, don't do it. ( even if the new component is showing up other deficiencies in the system - address that first )
  
  
 ..dB


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I even think Blue Jeans cables are overpriced!


 

 A little bit, but I do like to use BJC for cables that will be connected/disconnected frequently.  Their connectors are a little more robust than Monoprice.  No difference in SQ
  
 BJC will also custom build cables without ridiculous surcharge if you need something they don't normally have.


----------



## bfreedma

dbel84 said:


> I am sure that this has been stated a million times over and I will preface this by saying I am not much of a cable guy. Not much because I would not use winflew to wire up my stereo or headphones.
> 
> To a large extent , it is where you find yourself in the hobby. An analogy, something else that relies heavily of sensory interpretation and experience. Wine or single malt whisky. If you take someone who is ignorant of the subtleties or nuances of flavour and present them with a dram of $12 / $60 / $150 / $600 or $1500 flavours from the same district eg Speyside ( we are talking whisky here )  - this would equate to an audio noob being presented with twinflex, monoprice, etc etc to the esoteric world of cables.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Er, no.
  
 Whiskey is in no way analagous to wires.  We can clearly identify different whiskey in a DBT.  Can't do that with cables.
  
 Is this still the science forum?


----------



## bigshot

dbel84 said:


> I am sure that this has been stated a million times over and I will preface this by saying I am not much of a cable guy. Not much because I would not use winflew to wire up my stereo or headphones.
> 
> To a large extent , it is where you find yourself in the hobby. An analogy, something else that relies heavily of sensory interpretation and experience. Wine or single malt whisky




No. Not even close.

There are two tests involved in evaluating cables. The first DBT is to determine whether there is a difference at all. If there is a difference, the second test (whether by listening or measurement) is to determine which of the two different cables is the best quality.

Wine and whiskey would sweep through the first test and proceed on to the second, cables would not.



dbel84 said:


> this is your system - when you get to the point that you question or find fault in your system, that is the time to look at the elements of your system, and wiring is not a trivial part of the equation.




If someone can't even figure out how to plug two components together without causing problems, I shudder to think of the condition of the rest of their system!

For some reason, everyone loves to go to the "fine wine" analogy, as if being an audiophile iinvolves having some sort of refined tastes and sophistication. It doesn't take any sophisticated tastes to put on a set of headphones. Perhaps your choice of music may involve refined tastes, but your choice of wire doesn't.


----------



## dBel84

No, anyone can as easily slug down a drink or put on a pair of headphones, recognizing the intended outcome takes talent. The accuracy analogy is a matter of opinion, I have a palate for single malts and an ear for what I like, it thus makes perfect sense. Listening to 50s recordings and expecting to hear the difference ( albeit minor ) in audible nuance is different again from listening to well mastered modern recordings. It is a learning process. You train your ear to hear things ( consciously or not ) . If I listen to certain gear ( regardless of cost ) and it doesn't suite my personal listening preferences, no switching of cables is going to improve my experience, unless I forget to connect it entirely. If you like tubey harmonics, that is a preference, no cable is going to change this for you, a revealing cable may allow you to perceive more noise than you prefer, don't buy the cable. Build a system to suite your own preferences , if that means you want to spend $20K on a cable , so be it.


----------



## bigshot

You completely missed the point about the first question being "Is there even a difference?" That doesn't take special discernment, just a good direct comparison and human ears.

I think audiophiles can sometimes give themselves too much credit for the importance of what they're doing. Sitting on a couch listening to headphones isn't a skill. In fact, it's a pretty passive act. I'm always amazed that people wrap their ego around something so simple.

Playing the piano is something to be proud of. Learning something about classical music or jazz is something that requires taste. A chimpanzee can wear headphones and listen to sounds on them. Maybe in the future, people will consider watching television to be a skill requiring training and taste too! (shudder!)


----------



## bfreedma

dbel84 said:


> No, anyone can as easily slug down a drink or put on a pair of headphones, recognizing the intended outcome takes talent. The accuracy analogy is a matter of opinion, I have a palate for single malts and an ear for what I like, it thus makes perfect sense. Listening to 50s recordings and expecting to hear the difference ( albeit minor ) in audible nuance is different again from listening to well mastered modern recordings. It is a learning process. You train your ear to hear things ( consciously or not ) . If I listen to certain gear ( regardless of cost ) and it doesn't suite my personal listening preferences, no switching of cables is going to improve my experience, unless I forget to connect it entirely. If you like tubey harmonics, that is a preference, no cable is going to change this for you, a revealing cable may allow you to perceive more noise than you prefer, don't buy the cable. Build a system to suite your own preferences , if that means you want to spend $20K on a cable , so be it.


 
  
 Assessing the differences in single malts and cables are in no way related.  It's an unworkable analogy.
  
 I say that as someone with significant investments in headphones and over 300 bottles of high end whiskey, over 80 of which are single malts.
  
 I've actually done some testing before - people can tell the difference between single malts the vast majority of the time.  No one has ever passed a cable DBT.
  
 Now that that's out of the way, what's your favorite single malt?  I'm a huge fan of the whole Glengoyne line, particularly the 21 year old.  Macallan 25 y/o fine oak is another favorite, though not an every day drink due to cost.
 Have you tried many of the Japanese singles?  Some of them give the traditional houses a run for their money.


----------



## Joe Skubinski

We don't DBT single malts nor cables. We taste them and listen to them, respectively.


----------



## bigshot

My whiskey has a flavor. My cables don't.


----------



## spook76

bfreedma said:


> Assessing the differences in single malts and cables are in no way related.  It's an unworkable analogy.
> 
> I say that as someone with significant investments in headphones and over 300 bottles of high end whiskey, over 80 of which are single malts.
> 
> ...




For everyday my personal preference is the Springbank 15. I agree the Macallan 25 is great. 

Have you had a chance to sample the Macallan 50? I bought one bottle to celebrate my elevation to partner in my law firm. Now that was spectacular.


----------



## bootdsc

All this talk of cables and whiskey makes me thirsty, got a bottle of Dewars 12 and a 15 year old interconnect from a compaq pc speaker system, you know the kind with the bright green ends on it..plug that into my t50rp and enjoy. For all the people out there who believe cables matter i have a lovely bridge i'd like to sell.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> My whiskey has a flavor. My cables don't.




Maybe they should.

*trods off to trademark "Flav-R-Cables"*



se


----------



## bigshot

If a cable has a red and white stripe wraped around it does it make the sound "peppermint"?


----------



## bootdsc

bigshot said:


> If a cable has a red and white stripe wraped around it does it make the sound "peppermint"?


 
 No no stripes just make the sound faster.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> My whiskey has a flavor. My cables don't.


 
  
 There was this one time (could have been at band camp, i cannot recall precisely) when I actually chewed on some speaker cable in a rough-ass effort to strip it. It did distinctly have a taste. However I would not call it a flavor.
  
 And while alcohol consumption is arguably an act of slowly filling ones body with a usually awesome, oft umbrellaed, mixtures of toxins, I'm quite sure the consumption of various dielectrics, copper and silver simply cannot be good for you. Even the ohno continuous cast types.
  
 Having said that, Amazon is a little late on some of my stuff so the SYS will take another week to get to me from my forwarder 
 Is it a holiday or something in the US? And if so, where are the SALES!!! announcements?


----------



## x838nwy

bootdsc said:


> No no stripes just make the sound faster.


 
  
 x838nwy: I live my life a 3ft stereo pair at a time. Nothing else matters: not the mortgage, not the store, not my team and all their ********. For those ten songs or less, I'm free.


----------



## bootdsc

x838nwy said:


> There was this one time (could have been at band camp, i cannot recall precisely) when I actually chewed on some speaker cable in a rough-ass effort to strip it. It did distinctly have a taste. However I would not call it a flavor.
> 
> And while alcohol consumption is arguably an act of slowly filling ones body with a usually awesome, oft umbrellaed, mixtures of toxins, I'm quite sure the consumption of various dielectrics, copper and silver simply cannot be good for you. Even the ohno continuous cast types.
> 
> ...


 
 Easter is on its way but shipping times have never been faster, amazon 2 day normally shows up next day and if i'm willing to pay an extra $6 it shows up before 8pm same day. Now if its not shipping from amazon directly i have had packages take weeks. They should have painted 100% silver stripes on the boxes to make handing times faster.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> If a cable has a red and white stripe wraped around it does it make the sound "peppermint"?


 
  
 Don't be silly, it's a cable you lick before you hook it up, so you have that peppermint taste and the saliva helps the electrons travel more freely.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> If a cable has a red and white stripe wraped around it does it make the sound "peppermint"?




No, I mean a cable that would actually taste of peppermint, or whatever.

I actually had the Flav-R-Cable idea some time back. I'd made some "vintage" guitar cables for a friend of mine (just had my braiders cover some Mogami W2524 with cotton). He later sent me this photo which inspired the Flav-R-Cable idea. 



se


----------



## wakibaki

Audible, fool, not edible.

w


----------



## bfreedma

joe skubinski said:


> We don't DBT single malts nor cables. We taste them and listen to them, respectively.


 

 Well, YOU don't DBT cables.  That would be bad for business.


----------



## bfreedma

spook76 said:


> For everyday my personal preference is the Springbank 15. I agree the Macallan 25 is great.
> 
> Have you had a chance to sample the Macallan 50? I bought one bottle to celebrate my elevation to partner in my law firm. Now that was spectacular.


 
  
 Springbank 15 - yum.
  
 You're a lucky man on the Mac 50.  I'd love to try it but the bottle cost is too high right now and the price of a single dram where available is outrageously overpriced (at least for my wallet)
  
 Did have a chance to have some of the limited edition Glengoyne 35 they recently released.  Can't compare it to the Mac 50, but I suspect we would like them both.
  
 End - off topic.


----------



## Steve Eddy

wakibaki said:


> Audible, fool, not edible.
> 
> w




Who says you can't have both? We can put a man on the moon. Why not an edible audible? 

se


----------



## bigshot

When I was a kid, I had the Mattel "Incredible Edible" set, complete with "Thingmaker" machine. It could have made incredible edible audibles!

By the way, what is the conductivity of jelly filling in donuts?


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> When I was a kid, I had the Mattel "Incredible Edible" set, complete with "Thingmaker" machine. It could have made incredible edible audibles!
> 
> By the way, what is the conductivity of jelly filling in donuts?


 
  
 Don't know, but I bet if you put it through a cellophane tube with a high gauge gold wire you could sell it for 50k usd per foot.


----------



## milosz

Cables get caught up in a popular You Tube meme.....   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UQDTZcpsDE


----------



## castleofargh

milosz said:


> Cables get caught up in a popular You Tube meme.....   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UQDTZcpsDE


 
 whoever did this, thank you, my abs hurt from laughing so much.


----------



## Sal1950

That's too funny, thanks.


----------



## anthk

elmoe said:


> Don't know, but I bet if you put it through a cellophane tube with a high gauge gold wire you could sell it for 50k usd per foot.


 

 works better if you have an audiophile nuclear reactor to put a few megavolts through the air...


----------



## x838nwy

The SYS is here, feet installed… sadly I must work this Sunday. Will report on when I can do the test….
  
 There IS an audible mechanical click on mine which I can hear through my HD800. I will see if I can hear it through my Alpah Dogs.


----------



## x838nwy

TEST RESULTS
  
Okay, you're not all going to like this. In the end, it turned out the equipment used were:
MBP -> USB -> Gungnir
Nordost Blue Heaven going from Gungnir RCA#1 -> Input 1 of the SYS
Wire World Oasis 7 going from Gungnir RAC #2 -> Input 2 of the SYS
Output from the SYS goes to the RCA input of the Mjolnir via a pair of 6" PYST cables
From the Mjolnir -> Stock cable -> Alpha Dogs
  
When switching, I had the assistanct switch on an electric toothbrush to mask any possible click I can hear from the  actual chassis of the SYS's switch spring mechanism.
The SYS itself does not make any sound through the output, but I paused the music to be sure.
Levels were not adjusted and only 1 song was used. (Lorde, Tennis Court).
  
So, I had no idea which was which input so I just marked on my 'score sheet' as A or B.
My assistant had two states to work from, switch were X and Y.
  
We then had a scoring system where I had to assume whether A=X (and B=Y) or the other way around.
  
We did 15 tests.
  
If A=Y and B=X, I got it right 9 times out of 15 which is 60%. Okay, it's only 1 or 2 more than a 50% split.
An interesting result was that, if we discount the first 3 results, I got 8 out of the last 12 consecutive guesses correct, which is 66.7%. The same ratio applies for the last 9 consecutive results. I don't know if that means I got better at it or what but I didn't try the test before so for the first few I was guessing quite a bit.
  
Is 60% from 15 tests significant? To be honest, towards the end it was getting a bit boring and I found that I'd arrive at a conclusion in less than a minute and it wasn't really about focusing on one detail/aspect of the sound, but more of an overall picture like the 'height' of the 'head stage' which is probably a bit weird.
  
I can tell you for certain, there IS a difference. But seriously, it's a hair-width. With the Blue Heaven being $364.99 for a 1m pair and the Oasis 7 at $110.00 for the same length, it's kindda debatable with regards to value and all that. To be honest, I don't think I've concluded that I prefer one over another and that's really not my focus here. If pushed, I'd actually say I prefer the airiness of one but a slightly more stable soundstage of another. Wishy-washy words, I know, but that's how the difference manifests itself to me.
  
I'm open to hearing more about the significance of the 9/15 figure. Some would probably have something to say about the fact that I have another 6" of PYST cables, a switch and an attenuator in between, plus there are more transparent set ups out there for sure. (The Mjolnir's SE inputs are a step behind its XLR inputs, IMO.) So I'm not pretending this is anything definitive by any means. I'm just stating what I got.
  
My conclusion form all this, and it's a personal one, is that while there's a difference between cables, it's not a hugely apparent difference, specially if your set-up is more average like the one I used. I don't know I would have heard more or less of a difference if I used another pair of cables perhaps with even more of a price gap or design principles. Going up the range, Nordost has their mono-filament and Wire World I'm sure has some other tricks so who knows.
  
Would love to hear from you guys about this...


----------



## anetode

A very good effort. Maybe not completely double blind but certainly enough to produce a useful result. Unfortunately 9/15 is statistically insignificant, you'd need 12/15 to reach a 95% confidence level.
  
 I appreciate that it's very tedious to set up and go through so many trials. Sometimes it helps to take a break between the sets. If you think that you can identify the difference then you need more tests to indicate that.


----------



## higbvuyb

x838nwy said:


> Is 60% from 15 tests significant? To be honest, towards the end it was getting a bit boring and I found that I'd arrive at a conclusion in less than a minute and it wasn't really about focusing on one detail/aspect of the sound, but more of an overall picture like the 'height' of the 'head stage' which is probably a bit weird


 
 If you were guessing totally randomly you'd get that score or better (on 15 trials) about 30% of the time so it doesn't meet the threshold for significance.
  
 If we take the last 12 trials it improves to 20% which is still not significant, but you can't actually do that because it's cheating - naturally if you pick only the best results you will get something better.
  
 Either:
 1. there is no audible difference
 2. there is a difference bordering on perceptibility but it is small and a much larger trial is needed to detect it


----------



## TheAttorney

Firstly, good effort.
  
 Secondly, I agree with the recent posts that's it's not quite statistically significant - with the numbers so far.
  
 One thing that springs out to me is that in this test you felt the differences (if they even existed) to be tiny.
 Before this test, did you have a stronger view on the differences between these two cables?
  
 Irrespective of other suggestions you may get to make the results more statistically significant, how about trying just one longer term test to see how that goes:
 Still blind, leave Cable A or B in place for a few days and just listen to that "normally" with two or three different albums (not just one track, or you'll go mad).
 Then still blind, get the cable swapped and listen for an evening. Do the differences appear any more obvious? If yes, then more work to be done to make that statistically valid.
  
 Finally, I'd have started with one of the cables being stock against the one you perceive to be the best you have. Simply to more easily ascertain that you can spot cable differences at all.


----------



## elmoe

The most important thing you can try in my opinion is to buy a cheap pair of monoprice/radioshack RCAs and do another test with those. It'll make the lack of difference, or of improvement, painfully obvious.


----------



## x838nwy

I agree with both posts here. It's probably not a statistical significance. But it's a first try, i think i'll give it another go and actually take my time a little more and follow some of TheAttorney's advice.

The differences, to be honest, i had *expected* and certainly held a view that they would be more pronounced. I think, however, that it got easier to spot as i went on. I got the blue heaven cables 2nd hand so paid about ~150 for them and had actually forgotten about how much the wire world costed me so i thought i was actually comparing cables of the same price till i looked up their prices this morning. So there really was no bias. However, i will try one against a stock cable next time.


----------



## TheAttorney

The point you made about boredorm (and implied listener fatigue) is very valid.
  
 To stop yourself going mad, how about restricting to fewer sessions (say 10), then have a break and change the track to a different kind of music and doing another stint of 10, and so on.
  
 Choosing the Lorde song as your only test track is interesting. That ablum is quite compressed and "produced" (not all in a bad way). I wonder how a different kind of sound would fare?
 I really like her album BTW.


----------



## x838nwy

theattorney said:


> The point you made about boredorm (and implied listener fatigue) is very valid.
> 
> To stop yourself going mad, how about restricting to fewer sessions (say 10), then have a break and change the track to a different kind of music and doing another stint of 10, and so on.
> 
> ...




My original playlist was not usable as i stupidly included songs from a hd that i didn't bring home with me. So yeah, i'm a bit of a genius like that. Anyhow, i chose it as it's a track i'm familiar with and the album is nothing short of awesome. I would like to also include some live recordings and may be of classical music in the mix to actually hear real (non synthesized) instruments and see if that makes any difference.

I will be redesigning the test and hopefully will give it another try on Sunday. I may take turns with another person - like do 10 each in one sitting and see what we find....

For some reason, i cannot find "stock" cables anywhere... Can we take the Blue Jeans Cable RCA as a "stock" cable, may be? I'll keep looking, but i don't want to go too far and end up with something that doesn't actually work...


----------



## bigshot

9 out of 16 is still in the realm of random chance. You appear to have not been hearing a difference, just thinking you did. The tricks the mind plays are as useful a takeaway from this test as whether cables have a sound.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> 9 out of 16 is still in the realm of random chance. You appear to have not been hearing a difference, just thinking you did. The tricks the mind plays are as useful a takeaway from this test as whether cables have a sound.




Fwiw, it was 9 out of 15. But i understand what you mean.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Fwiw, it was 9 out of 15. But i understand what you mean.


 

 I think what you are doing is a great start. Currently, you really don't have enough data points to confidently say that you hear a difference. It is possible to have a 60% success rate and conclude there is a difference; however, it takes a lot of statistically independent samples before a >95% confidence level is reached. I encourage you to continue with more trials to increase your sample size and to report them here. We can help you analyze your results. I think it is helpful  and informative to the rest of the community to go through the experiment and analysis processes, and perhaps it will inspire more folks to try their own tests!
  





  
 Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

ab initio said:


> I think what you are doing is a great start. Currently, you really don't have enough data points to confidently say that you hear a difference. It is possible to have a 60% success rate and conclude there is a difference; however, it takes a lot of statistically independent samples before a >95% confidence level is reached. I encourage you to continue with more trials to increase your sample size and to report them here. We can help you analyze your results. I think it is helpful  and informative to the rest of the community to go through the experiment and analysis processes, and perhaps it will inspire more folks to try their own tests!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  




  
 Thank you 
  
 Before work this morning, I re-arranged the set up and searched for a stock pair of RCA interconnects (without the Blue Heaven, the wife can't hear her TV so that sort of had to go back!). I've also had to move the Gungnir to another spot as the Oppo bdp105D now replaced it… The bad news is, in the new position, the Gungnir now hums something awful. So a slight set back, and a pain in the ar$e as we only discovered it after I've set everything up… This is harder than it first appeared...


----------



## esldude

I think you are chasing ghosts thinking, "hey, if i dropped the 1st three, I got 2/3 right."  Oh believe me, I know how strong and seemingly right that seems when doing such tests myself. (Hey I must have been getting better after the first few). But what most likely will happen is more test trials and it will get closer and closer to 50%.  Even then it is well within statistical likelihood to get 8 of 12 now and again. 
  
 Just for kicks in a spreadsheet.  I just created with a random number generator 1000 trials.  Set up so half are right and half are wrong.  When split into test segments of 15 choices over 66 sessions of 15 trials then 14 times 9 or 10 of 15 were correct.  When the same results were split up into 12 choices over 83 sessions, 8 of 12 or 9 of twelve occurred 8 times.  Things like this make it easier to see results that appear to indicate something or feel like something is going on quite regularly occur in just those numbers when you know the results are purely mathematically generated randomness.
  
 In my randomly generated results there was one time with 11 in a row correct.  Since I arbitrarily split those into 12 or 15 trial segments it happened to fall so one 15 trial result was 10 of 15 and that 12 trial segment was one of the 8 of 12 results.  Had it fell differently you might have gotten an 11 of 12 result.  And it all would have been just random variation.  If you had gotten 11 of 12 it would be very hard to convince you it was random (and it meets the 95% confidence level).  Of course repeating the test again if random you wouldn't have likely repeated your performance. 
  
 Now when people ask for more trials or repeats, some folks say  nothing is enough and just feel in their gut it is so right that they hear something.  But if you know just some basic statistical facts you learn certain results mislead you if you don't have the full perspective of what is possible.  Try playing with synthetic random results in a spreadsheet.  It makes it easier to see how such results occur when actually purely random.  I have done this with various fake trials using 10,000 or 100,000 results.  The results follow the statistical predictions.  Every so often unlikely things occur simply by chance. 
  
 Still I commend you on trying the test for yourself and honestly reporting the results.  It is a good and educational thing to do.  Congrats!


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> I think you are chasing ghosts thinking, "hey, if i dropped the 1st three, I got 2/3 right."  Oh believe me, I know how strong and seemingly right that seems when doing such tests myself. (Hey I must have been getting better after the first few). But what most likely will happen is more test trials and it will get closer and closer to 50%.  Even then it is well within statistical likelihood to get 8 of 12 now and again.
> 
> Just for kicks in a spreadsheet.  I just created with a random number generator 1000 trials.  Set up so half are right and half are wrong.  When split into test segments of 15 choices over 66 sessions of 15 trials then 14 times 9 or 10 of 15 were correct.  When the same results were split up into 12 choices over 83 sessions, 8 of 12 or 9 of twelve occurred 8 times.  Things like this make it easier to see results that appear to indicate something or feel like something is going on quite regularly occur in just those numbers when you know the results are purely mathematically generated randomness.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I hated stats back in my days, but yes, there exist a possibility that I get 15/15 through just guessing, but it's going to be something awful small, like 1/(2^15) or something. It'd be cheating for me to simply omit any result so I kindda left them all in, the thing about looking at the last part only was that I *felt* it easier to tell them apart towards the end. Now I'm not saying that it *was* easier, just it *felt* that way. One can view this in two ways, either a.) my hearing was "trained" to pick out the difference more effectively or b.) if I imagine something hard enough, it will seem more real to me even if it does not, in fact, exist. I'm on the fence at the moment on that.
  
 Any how, 'NORMAL' RCA CABLES ACQUIRED!!! It's a 1.5m pair, so I hope you guys don't mind that it will be going up against a 1m pair of Wire World cables. There was a cheaper pair at something like $6 but they really did look like they won't actually connect so I splashed out a bit and spent $8 on this pair. I will try for 30 tests this weekend. It'll be my wife doing the electric toothbrush + sys switch routine so there WILL be breaks and a lengthy explanation as to why I'm actually doing this. Now IF she's willing - and it's a gigantic IF - I'll ask her to do some too.
  
 Will keep you posted


----------



## bigshot

One thing you might want to take note of is the direction you always lean when you stretch the interpretation. You definitely have expectation bias. Which is to be expected! That's why you put all the controls on the test.


----------



## castleofargh

x838nwy said:


> Any how, 'NORMAL' RCA CABLES ACQUIRED!!! It's a 1.5m pair, so I hope you guys don't mind that it will be going up against a 1m pair of Wire World cables.


 
  I'm not sure if going from 1 to 1.5m would actually change much. but I would tend to think that cable length is actually important, when I really don't care for the rest as long as it's standard for it's purpose(impedance/diameter/stranded/braided/made of gold/etc).
 I mean if you have to believe cables to be such bad guys that you need to get a 1000$ one, wouldn't it make sens to try and get the shortest one to reduce all the bad effects they might be full of?


----------



## limpidglitch

x838nwy said:


> Any how, 'NORMAL' RCA CABLES ACQUIRED!!! It's a 1.5m pair, so I hope you guys don't mind that it will be going up against a 1m pair of Wire World cables. There was a cheaper pair at something like $6 but they really did look like they won't actually connect so I splashed out a bit and spent $8 on this pair.
> 
> Will keep you posted


 
  
 Strictly speaking, if the material and configuration of the cable is expected to make a difference, so would the length of the cable.

 So if your test turn out positive (there is a difference), you will have no way to know whether that was due to the materials or the length of the cables.

 Conversely, if your tests turn out negative (there is no difference), you can't completely rule out the possibility of this being due to effects canceling each other.

 This is why in these kinds of tests it is normal to only change one variable at a time.


----------



## bigshot

But of course none of it makes a difference.


----------



## limpidglitch

Naturally, which is why I prefaced it with "strictly speaking".
 The outcome should be interesting none-the-less.


----------



## x838nwy

limpidglitch said:


> Strictly speaking, if the material and configuration of the cable is expected to make a difference, so would the length of the cable.
> 
> 
> So if your test turn out positive (there is a difference), you will have no way to know whether that was due to the materials or the length of the cables.
> ...




While i totally agree with you, but we could edit your post and change the words "the length of the cable(s)" to "the brand of connectors used" and it'd still be a valid point. IF differences exist, my test will not indicate their factors of origin(s) or how much each factor contribute to the result as a whole. It's be interesting to do the test between two models of cables from the same company (same length). Sadly I don't have those right now 

I'll get some results up later today if all goes to plan.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> But of course none of it makes a difference.


 

  cable length does make a difference, I've read some complicated stuff about it from people who seemed to know what they were talking about. but ofc the cable they spoke of was a 100m long ^_^.


----------



## SilverEars

castleofargh said:


> cable length does make a difference, I've read some complicated stuff about it from people who seemed to know what they were talking about. but ofc the cable they spoke of was a 100m long ^_^.


 





  Yeah there are datasheets that shows the max range of copper cables such as Cat5.  So there! cables make a difference.


----------



## TheAttorney

x838nwy said:


> It's be interesting to do the test between two models of cables from the same company (same length). Sadly I don't have those right now


 
 Yes, I would say that would be the simplest test that would most easily show differences. On the basis that it's best to only change one variable at a time, your mind is less likely to be diverted by different "house sounds", which (at these objectively tiny difference levels) are as likely to confuse as to clarify.  
  
 FWIW, my non-scientific impression on stock cables is that they are generally quite neutral. No particular house sound. Just evenly mediocre across the board.


----------



## elmoe

castleofargh said:


> cable length does make a difference, I've read some complicated stuff about it from people who seemed to know what they were talking about. but ofc the cable they spoke of was a 100m long ^_^.


 
  
 Exactly, while length makes a difference if we're talking hundreds of meters, between 1m and 1.5m there is no difference whatsoever that can be measured to have an impact on human audibility.
  
 The best test to do is just to try a standard RCA cable, 10usd max, vs a "hi-end" cable. If you go by what cable believers say, then that's where the biggest difference should be audible (though it won't be). It'll be interesting to see the results of his test.


----------



## Speedskater

Taken to the extreme with everything else remaining equal, longer RCA analog interconnects:
  
 a] Some lengths will be better interference antennas than other lengths.
 b] Longer cables will have poorer leakage current Signal to Noise ratios.
 c] Will have greater total capacitance which may cause the circuit to oscillate.


----------



## castleofargh

TBH the only thing I'm really wondering about is if it is possible to reduce the stereo separation(so for cables conducting analog obviously) by making a cable in a really dumb way?
 like making huge efforts to have more inductance, and keeping right and left as close as possible.
  
 it's something I've been wondering for some times (also can we split a rock with lightning? and how does my ethernet cable sounds like?)


----------



## Speedskater

'stereo separation' or crosstalk. Well we can run 4 different audio signals down a 300 foot Cat5 cable and the crosstalk is still in the -100 dB range.
  
 It takes lots & lots of crosstalk to be audible when listening to music.


----------



## x838nwy

Okay guys, results are in.
  
 First things first, I made a mistake with the length of the Nordost Blue Heaven. I checked my cables and they're actually 1.5m so that's the same length as the cheapo cable I'm testing against.
  
 Before we go into the numbers, I need to say that this is as much as test of cables as a test of me actually noticing things. After about 1/3 of the way through the second session, there's just one thing I needed to look for and it was actually fairly straightforward. In the song Royals by Lorde, there's a sort of rhythmic sound that's like 3  snaps in succession. On the cheap cable, they're a little more lumped together so the sound more like one continuous sound. It takes some time to get it in my head, but I think as a result, the last 4 results of each sessions are all correct. Dunno, may be I'm imagining things again… if you put enough monkeys in front of enough type writers for an infinite length of time, the complete works of Shakespere is probably an inevitability.
  
 Results are:
 Session 1: Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y = 6/10
 Session 2: N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y = 7/10
 Session 3: N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y = 6/10
  
 Total = 19/30 = 63.33% => *not statistically significant*, as such it cannot be said that I can reliably tell the difference between the two pairs of cables.
  
 That's not to say that there is no difference. To my ears there is. Apart from the above, the cello on All Through the Night (Yo-Yo Ma, Goat rodeo sessions) sounds a hair more natural and real on one of the two also. But it's a very small difference.
  
 An important point I take from this is that while I'm happy with what the statistics say, having experienced the test first hand, I fear there's more to it than my simple setup can answer. You see, it's like if I show you two red tiles. The two are slightly different in that one is very slightly (but still visibly) darker than the other. Placed side by side, you'd clearly be able to tell. But if you're shown only one tile at a time and are asked to say whether it's the darker or the lighter, it wouldn't be so obvious. I feel it'd be better if I could compare what I hear currently against the same song played through either cable. Say if I could have three imaginary buttons, one to hear it played through the mystery cable, one for having it played through cable A and another through cable B and my job is to match what I'm listening to, to either A or B. May something similar exist with such facilities.
  
 Now some might say that had I connected the cables directly, as opposed to through the SYS, it'd be more noticeable or whatever, but I'm wouldn't say that's likely. If we try this test on better gear, who knows. Had I tried it with an even more extravagant cable? I cannot say for certain but it is likely that the results would be similar. If anyone has these uber interconnects they're happy to part with I'd be happy to check for them. 
  
 Anyway, to conclude - there does not appear to be any difference that can be reliably identified (by me) between electrical  analogue signals going through these two pairs of analogue interconnects between a DAC and a headphone amplifier.
  
 Considering their price differences - roughly x50 - it appears to be one of the less effective ways to improve a hifi system. I have to stress, however, that I do not claim to be an expert with the best ears or possess a vast experience in high fidelity. These results are based on my gear and my ears. It may be different for others, I don't know.


----------



## elmoe

Considering though, that in the cheapo cable vs hi-end one, the results are roughly the same as your "mid-end" vs "hi-end" comparison earlier, it's safe to say that there is absolutely no audible difference between any of the cables used. I don't understand why you persist in saying there is a difference to your ears. If there was, you'd be able to tell. I suggest you do this:
  
 Cut a sample from a song from which you have confidence in being able to tell the difference (you can use Audacity for this, its freeware and easy to use), the cello on All Through The Night for example. Do another test. You should be able to get a result above 80% at least. If not, then it's expectation bias and there really isn't any difference.


----------



## bigshot

I'm afraid that you seem to be particularly susceptible to expectation bias, x838nwy. You should sit down when this is all over and think about how to not let expectation get the better of you, even when the facts are clear. It would be like swimming upstream to have to constantly deal with that.


----------



## cjl

Also, as an interesting note, you don't need to score close to 100% to show statistical significance. An ABX or A/B test can have a positive outcome even if you only get the correct answer 51% of the time. The closer your outcome is to 50% though, the more trials are needed to show that the result is unlikely to be purely chance driven. In your case, the sum of your last three trials is 19/30. While this is actually somewhat unlikely from chance alone, it isn't nearly unlikely enough to be considered statistically significant (if I did the math right, the chances of getting at least 19/30 correct by pure chance are around 14%). If you continue to get ~63% correct through many more trials (which is not an expected outcome based on the current data, I should add), the probability of a 63% success rate occurring by chance alone drops below 5% once you have successfully achieved 32/50 correct (so a 32/50 would be considered a possible positive result for an ABX test). If you tighten up the required P value to 1% (since 5% still means that by chance alone, 1 in 20 random trials will achieve that kind of significance), you would need a score of 62/98 to show a significant result.


----------



## esldude

I commend you x838nwy for doing this.  You are experiencing what at least many of us have.  You just know, feel it in your gut, they aren't the same.  Then with a blind test, well you feel differences are small, but you just know they are there.  Yet the test results indicate there is no audible difference likely. 
  
 I have tried to conceive of a test like the two red colored tiles you speak about.  My first idea was separate cables on each channel listening over headphones.  But that doesn't work.  When differences I artificially induce in one channel become quite perceptible in such a concurrent test they are already larger differences than I detect with an ABX in Foobar. 
  
 Also, though you have the subjective experience of seeing two tiles 'at the same time side by side' your eyes actually switch rapidly from one to the other, and do some trickery so you think you are looking at both.  Using software that could instantly switch from one color to other on my computer screen I found I could more easily pick two very close colors than if I had them side by side.  The key is instant (in my case 1/60th of a second) switching.  Putting in a dead time of 5 seconds lowered the sensitivity of color discrimination for me.
  
 Finally, the logic of using music for your test seems good.  It has been known for some time smaller differences can be detected with proper test signals in blind testing.  For your cable test I would suggest pink noise.  At not too high a level mind you.  This way you have a constancy of signal character, can rapidly switch between and make your choices.  Just a few seconds before switching makes the test less time consuming to do a fair number of trials.  I find it less tiresome in practice than using music myself.  This is if you wish to give it one more go. 
  
 It takes time to turn loose of one idea and get comfortable with another one. You had the guts to actually try this out.  I have found few people willing to do such a thing.  Most just bluster about how obvious it is and never quite commit themselves to testing the proposition cables sound different.  Or attack the methodology if they do and get results they don't like.
  
 As you get comfortable with the idea cables are generally transparent and fully interchangeable it is somewhat freeing.  You can use whatever inexpensive cable is at hand with no worries.  It is a part of the audio world that is cut and dried.  Leaves more money and time to focus on things that really matter.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Okay guys, results are in.
> 
> First things first, I made a mistake with the length of the Nordost Blue Heaven. I checked my cables and they're actually 1.5m so that's the same length as the cheapo cable I'm testing against.
> 
> ...




I think your effort doing real testing is great. I appreciate the effort and that you share your results here. Certainly, more trials would help to solidify your results one way or the other!

Cheers


----------



## limpidglitch

elmoe said:


> Considering though, that in the cheapo cable vs hi-end one, the results are roughly the same as your "mid-end" vs "hi-end" comparison earlier, *it's safe to say that there is absolutely no audible difference between any of the cables used.** I don't understand why you persist in saying there is a difference to your ears. If there was, you'd be able to tell. I suggest you do this:
> 
> Cut a sample from a song from which you have confidence in being able to tell the difference (you can use Audacity for this, its freeware and easy to use), the cello on All Through The Night for example. Do another test. You should be able to get a result above 80% at least. If not, then it's expectation bias and there really isn't any difference.


 
  
***No. I think *x838nwy *is correct in being as cautious as he is.
 There are strong indications that there is no difference, but the tests are in no way conclusive.


----------



## bigshot

If you go to that much trouble and still can't discern a definite improvement, I think it's time to chalk it up to not mattering and move on to frying bigger fish. The whole point is to improve the sound of your stereo system, not to become a testing engineer.


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> If you go to that much trouble and still can't discern a definite improvement, I think it's time to chalk it up to not mattering and move on to frying bigger fish. The whole point is to improve the sound of your stereo system, not to become a testing engineer.


 

 +1 on that idea.


----------



## limpidglitch

bigshot said:


> If you go to that much trouble and still can't discern a definite improvement, I think it's time to chalk it up to not mattering and move on to frying bigger fish. The whole point is to improve the sound of your stereo system, not to become a testing engineer.


 

 Which is pretty much what x838nwy concluded with:

 "Anyway, to conclude - there does not appear to be any difference that can be reliably identified (by me) between electrical  analogue signals going through these two pairs of analogue interconnects between a DAC and a headphone amplifier.
 Considering their price differences - roughly x50 - it appears to be one of the less effective ways to improve a hifi system."

 And I'd agree with that, but the bombastic tone Is doing none of us any good.
 It's not out of kindness for the cable believers, I just want a little decorum and respect for the process.


----------



## x838nwy

cjl said:


> Also, as an interesting note, you don't need to score close to 100% to show statistical significance. An ABX or A/B test can have a positive outcome even if you only get the correct answer 51% of the time. The closer your outcome is to 50% though, the more trials are needed to show that the result is unlikely to be purely chance driven. In your case, the sum of your last three trials is 19/30. While this is actually somewhat unlikely from chance alone, it isn't nearly unlikely enough to be considered statistically significant (if I did the math right, the chances of getting at least 19/30 correct by pure chance are around 14%). If you continue to get ~63% correct through many more trials (which is not an expected outcome based on the current data, I should add), the probability of a 63% success rate occurring by chance alone drops below 5% once you have successfully achieved 32/50 correct (so a 32/50 would be considered a possible positive result for an ABX test). If you tighten up the required P value to 1% (since 5% still means that by chance alone, 1 in 20 random trials will achieve that kind of significance), you would need a score of 62/98 to show a significant result.


 
  
 Thank you cjl. From memory alone, 19 out of 30 trials is unlikely to be significant. But you are right, there is a statistical test that is based on the total number of samples also. Could you point me to a webpage that has the mathematics on this? I'd like to regain a better understanding of this myself.
  


esldude said:


> I commend you x838nwy for doing this.  You are experiencing what at least many of us have.  You just know, feel it in your gut, they aren't the same.  Then with a blind test, well you feel differences are small, but you just know they are there.  Yet the test results indicate there is no audible difference likely.
> 
> I have tried to conceive of a test like the two red colored tiles you speak about.  My first idea was separate cables on each channel listening over headphones.  But that doesn't work.  When differences I artificially induce in one channel become quite perceptible in such a concurrent test they are already larger differences than I detect with an ABX in Foobar.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The switching concept is a good one and I'm interested as I think it will make for a fairer test. I have not tried playing pink noise through it either, so it'd be interesting if I could have the system play the same tone through A, say then through A or B and I have to say if the second playback is the same as the first. It'd probably no adhere too closely to a definition of a DBX...
  


bigshot said:


> *If you go to that much trouble and still can't discern a definite improvement, I think it's time to chalk it up to not mattering and move on to frying bigger fish. *The whole point is to improve the sound of your stereo system, not to become a testing engineer.


 
  
 Well, my conclusion is pretty much what I've highlight in bold type. It's been kindda fun and interesting to actually put stuff to the test, but it at least gives me a better sense of proportion to plan my system's direction. I think I've been as fair as I could have been - in fact even biased in expecting a difference, so I think I gave the cables concerned a decent chance. I hope I haven't put Nordost or their Blue Heaven cables in the spotlight and that is not my intention. They're simply the most costly interconnects I own, are at the right length and of the right sort of plugs for testing  against my $7 wonder-cable.
  
 I have to say one last thing though - all my tests have been with analogue interconnects. I am not claiming that the same will or will not apply to other types of interconnects, tonearm wires, speaker cables or power cords. And while I currently have a highly modified opinion on interconnects (in comparison to the opinion I held prior to the tests), I remain open to reasonable suggestions on ways to improve my tests or other approaches.
  
 With things like this, there remains always a "garage fairy" thing - if someone were to say that in garages exist fairies and I want to prove that they are fiction, looking in my garage for fairies every couple of hours and not finding any does not constitute the proof I am looking for as my methods may be incorrect or my knowledge/skills insufficient. The difficulties in proving negatives is a challenge. But for this one, I think I am comfortable with what I found. I shall not be spending unreasonable sums on money on my analogue interconnects.
  
 p.s. There IS a possibility that I have stumbled upon the most amazing $7 cables in the history of hifi, being a gnat's hair's width from a Blue Heaven. But that's highly, highly unlikely.
  
 Have a great week everybody


----------



## esldude

The formula in simple form is N/2 + square root of N  where N is the number of trials.
  
 So for 30 trials 21 would reach 95% confidence level.
  
 I lifted this from the wikipedia page. 
*Results required for a 95% confidence level:*
  
  

Number of trials10111213141516171819202122232425*Minimum number correct*9910101112121313141515161617 18
  

  
 http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx
  
 This is a piece of ABX software I haven't noticed before.  Works on Mac, Linux or Windows.  So I haven't used it, but it looks simple and useful if you don't have Foobar available.


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> If you go to that much trouble and still can't discern a definite improvement, I think it's time to chalk it up to not mattering and move on to frying bigger fish. The whole point is to improve the sound of your stereo system, not to become a testing engineer.


 
 While I agree with this from the viewpoint of trying to set up an audio system, a positive result of any kind with an A/B or ABX test using cables would still be an astonishing thing (and very relevant to the sound science section). This is still true even if the difference is very subtle, and the tester only gets ~60% correct (but has sufficient trials to show significance). There is no known mechanism (or at least no mechanism with which I am familiar) that would cause two 1.5m cables of reasonable gauge (and without any obvious sound-altering properties) to sound audibly different to human perception, so that would still be an amazing result.


----------



## cjl

x838nwy said:


> Thank you cjl. From memory alone, 19 out of 30 trials is unlikely to be significant. But you are right, there is a statistical test that is based on the total number of samples also. Could you point me to a webpage that has the mathematics on this? I'd like to regain a better understanding of this myself.


 
 I was getting it out of my college statistics textbook, so I can't give you the direct link unfortunately. However, you can get some understanding from the following pages (mostly wikipedia, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for basic info):
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance <-- Basic overview of statistical significance
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-_and_two-tailed_tests <--- for the purposes of this article, an ABX test is a one-tailed test
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_trial
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_whether_a_coin_is_fair <--- this one is pretty good at explaining the statistics, and although it is using a different application for the statistics, the math is similar
 http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_bino.htm <--- Here's a table showing probabilities of obtaining various results in an ABX via random chance (it only goes up to 20 trials though). It does however show nicely how the probabilities scale, and how, for example, 16/20 would actually be a substantially better result for an ABX than 7/7.
  
 (Sorry I can't go into full detail right now - it's late and I should be getting to bed. If I have time tomorrow, I might get around to typing up a more complete explanation of the math though...)


----------



## x838nwy

cjl said:


> I was getting it out of my college statistics textbook, so I can't give you the direct link unfortunately. However, you can get some understanding from the following pages (mostly wikipedia, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing for basic info):
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance <-- Basic overview of statistical significance
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-_and_two-tailed_tests <--- for the purposes of this article, an ABX test is a one-tailed test
> ...


 
  
 Thanks cjl!! 
 Back when I was at university, I avoided statistics like a plague. A advice from me, GET A GOOD HANDLE ON STATISTICS specially if you're going into engineering or management. Even the little I know has given me quite an edge on a few occasions. Will take a quick read and see.


----------



## Agharta

Have there been any audio industry whistle blowers?


----------



## Steve Eddy

agharta said:


> Have there been any audio industry whistle blowers?




How do you mean?

se


----------



## Agharta

I mean has anyone exposed inside scams etc?


----------



## Steve Eddy

agharta said:


> I mean has anyone exposed inside scams etc?




Oh. Yes. But being a Member of the Trade, I'm afraid I can't talk about them here. Sorry.

se


----------



## Agharta

I would love to read about such things, if someone could meet me under the bridge at midnight. Wear a USB cable round your neck so I can identify you.


----------



## Steve Eddy

agharta said:


> I would love to read about such things, if someone could meet me under the bridge at midnight. Wear a USB cable round your neck so I can identify you.






se


----------



## ab initio

agharta said:


> I would love to read about such things, if someone could meet me under the bridge at midnight*. Wear a USB cable round your neck so I can identify you*.


 
 That's a bad idea to wear a USB cable! someone might hear you!
  
 Cheers


----------



## Steve Eddy

ab initio said:


> That's a bad idea to wear a USB cable! someone might hear you!




Not if it's a Ninja USB cable. 

se


----------



## TheAttorney

bigshot said:


> If you go to that much trouble and still can't discern a definite improvement, I think it's time to chalk it up to not mattering and move on to frying bigger fish. The whole point is to improve the sound of your stereo system, not to become a testing engineer.


 
  
 Well Bigshot, it's finally happened: you've posted something on this topic that I agree with 100% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.
  
 Back to the results:  As others have said, these are inconclusive. At around 60% detection, the sample would need to be much bigger to be statistically valid. Looks like that's something that x838nwy is not prepared to pursue further - and who can blame him!
  
 It's important to not cherry pick the results to suit ones biases. Just as x838nwy shouldn't filter only the best sequences, then others shouldn't be quite so eager to conclude that the tests proved that there was no difference - statistical analysis bias works both ways.
  
 The 1st set of 15 tests also gave a result of around 60%. That’s 45 tests in total, albeit different cables compared. Still not statistically conclusive, but it's kinda getting interesting - along the lines that cjl made.  
  
 Anyway, I'm not trying to talk up the results here, just get the balance right. The key thing I'm getting from this is that x838nwy felt that the differences (if they ever existed) have turned out to be smaller than he expected - and certainly small enough to not worry about any further.
  
 x838nwy, I'd still be interested to see a correlation between short term and long term tests. At this point I don't think it's necessary to do it blind. Just leave the Nordost cable in for a few weeks and enjoy listening to music, then swap back to the stock cable. If you still don't hear much difference, then game over. If you _do_ hear a more substantial difference, then more blind tests are required to remove that pesky expectation bias. OTOH, if you can't be bothered with all that anymore, then I fully understand.


----------



## elmoe

agharta said:


> I would love to read about such things, if someone could meet me under the bridge at midnight. Wear a USB cable round your neck so I can identify you.


 
  
 There's actually a bunch of very interesting stuff on the Lampizator website where the guy took apart a whole bunch of different hi-end cd players/transports to see what was inside (Krell, for one) only to find out that a great many of them were actually Philips CD players in a nice housing, had terrible design and/or cheap parts all around.
  
 http://lampizator.eu/lampizator/references/krell%20cd300/Krell%20CD300.html
  
 The Krell one is here, there are many other "hi end" ones but I forgot most of the names.
  
 edit: here is a link to the Wadia:
  
 http://lampizator.eu/lampizator/references/wadia%20WT%203200/WT3200.html


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> There's actually a bunch of very interesting stuff on the Lampizator website where the guy took apart a whole bunch of different hi-end cd players/transports to see what was inside (Krell, for one) only to find out that a great many of them were actually Philips CD players in a nice housing, had terrible design and/or cheap parts all around.
> 
> http://lampizator.eu/lampizator/references/krell%20cd300/Krell%20CD300.html
> 
> ...




For the benefits of our younger members, companies advertised what mechanisms they used. It was not some kind of secret; reviews often include internal shots and reviewers nearly without fail mention what mechanisms were used.

Hardly anybody made their own mechanism - and those who did, must did so at exorbitant costs. This was something known to most people. What most manufacturers did was to use off the shelf transports and do the best they can. It's similar to how many different brands use the same usb interface chipsets these days.

Things move quickly in the digital electronics front. A $3,000 computer today will look dumb 10 years from now. So i guess a design of probably 10 years ago is probably not as good as what could be had today for the same money but that's no excuse to say $hitty things about them. It's like an engineer taking apart a 50 year-old car and start banging on about how poorly they were designed and made compared to today's standards. Rude and obnoxious.

The pages at the end of those links appear to be nothing but an exercise in inflating the ego of the blogger. He ripped at old designs and yet failed to explain why in his own words, they sound very good, specially the Krell was, in his words;

"So how does this monster sound in stock form?
The answer is - bloody good. I was shocked, I did not have my drooling towel handy and I listened in total disbelief.

This player is awesome. It sounds spectacular. It equals the best stock players I had. it sounds too good to be true. 
Sound is spacious, free, open, fast, powerful, dynamic - everything you might ask. Nothing even resembling remotely the opamped sound of all other stock players. This is real high end. I feel no need for lampization, no need for tweaking. Even if the owner would be rather open about the possibility to do lampization if it was to improve the sound. It is soo good that all I want to do is listen MORE. This is the best stock player I ever had, I must admit that I am in shock."

This was after basically saying it was a box full of crap.

I know the lampizator guy knows his stuff, but if he cannot explain why the Krell sounded so good when all his comments based on his knowledge says it's mediocre at best, in my opinion it shows the limits of his expertise and also the lack of respect he has for others.

Btw, under the hood of a Lotus Evora lives an engine from a Camry. Does that mean anything? Sure, it means evoras have reliable engines. The lap times tell the rest of the story. I think this is similar to the Krell player.

And if you want more of what goes into some hifi gear - including cable network boxes, try hifishock.org . Shunyata research fans brace yourselves. (Not all show nearly empty boxes, some in fact really cement the level of reverence some companies have gained over the years. Look at what goes into an Accuphase/Burmester/PS Audio compared to an Isotek/Shunyata and you'll see what I mean.)


----------



## elmoe

Then again you're convinced after DBT ABX testing with no significant result that you can still hear a difference between a cheap cable and an expensive one, so you'll forgive me if I'm going to lean more towards the opinion of a guy "who knows his stuff" rather than one with no constructive counter-arguments to this so-called "limited expertise"


----------



## bigshot

Guess what... I bet you wouldn't be able to discern a difference between a $40 CD player, an iPod through line out and a high end CD player in a blind level matched direct A/B test either!


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> Then again you're convinced after DBT ABX testing with no significant result that you can still hear a difference between a cheap cable and an expensive one, so you'll forgive me if I'm going to lean more towards the opinion of a guy "who knows his stuff" rather than one with no constructive counter-arguments to this so-called "limited expertise"




He contradicted himself in the same blog, elmoe. He clearly said the Krell sounded really good which kindda goes against what he's been saying previously.

My points are:

a.) While one group of parts - the transport mechanism and some of its associated bits - are from another manufacturer and are mass produced, it forms no indication towards the end result. Mr.Lampizator agrees with the quality of the unit's output.

b.) It is no secret that nearly every manufacturer used Sony or Philips transports. You can find this out by looking up old reviews. Those who do not - Zanden comes to mind - have price tags going into the realms of mortgages just to spin a CD.

c.) It is bad form to heavily criticize another designer's choices specially when those choices were made under vastly different constraints with a completely different set of limitations.

Finally, a CD player can be viewed as a music server with only 650Mb on permanent storage (until you change the disc). if one views the transport mechanism as an equivalent to a HDD playing my flac files, you'd probably say i'm crazy if i demand special audiophile HDD's with teflon caps, tantalums and OCC SPC 9N ribbon cables in my mac, right? Again, you'd be calling me nuts if i say it needs a special audiophile controller card and firmware, yes? If i demand a special mainboard you'd also call bs, I suspect. Now if i use all those mentioned parts from common items, add a decent power supply to it, make sure everything is separated nicely, add a well implemented DAC, then add a really good output stage, would you say that's okay? If i had the capacity to do the above and sell it, that'd be okay too, right? That is precisely what Krell did (and probably more). They took a transport mechanism they chose (which would be for us, a toshiba hdd, asus mobo, and other bits off the shelf plus linux), added decent power supplies, good isolation, shielding. They then added a well designed DAC and a good output stage. The results of all this is what Mr.Lampizator calls "amazing". So why did he babble all colors of crap at what parts were used?

Anyhow, i can believe in sparkle trailing, time traveling, unicorns that $hit taco's and pee soy sauce if i wish. It does not mean that all the points i make are automatically invalid.


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> He contradicted himself in the same blog, elmoe. He clearly said the Krell sounded really good which kinda goes against what he's been saying previously.


 
  
 All CD players sound really good. No contradiction there. Stock off the shelf parts are what CD players and DAC/amps are pretty much made from nowadays.


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> All CD players sound really good. No contradiction there. Stock off the shelf parts are what CD players and DAC/amps are pretty much made from nowadays.




This is what he said:

"So how does this monster sound in stock form?
The answer is - bloody good. I was shocked, I did not have my drooling towel handy and I listened in total disbelief.

This player is awesome. It sounds spectacular. It equals the best stock players I had. it sounds too good to be true.
Sound is spacious, free, open, fast, powerful, dynamic - everything you might ask. Nothing even resembling remotely the opamped sound of all other stock players. This is real high end. I feel no need for lampization, no need for tweaking. Even if the owner would be rather open about the possibility to do lampization if it was to improve the sound. It is soo good that all I want to do is listen MORE. *This is the best stock player I ever had, I must admit that I am in shock."*

To me it does not sound as though he's describing a CD player that sounds the same as the rest of them. My friend Sherlock highlighted the sentence in bold for you.


----------



## bigshot

Humor is a serious business. It's not to be undertaken lightly.


----------



## Agharta

Yeah regarding the Krell comments, the guy is clearly extracting the urine.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> Guess what... I bet you wouldn't be able to discern a difference between a $40 CD player, an iPod through line out and a high end CD player in a blind level matched direct A/B test either!


 
  
 We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I'm of the opinion that a good quality DAC makes a big difference VS something like an ipod through line-out, so much so that when I compared my Galaxy S2 line-out vs onboard soundcard vs my DAC I felt there was no need to even do a blind test.
  
  


x838nwy said:


> He contradicted himself in the same blog, elmoe. He clearly said the Krell sounded really good which kindda goes against what he's been saying previously.
> 
> My points are:
> 
> ...


 
  
 This is all besides the point. What matters most to me is bang for my buck, and when you buy a Krell you expect high quality parts for the price that you pay, not the cheapest mass produced stuff you can find, regardless of "how good" it sounds. Mr. Lampizator says it himself on the very last line of his review:
  


> When the digital filter module arrived and I replaced the HDCD chip with the new one from ASE Audiotuning - Andreas Sellenthin's upgrade filter - the DF 1704 from Burr Brown. I was shocked by the magnitude of positive changes. An already good player became much better in every important area. A magnitude of change comparable with for example the complete lampization. Not mentioning that without that bloody HDCD it is now 6 dB louder.
> If you have a Krell - do it immediately. The swap is a 3 minute excercise without any soldering involved.


 
  
 Which clearly shows that if better parts were used to begin with, an already good player would become even better. When you spend that kind of money, you expect that to already be done, in my opinion.
  
 And as said above, Mr. Lampizator has a particular sense of humor 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Now let's take a look at the Wadia transport, which when it came out cost pretty much an arm:
  


> This player is a ... Philips 960 transport ! This is a Japanese Marantz!! Or I am on drugs ! Same CDM1 mk1 transport, Marantz display (cd94mk1) and the standard PCB.


 
  


> Under the magnifying glass, there is NOTHING AT ALL that deviates from the Marantz. Not one smallest cap or resistor. No blackgates, no proprietary soft, it is a Marantz.
> Not look alike.
> Not similar,
> Not "based on Marantz"
> ...


 
  
 Bolded the most important point there.
  
 And to conclude (this is not just parts, he also compared sound):


> The Marantz 95 which it really is - is cheaper and better looking, but it will not be a Wadia.


 
  
 Wadia WT3200 new when it came out: ~3500USD from what I could tell from google searches.
  
 Marantz 95: About ~150USD from what I found.


----------



## limpidglitch

elmoe said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I'm of the opinion that a good quality DAC makes a big difference VS something like an ipod through line-out, so much so that when I compared my Galaxy S2 line-out vs onboard soundcard vs my DAC I felt there was no need to even do a blind test.


 
  
 The iPod line-out is perfectly transparent.
 I don't know about the S2, but neither do you, until you've done a proper test. No matter of opinion can weigh up for good honest facts.


----------



## elmoe

limpidglitch said:


> The iPod line-out is perfectly transparent.
> 
> I don't know about the S2, but neither do you, until you've done a proper test. No matter of opinion can weigh up for good honest facts.




And where are your facts on this matter?


----------



## limpidglitch

Where? Don't you mean what?

 And there is no possessive adjective assosiated with facts. They are impersonal an unbiased.


----------



## elmoe

limpidglitch said:


> Where? Don't you mean what?
> 
> And there is no possessive adjective assosiated with facts. They are impersonal an unbiased.


 
  
 No, I mean where, because this is a forum on the internet, where you quote sources from other websites which have an address, thus "where" is perfectly acceptable.
  
 The possessive adjective also fits perfectly well considering you have no facts to speak of, only opinions, thus "your" facts.
  
 As for being a grammar nazi you might want to learn how to spell "associated" right before you try to give english lessons, Mr. Professor. It should also be pointed out, since that seems to be your "thing", that it is typically frowned upon to start a sentence with "and" or "but". Not that I care mind you, but you seem to be strung up enough about it so I thought I'd point it out. You also said earlier 'perfectly transparent'. It either is transparent or it isn't, using "perfectly" is useless. Shall we go on or have you had enough?


----------



## limpidglitch

When it comes to the iPod the earliest measurements I know of are those performed by John Atkinson back in 2003, with the conclusion that it performs equally well as any competently designed CD player or DAC.
 You may want to compare the results from those measurements with the known thresholds of human hearing. If you believe two units that both measure below these known thresholds can still sound different, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
 In later years a number of other people have done similar measurements on other iDevices, including NwAvGuy and Ken Rockwell, and a number of other more amateurish attempts, of varying quality.
 These are not my facts, or anyone's facts, but datapoints that together make up the bigger shared fact that the sound quality of iPods line-out is quite alright indeed.

 There's also a thread hiding away somewhere on this forum discussing all of this. I'm sure you can find it.

 This is all about iDevices. You might very well be correct about your Samsung being rubbish, but until you've actually tested it, you won't know.
 (It's also perfectly OK not to know, but you need to be honest and forthright about it)


----------



## elmoe

I guess we're done debating English skills then.
  
 When have I not been honest or forthright? I tested things out (not scientifically, as said before) for myself and came to a conclusion I was satisfied enough with without having to do any DBTs. All that matters to me is what my ears can pick up. Cables sounded similar enough that I made my own DBT to make sure. If they had sounded particularly different, I wouldn't have bothered. The DBT I did for cables confirmed what I originally thought: cables make no audible difference. When I compared the s2 to my realtek onboard soundcard to my dac, the dac provided a clear difference in sound quality to my ears, thus no need for a DBT. You can feel free not to believe me if you wish, and I never implied I wanted to argue about this either, but if the difference is such for my ears, then no amount of discussion on the internet will change my mind. I also think amplifiers' sound signature and sound quality vary, one more thing that no doubt plenty will argue against, but once again, arguing about it isn't of any interest to me considering the differences I heard weren't small enough to warrant me doing a DBT to make sure (even though I actually DID do a DBT for power amps comparing 3 of them of various prices/quality because I was intrigued by some head-fiers arguments that they should all sound alike, and my results were that I could fairly easily pick them out).
  
 I'm not well versed enough to understand all the data/measurements above, but I'm intrigued enough by it that I will buy an iPod, rockbox it and compare it to my DAC and see for myself. They're cheap enough if you buy an older generation.


----------



## limpidglitch

I've been fooled so many times by what believed I heard, saw, or even tasted, that I'm extremely cautious about making any sort of statement based on anything I merely_ feel_.


----------



## x838nwy

Hi elmoe,
  
 I think you'll agree that we don't really know if a "better" transport will necessary result in better sound. A point I hoped my HDD analogy served. For someone who doesn't think pretty cables sound better, you sure expect a lot from what a more expensive transport will provide.
  
 Anyway, the BB DF1704 was introduced roughly a year after the Krell came to market (see: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Burr-Brown+Introduces+24-Bit,+96kHz,+8x+Oversampling+Digital+Filter.-a053183664 vs. http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/638/) so I guess there's a reason why it wasn't incorporated in the design. Also I think the player sadly came out when HDCD was a 'thing' so they probably went with the chip for compatibility reasons. What BB had at the time, I think, was a DF1700 which is an old (at the time) 16-bit chip or this HDCD wonder. Seeing the 1702 is a "20 bit" DAC, the 1700 was probably a bottleneck on paper.
  
 On a side note, it had the PCM1702K chip which is a predecessor to the PCM1704 which was designed along with the DF1704. And I don't know if we should believe Burr-Brown with its claims:


> The "K" designates a specially selected version of the 1702, which is already a pretty slick chip: fast (settling current is 200ns), quiet (120dB S/NR, rated type A), and clean (-96dB THD). Advanced sign-magnitude architecture is claimed to eliminate unwanted glitches and other nonlinearities around bipolar zero, according to Burr-Brown.—*Wes Phillips*


 
 This information was current as of 1997, so it was pretty awesome back then because there wasn't the PCM or DF1704 around at the time.
  
 Note also that the Stereophile review also talks about the TEAC transport mechanism. They go into some detail to include the fact that Krell added suspension to it and that the VRDS mechanism isn't such a piece of crap as pointed out here. I don't know if Mabuchi motors are bad or what but they're a Japanese company specializes in small motors used in most things. Anyway, going back to the transport itself. The guy seems to have something against the cheaper range of TEAC transports. Okay the top monster version is probably reserved for Esoteric only as I haven't seen it anywhere else. But there's a page where he took the middle version of it apart and his comments made it very clear that he had little clue about mechanical requirements. (see: http://lampizator.eu/lampizator/references/TEAC-T1/VRDS-T1.html) the black plastic bridge is there for damping and the bridge does not absolutely need to be mega rigid as it really depends on what sort of frequency it's trying to work with. If you're exciting it at frequencies way higher than its natural frequency, then the response is attenuated anyway. The plastic bridge will be there to help it settle at start up/shut down while it goes through resonance and afterwards help dissipate energy. Instead they guy says the plastic is a "fake" and that the bridge is not rigid "enough"…. perhaps we should listen to it and see if it is?
  
 So, yes if the 1704 chips were used, it would have probably have sounded even better. But they weren't available at the time.
  
 And as for "bang for your buck" - we're looking at $3.5k CD players here. The word "value" tends to take on some pretty wild definitions at this price level. It's all up to your own standards. Some would say it's viable and some not. It's getting arbitrary, really.
  
 Now the Wadis is a different story. It IS a rip-off and I'm afraid that's not the only example of what they've gotten away with. Once they were pioneers of the DAC world, but they've done this too many times, IMO. If you're looking for decent transports, Cyrus do some really good ones apparently. I'm looking to audition one soon.


----------



## elmoe

limpidglitch said:


> I've been fooled so many times by what believed I heard, saw, or even tasted, that I'm extremely cautious about making any sort of statement based on anything I merely_ feel_.


 
  
 I'll check it out once I have more time to read through properly. I've been fooled only once - by cables, and since then I've been extremely careful when listening to a new piece of gear. I won't ask anyone to take me at my word, and I'm not interested in spending much time doing DBTs to prove anything either, but I consider myself to have a good enough ear and enough experience with gear/music/instruments to know when the difference is a big one. With cables I went by what some reviews said, and spend upwards of 500 bucks for a pair of interconnects. They were pretty, but that was it.
  
  


x838nwy said:


> Hi elmoe,
> 
> I think you'll agree that we don't really know if a "better" transport will necessary result in better sound. A point I hoped my HDD analogy served. For someone who doesn't think pretty cables sound better, you sure expect a lot from what a more expensive transport will provide.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Better parts don't equal better sound if and only if the design is different. For the same design, parts with better measurements are sure to provide better sound (it's true for the majority, though there are some exceptions). A capacitor with lower ESR rating and higher ripple will generally, if not sound better, last longer and work more efficiently, to provide one example.
  
 A cable is a cable. There is no scientific data to show that using gold instead of copper will give you a stronger or cleaner signal, that isn't the case with parts that go into making a transport, or an amp, or a DAC. You can hardly compare the two.
  
 Again I'm no expert, but the Lampizator guy knows his stuff and I'm sure if he says the motor used is the cheapest, crappiest you can find, he's not lying. Anyway that's for the Krell, the Wadia as you say is a whole other story, and Krell/Wadia aren't the only transports the Lampizator guy opened up and reviewed, there are many others I don't have links to but remember reading about. I even remember one of his reviews about an expensive hi-end brand using a Philips transport that was kept so much alike the original, even the LCD functions were the same. The hi-end player had less buttons, but while less functions were accessible through it's remote, using the original Philips' transport's remote enabled you to access functions of the Philips player that you couldn't access with the hi-end remote. Completely ridiculous!
  
 Value is exactly my problem when a 3500USD player is in fact the same as a 150USD one, in a prettier box.
  
 I'm not looking for a decent transport, I use my computer for everything and am very happy with my current DAC although still curious about other brands such as Audio-GD I might eventually try out later on, when funds permit. I'm just very curious about all things audio related, and am beginning to get into DIY stuff more and more, so learning a few things like what Lampizator blogs about is interesting.


----------



## bigshot

elmoe said:


> And where are your facts on this matter?




I did a line level matched A/B comparison test between a $40 Coby DVD player, a well regarded $900 SACD player and an iPod. They all sounded exactly the same. That really isn't surprising to me, and it shouldn't be to you either, because redbook spec is beyond our ability to hear. If it has a sound, it isn't performing to spec.

It wasn't always true, but today, a player is a player. Sometimes you have to do the test to know. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.

I think the main thing lacking among audiophiles is solid info about the thresholds of human perception. If you don't understand that there really is a line across which you can't hear a difference, then every little incremental improvement seems important. But it isn't improving the sound if human ears can't hear it.


----------



## elmoe

I did my own level matched A/B comparison (not blind) and the difference was obvious. Instrument separation, soundstage, depth, detail, all things my DAC did better than my onboard soundcard and my Galaxy S2. In fact I also compared my Emu 1212m to my DAC when I first bought it (I've since sold the Emu card), and the DAC was much better, difference so obvious there was no need for a blind test.
  
 I already got suckered into wasting hours upon hours into DBTing my power amps only to come to the same conclusion I previously had, no need to do it with my sources, if my ears didn't lie then I don't see why they would now. I'm not be knowledgeable enough to explain why X or Y is better in scientific terms (nor am I really all that interested in going that far), I'm quite satisfied with what I've tested and know to be true to my ears. No point in arguing about it here, really.


----------



## bigshot

I can't speak to your soundcards. I use Macs, but I know there are some particularly craptastic PC soundcards. But try to do it blind. You'd be amazed at how much we "hear" with our eyes, particularly when you dearly want a particular outcome. It's pretty clear you're invested in a particular outcome. It wouldn't hurt to remove that from the equation.


----------



## esldude

elmoe said:


> I did my own level matched A/B comparison (not blind) and the difference was obvious. Instrument separation, soundstage, depth, detail, all things my DAC did better than my onboard soundcard and my Galaxy S2. In fact I also compared my Emu 1212m to my DAC when I first bought it (I've since sold the Emu card), and the DAC was much better, difference so obvious there was no need for a blind test.
> 
> I already got suckered into wasting hours upon hours into DBTing my power amps only to come to the same conclusion I previously had, no need to do it with my sources, if my ears didn't lie then I don't see why they would now. I'm not be knowledgeable enough to explain why X or Y is better in scientific terms (nor am I really all that interested in going that far), I'm quite satisfied with what I've tested and know to be true to my ears. No point in arguing about it here, really.


 

 Echoing bigshot here, but yeah do it blind.  Hundreds of times have been given the so obvious no blind test needed story.  Even a few times when nothing was swapped other than the picture in our minds something had been changed.   Huge obvious difference (that could not be so because nothing was changed other than the picture in the mind of what was being listened to). 
  
 Instrument separation is one of the most common descriptions.  Yet something like a 30 db channel separation will separate as much as can humanly be detected.  Your S2 has far more separation between channels than that.  Separation somehow appears to be among the most easily imagined differences where none that could matter exist.
  
 Now your final sentence of saying no need to explain in scientific terms, and that you are quite satisfied with your testing true to your ears is just another variation on subjectively determined audiophile pablum.  It isn't sound science.


----------



## elmoe

esldude said:


> Echoing bigshot here, but yeah do it blind.  Hundreds of times have been given the so obvious no blind test needed story.  Even a few times when nothing was swapped other than the picture in our minds something had been changed.   Huge obvious difference (that could not be so because nothing was changed other than the picture in the mind of what was being listened to).
> 
> Instrument separation is one of the most common descriptions.  Yet something like a 30 db channel separation will separate as much as can humanly be detected.  Your S2 has far more separation between channels than that.  Separation somehow appears to be among the most easily imagined differences where none that could matter exist.
> 
> Now your final sentence of saying no need to explain in scientific terms, and that you are quite satisfied with your testing true to your ears is just another variation on subjectively determined audiophile pablum.  It isn't sound science.


 
  
 Great, then instead of starting an argument with me on a subject I have no wish to debate on in the sound science forum, why not move on and get back on topic instead? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 I don't even have the means to do a DBT with my sources anyway, and am not willing to invest in more gear just to be able to do one, so the point is moot.


----------



## bigshot

The power that expectation bias holds over our opinions is VERY relevant to the topic of audiophile cables. It's pretty clear that some folks are VERY invested in their beliefs and resist putting those beliefs to a controlled test. Even when the test comes back, they fight to spin the results to say things they don't say. Long ago, I set aside my ego and just worked on focusing on sound quality. If a $40 CD player gave it to me, so be it. I can spend the money I save on music.

Head Fi is full of opinions of all kinds. Some of them are really lousy.. Sound Science is about squirreling out the facts behind the hype. We listen to the folks here who go to the trouble to find out for sure.

Welcome to Sound Science! Sorry about your preconceptions.

By the way, all you need to do tests on equipment is a couple of preamps to adjust line level and do direct switching. Pretty inexpensive for all of the benefits of knowing for sure what matters and what doesn't.


----------



## elmoe

I already did a DBT for my power amps following arguments exactly like the one above. Turned out I was right. I'm not going to buy a preamp just to DBT sources I already know sound different. I'm not pushing any of my opinions on anyone, or saying they are facts. If you can't accept my above posts, too bad for you. In this thread I find the same guys who gave me speeches saying a DBT with my power amps would prove that I can't make a difference between them, so that's what I did. I made the difference each and every time, and easily too, between 3 different amps. Then people told me that I didn't match levels properly. So I raised the volume on the crappy amps, and the monoblocks I have still sounded better, even at lower volumes. Then people told me there had to be some kind of design flaw with the cheaper amps I used. If you think I'm crazy enough to do this again with my sources, and spend money on a preamp to do it, you're delusional. If some of you prefer looking strictly at measurements to judge how a piece of gear sounds, more power to you. I like to use my ears. That's why I own Grados. That's why I DBTed cables and found out it's hocus pocus. As far as amps or sources are concerned, I think you guys don't know what you're talking about. If measurements back up what you say, more power to you. My opinion still isn't going to change, especially with amps, considering my own DBT proved you wrong.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Welcome to Sound Science! Sorry about your preconceptions.


 

 I think we have finally found an appropriate quote that is worthy to sit atop of the sound science fourm.
  
 Cheers


----------



## bigshot

elmoe said:


> I already did a DBT for my power amps following arguments exactly like the one above.




You use tube amps, right? No surprise there.


----------



## castleofargh

isn't it more like "welcome to sound science, they answered your question 2days ago and about 50times in the last 6months"  ? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 cause I haven't been here a long time, but there is a comfortable feeling of being in the cast of the "groundhog day".


----------



## rodweb

ab initio said:


> I think we have finally found an appropriate quote that is worthy to sit atop of the sound science fourm.
> 
> Cheers


 
 That's a really nice one!


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> You use tube amps, right? No surprise there.




No. The power amps compared were all solid state. A pair of Quad 99 monoblocs, an Onkyo receiver and an Inter M (cheap) power amp.


----------



## bigshot

Why didn't you throw a tube amp into the mix?


----------



## SilverEars

A torture setup for bigshot:
  
 256 bit 2MHz sampling freq. audio file ->  tube computer -> tube DAC -> tube amp  -> headphones shaped like tubes


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> Why didn't you throw a tube amp into the mix?




I only own a tube headphone amp. Besides a tube amp would be even more obvious so what would be the point?


----------



## bigshot

silverears said:


> A torture setup for bigshot:
> 
> 256 bit 2MHz sampling freq. audio file ->  tube computer -> tube DAC -> tube amp  -> headphones shaped like tubes


 
  
 Ha! The internet is made of tubes!


----------



## SilverEars




----------



## x838nwy

You ain't seen nothing yet:

http://www.synergisticresearch.com/featured/new-product-release-ect-electronic-circuit-transducer/

Even I am skeptical...


----------



## SilverEars

Article about audiophile cable myth by McIntosh Audio Research director.
  
 http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#introduction
  
 I have more respect for their products now, although I think their amps are very expensive, but I guess not as bad some ridiculously priced ones out there.


----------



## Mambosenior

x838nwy said:


> You ain't seen nothing yet:
> 
> http://www.synergisticresearch.com/featured/new-product-release-ect-electronic-circuit-transducer/
> 
> Even I am skeptical...




Goody! I'll stuff these five suckers in my underwear and ditch the Viagra. (Or do the SR pebbles cost more?)


----------



## Sal1950

Deleted


----------



## Sal1950

silverears said:


> Article about audiophile cable myth by McIntosh Audio Research director.
> 
> http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#introduction
> 
> I have more respect for their products now, although I think their amps are very expensive, but I guess not as bad some ridiculously priced ones out there.


 
  And now in 2014 McIntosh sells it's own full line of McIntosh branded expensive high end speaker, interconnect, etc cables. The $ are just too big and the whole industry has sold out, no one who's income depends on the audio/video market in any way will tell the truth about wires any more. Sad that the industry is built on a house of lies.


----------



## Steve Eddy

sal1950 said:


> The $ are just too big and the whole industry has sold out, no one who's income depends on the audio/video market in any way will tell the truth about wires any more.




Wanna bet?

se


----------



## Sal1950

Show me one


----------



## bigshot

He is one!


----------



## x838nwy

Schiit is another. Their cables are Straighwire cables, but I think that's for reasons other than fairy magic...


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Schiit is another. Their cables are Straighwire cables, but I think that's for reasons other than fairy magic...


 

 Yes, it isn't magic, it is for economic reasons.


----------



## elmoe

That said, their cables are perfectly good. I have a Schiit USB cable, does the job just fine.


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> That said, their cables are perfectly good. I have a Schiit USB cable, does the job just fine.


 
  
 Last night, I hooked up the 6" Pyst cable like to wrong way around, and boy was that a fright.


----------



## elmoe

x838nwy said:


> Last night, I hooked up the 6" Pyst cable like to wrong way around, and boy was that a fright.


 
  
 Hopefully you're joking, but in case you're not - it doesn't matter "which way" interconnects are hooked up...


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> Hopefully you're joking, but in case you're not - it doesn't matter "which way" interconnects are hooked up...




Sorry, i was joking  even i don't believe in cable directionality.


----------



## elmoe

x838nwy said:


> Sorry, i was joking
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Ok good, I wasn't sure 100%


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> He is one!




Oh yeah? Well your mother's one too. I'll see you after school. :mad:

se


----------



## shockdoc

I've petitioned my city (they have an independent power plant) to run new high end power lines and only "clean" electricity to my home. The old electricity was quite dirty as evidenced by how much goo I was filtering out with all my inline filters and conditioners.


----------



## superjawes

silverears said:


> Article about audiophile cable myth by McIntosh Audio Research director.
> 
> http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#introduction
> 
> I have more respect for their products now, although I think their amps are very expensive, but I guess not as bad some ridiculously priced ones out there.


This was a great read. Thanks!


----------



## Sorbus

http://i.imgur.com/zC05iC1.png
  
 Saw this in a hifi magazine. Must be really good 1's and 0's!


----------



## daviemcc

So all the people who upgrade their headphone cables are wasting their time?


----------



## elmoe

daviemcc said:


> So all the people who upgrade their headphone cables are wasting their time?


 
  
 Not necessarily. If you want a sturdier cable, or a properly shielded cable (if the original cable is lacking), then "upgrading" the cable can serve a purpose. As far as sound quality is concerned though, unless the original cable has lots of microphonics for example, there will be no change whatsoever.


----------



## SircussMouse

daviemcc said:


> So all the people who upgrade their headphone cables are wasting their time?


 
 If part of the sales pitch is sound quality you should hide your money.  The instances of the cables being so poorly designed or fabricated improperly are rare in mainstream products.  YMMV at the dollar store.
  
 I prefer to donate my dollars to legitimate charities.
  
 SM


----------



## superjawes

elmoe said:


> Not necessarily. If you want a sturdier cable, or a properly shielded cable (if the original cable is lacking), then "upgrading" the cable can serve a purpose. As far as sound quality is concerned though, unless the original cable has lots of microphonics for example, there will be no change whatsoever.


You could also upgrade from a single ended cable to a balanced one for better sound quality, but that assumes that you also upgrade the amplifier to balanced as well (it's a circuit change and not just a wire change).


----------



## elmoe

superjawes said:


> You could also upgrade from a single ended cable to a balanced one for better sound quality, but that assumes that you also upgrade the amplifier to balanced as well (it's a circuit change and not just a wire change).


 
  
 That and also your source, as for true balanced sound your whole chain needs to be balanced. But yes, for a balanced cable upgrade it can be worth it if you're not going to pay hundreds of dollars. No cable is worth that.


----------



## cjl

superjawes said:


> You could also upgrade from a single ended cable to a balanced one for better sound quality, but that assumes that you also upgrade the amplifier to balanced as well (it's a circuit change and not just a wire change).


 

 Balanced doesn't help sound quality. You do get slight gains going from a TRS connector to a connector that doesn't use a shared ground (since the shared ground connection on the TRS does lead to a bit of crosstalk, though almost definitely not at an audible level), but aside from that, there's really no benefit at all.


----------



## Astropin

daviemcc said:


> So all the people who upgrade their headphone cables are wasting their time?


 

 That all depends on the reason for changing cables. If it's to improve sound then yes they are wasting their time (and money).
  
 If they need a different length or if they simply like the look and possibly increased "toughness" of the new cable then fine.


----------



## daviemcc

It just seems to be a bit crazy. All the iem threads talk about cables opening up the soundstage and bringing the headphones to life etc.People hating their headphones and then loving them when the new cables sorted out all the problems.They are spending lots of money on this. After a while you begin to think it must be true.


----------



## elmoe

daviemcc said:


> It just seems to be a bit crazy. All the iem threads talk about cables opening up the soundstage and bringing the headphones to life etc.People hating their headphones and then loving them when the new cables sorted out all the problems.They are spending lots of money on this. After a while you begin to think it must be true.


 
  
 Well, perhaps they had badly built cables to begin with, but hey, I was in your shoes at some point too. Then I tested for myself, did some ABing between my "gold, thousand dollars" interconnects, "silver, hundreds of dollars" interconnects and a cheap pair of standard RCA red/white cables, and I couldn't tell one apart from the other in blind testing. Sold most of them, lost quite a few bucks in the process, but came out less stupid in the end. The best thing to do is just test things out for yourself (preferably in a blind test so expectation bias can't have an influence) and see whats what.


----------



## superjawes

cjl said:


> Balanced doesn't help sound quality. You do get slight gains going from a TRS connector to a connector that doesn't use a shared ground (since the shared ground connection on the TRS does lead to a bit of crosstalk, though almost definitely not at an audible level), but aside from that, there's really no benefit at all.


A balanced amp design will also deliver more power with the same voltage rails and potentially solve ground path problems. It's not necessarily a matter of balanced being better or worse than single ended--that still comes down to the design--but different tools will deliver different results.

My original point was that switching from a single ended path (components, cable, and headphones) to a balanced one will (probably) change the quality, but the change comes from the complete package and not just the cable (but the cable is important because it actually lets you use balanced sources).


----------



## Astropin

In over thirty years of listening to audio through more systems than I can count I have never run into a single one with "ground path problems"........maybe I'm just lucky.


----------



## castleofargh

daviemcc said:


> It just seems to be a bit crazy. All the iem threads talk about cables opening up the soundstage and bringing the headphones to life etc.People hating their headphones and then loving them when the new cables sorted out all the problems.They are spending lots of money on this. After a while you begin to think it must be true.


 

 for a lot of IEMs changing the cable(with a different impedance than the default one) will have the amazing effect of an equalizer set at a fixed value depending on source+cable+IEM impedances. it's particularly true for multi BA drivers.
 for an IEM with high enough impedance or at least flat enough over frequencies, changing cables will at best change the volume a little. (going silver on the same kind of cable should be slightly louder. maybe that's enough to make people go hallelujah on soundstage and other stuffs.
 the better the damping factor, the less the chances to mess up the IEM signature by changing cable. this is mainly why objectivists don't have changes, because they first by stuff with a not too bad damping factor.
  
 the thing is, that the further you are from respecting a good damping factor between amp and IEM, the more chances you have to get a weird result(what people call "better sound"). getting the 22ohm version of ak100 and some low impedance customs is probably the best way to "prove" that cables have huge effects on sound.
 you can also prove that electricity is bad for computers by putting 2 wires in the usb slot of the motherboard, and plugging the other end into a wall outlet. your conclusion is not wrong as long as you do all the bad things that lead to that result.


----------



## cjl

superjawes said:


> A balanced amp design will also deliver more power with the same voltage rails and potentially solve ground path problems. It's not necessarily a matter of balanced being better or worse than single ended--that still comes down to the design--but different tools will deliver different results.
> 
> My original point was that switching from a single ended path (components, cable, and headphones) to a balanced one will (probably) change the quality, but the change comes from the complete package and not just the cable (but the cable is important because it actually lets you use balanced sources).


 
 Sure, but it's trivially easy to get more than enough power for any headphone on the market using a single ended design, and ground path problems are extremely rare. If you were talking about driving a bunch of high-power speakers for a concert, I'd agree about the power benefits (and we'd be calling it a "bridged" setup rather than a "balanced" one), but there's really no point for headphones. Strangely, audiophiles seem to love "balanced" headphone amps and hate "bridged" power amps, even though they're using the exact same concept.
  
 (I'm not saying that a balanced/bridged amp can't sound amazing - it absolutely can. It just won't sound any better than a well-designed, comparable power single ended design)


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> you can also prove that electricity is bad for computers by putting 2 wires in the usb slot of the motherboard, and plugging the other end into a wall outlet. your conclusion is not wrong as long as you do all the bad things that lead to that result.


 
  
 +1000
  
 Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

…….
  
 Appears someone already said what I wanted to already. Darn my browser...
  
 Anyway, the whole iem impedance thing I totally agree with. It's kindda scary the number of devices which by the looks of things appear to be designed for IEM's but have really high output impedances. The Meridian Explorer, the original AK100, plus a few others. Even the Sony PHA-1 has about 10 Ohms of output impedance and you see people using commonly available IEM's (with low impedance) with them all the time...


----------



## lids369

I was just convinced that power cables do change the sound. I brought home a 2m Nordost Blue Heaven Power Cord (I did not pay anything for this, so no reason to justify this to myself), and hooked it up to my Schitt Lyr w/ HD600s. I feel that it would have made a larger impact on the sound with a speaker amplifier drawing 100s of Watts, but nevertheless, I noticed a cleaner sound. I could hear a lot more details in strummed instruments like the upright bass and acoustic guitar. It just felt run through a filter. Was it a massive difference? No. It's nothing like replacing a DAC or an Amp or even tubes. However, once I settle on a system, swapping the stock power cords for something like these will help me squeeze out the last 5%.


----------



## ab initio

lids369 said:


> I was just convinced that power cables do change the sound. I brought home a 2m Nordost Blue Heaven Power Cord (I did not pay anything for this, so no reason to justify this to myself), and hooked it up to my Schitt Lyr w/ HD600s. I feel that it would have made a larger impact on the sound with a speaker amplifier drawing 100s of Watts, but nevertheless, I noticed a cleaner sound. I could hear a lot more details in strummed instruments like the upright bass and acoustic guitar. It just felt run through a filter. Was it a massive difference? No. It's nothing like replacing a DAC or an Amp or even tubes. However, once I settle on a system, swapping the stock power cords for something like these will help me squeeze out the last 5%.


 

 These assertions lack evidence, which won't fly here in the sound science forum.
  
 Your schiit Lyr has a huge, over-designed power supply section, especially considering the HD600's don't require a lot of power (high impedance, low current). If you want to claim that your power cord is actually causing and audible change the the sound reproduced by your amp and headphones, then you will need to get a friend to help you perform an double blind test to prove that you can discern an audible difference when swapping cords.
  
 Did your cat chew through your last power cable by any chance? Unless your power cable is malfunctioning, it has no impact on the sound of a headphone amplifier.
  
 Cheers


----------



## Don Hills

Fail.
 Step 1: Arrange your system so that you can't see which power cable is plugged in. For example, a sheet of cardboard taped over the power socket area.
 Step 2: Listen to the cables in turn until you're confident you can tell which one is in use.
 Step 3: Leave the room.
 Step 4: Get someone else to switch the cables (or not) and record which one is in use.
 Step 5: Listen. Decide which cable you're listening to. Write it down.
 Step 6: Repeat from Step 3 for a statistically significant number of tries (Greater than 10, the more the better.)
 Step 7: Compare your list of choices against the cable switcher's list.
  
 If you get significantly more than 50% right (95% to be pretty sure), you might really be hearing a difference.


----------



## ab initio

Browsing through the Nordost website, I found it terrifying that a company known for selling very expensive pieces of wire apparently lacks fundamental understanding of electricity and magnetism principles.
  
 here is a link to their FAQ: http://www.nordost.com/faqs.php
  
 Either the folks at Nordost have a middle-school level of science comprehension, or they're being incredibly deceitful.
  
 Ignoring their subjective claims, I want to point out a few of the physical misinformations they're perpetrating


> *How can cables be directional?*  When cables are manufactured they do not have any directionality. However, as they break in, they acquire directionality.
> Although the cable signal is an alternating current, small impurities in the conductor act as diodes allowing signal flow to be better in one direction over time. This effect is also called quantum tunneling, which has been observed in experiments over 25 years ago. Regardless of the purity of the metal used, there are still diode effects in all conductors. In addition, the insulation material will change when it is subjected to an electrical field.
> 
> *directional electrical cables** exist only in the imagination of their marketing team. The reoccuring theme throughout this website (and any other exotic cable manufacture site  that i've seen) is the complete absence of references to peer-reviewed scientific literature which supports the claims**. *
> ...


----------



## x838nwy

ab initio said:


> Browsing through the Nordost website, I found it terrifying that a company known for selling very expensive pieces of wire apparently lacks fundamental understanding of electricity and magnetism principles.
> 
> here is a link to their FAQ: http://www.nordost.com/faqs.php
> 
> ...


 
  
 FYI, "VIDAR" is a machine Nordost uses to break-in their cables. Some of their dealers have one. I think there's one selling on ebay for about $3,500.
  
 Also, isn't there an article somewhere that says that s/pdif cables can actually be too short, specially if there an impedance mis-match or something like that? I'll look for it...


----------



## x838nwy

Here you go: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm


----------



## elmoe

I think the funniest thing is the "168 hours break in period". What happens if I only break in 167 hours?


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Here you go: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/spdif.htm




Oh no! Not the emperical audio guy!

Cheers


----------



## esldude

Okay, the Empirical guy suggests many digital cables take about 2 nanoseconds per foot.  But that would only be true if they had a propagation velocity of about 50% the speed of light.  Now even cheap RG6 or RG 59 with PE insulation is at 66%, and of course still relatively inexpensive cables with teflon will be up around 80% or more.  So all of Mr. Nugent's suppositions are off by a goodly margin.  So rather than speeding up the transport, maybe one needs to speed up the wire for a few pennies extra. Or better yet, one needs to speed up the time one ponders such claims before dismissing them as more misinformation.  (all brought to you of course by the incredibly aptly named Positive Feedback mag)Heck, a nanosecond should be plenty of time for that.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> FYI, "VIDAR" is a machine Nordost uses to break-in their cables. Some of their dealers have one. I think there's one selling on ebay for about $3,500.
> 
> Also, isn't there an article somewhere that says that s/pdif cables can actually be too short, specially if there an impedance mis-match or something like that? I'll look for it...


 
  
 I saw that as well. It makes me very sad. Essentially, what they've described is a device that pumps white noise through the cable. _IF_ it were important to break in a cable, it could be done for free by looping a white noise track.
  
 the emperical audio guy's article starts by relying on the assumption that the 75 Ohm input is terminated improperly before his analysis begins. Then he relys on nanosecond scale jitter being an audible effect. I don't think the article is very realistic.
  
 Cheers


----------



## liamstrain

caveat lector, indeed... empirical audio, doesn't always translate to "audible" audio or even "measurable" audio.


----------



## Astropin

don hills said:


> Fail.
> Step 1: Arrange your system so that you can't see which power cable is plugged in. For example, a sheet of cardboard taped over the power socket area.
> Step 2: Listen to the cables in turn until you're confident you can tell which one is in use.
> Step 3: Leave the room.
> ...




That is not a proper double blind test!

Double blind means neither the listener or the "changer" know which cable is which. The cables are covered so that they are indistinguishable from one another. But they are labeled by a third party who is not present during the switching. Only they hold the key as to which cable is which.

Run the test many times. Only the switcher knows which cable is being listened to.....and all they know is it's "A" or "B" (or whatever). But they never tell the listener which one is in place. They only say "do you prefer this one or this one? Sometimes they are actually switching and sometimes they are not.

If cables "clearly" make a difference then you should be able to blow through this test saying "1st one was better" or "they sounded the same (if "A" was replaced with "A" that time)" etc.....

If your not close to 100% then cables don't CLEARLY make a difference. Doughnuts to Dollars you'll be closer to 50% if you run enough trials.


----------



## Speedskater

elmoe said:


> I think the funniest thing is the "168 hours break in period". What happens if I only break in 167 hours?


 

 !68 hours is exactly one week. But it sounds more impressive to say 168 hours rather than one week.
  
 If you run them 167 hours you only get 99.4 % break-in.  Actually that's not true because everyone knows that break-in is a logarithmic thing, don't we?


----------



## shockdoc

astropin said:


> That is not a proper double blind test!
> 
> Double blind means neither the listener or the "changer" know which cable is which. The cables are covered so that they are indistinguishable from one another. But they are labeled by a third party who is not present during the switching. Only they hold the key as to which cable is which.
> 
> Run the test many times. Only the switcher knows which cable is being listened to.....and all they know is it's "A" or "B" (or whatever). But they never tell the listener which one is in place. They only say "do you prefer this one or this one? Sometimes they are actually switching and sometimes they are not.


 
  
 Many years ago the loudspeaker maker NHT came to one of our local hifi shops to showcase their new flagship speaker. As part of the event they offered 10,000 dollars to anyone who could tell the difference between uber expensive cables and common lamp wire during a test like this. Lots of people showed up including some "audiophiles" who were wearing these little cardboard "ear extenders" (for lack of a better term). NHT left with their money. Nobody (at least the night I was there) got better than 65% correct over multiple attempts.


----------



## Astropin

shockdoc said:


> Many years ago the loudspeaker maker NHT came to one of our local hifi shops to showcase their new flagship speaker. As part of the event they offered 10,000 dollars to anyone who could tell the difference between uber expensive cables and common lamp wire during a test like this. Lots of people showed up including some "audiophiles" who were wearing these little cardboard "ear extenders" (for lack of a better term). NHT left with their money. Nobody (at least the night I was there) got better than 65% correct over multiple attempts.


 

 Correct.....and in a properly set up test.....no one ever will.


----------



## ab initio

shockdoc said:


> Many years ago the loudspeaker maker NHT came to one of our local hifi shops to showcase their new flagship speaker. As part of the event they offered 10,000 dollars to anyone who could tell the difference between uber expensive cables and common lamp wire during a test like this. Lots of people showed up including some "audiophiles" who were wearing these little cardboard "ear extenders" (for lack of a better term). NHT left with their money. Nobody (at least the night I was there) got better than 65% correct over multiple attempts.







astropin said:


> Correct.....and in a properly set up test.....no one ever will.









WAT!??


----------



## Speedskater

About five years ago, there was a speaker cable demonstration.  Can't call it a test, because it wasn't all that formal.
  
 The cables were:
  
 Belden 8477 12 AWG speaker cable
 Belden 8782 24 AWG zip cord
 Romex house wiring
 Car jumper cables
 Barbed wire
 300-ohm TV antenna twin-lead
 3/8-inch steel hanging cable
  
 ****************************************
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 And the winner was - the300-ohm TV antenna twin-lead
  
  
 - See more at: http://www.radioworld.com/article/you%E2%80%99ll-get-caught-up-in-this-cable/215474#sthash.1VPt8vS3.dpuf


----------



## SilverEars

Hi, I recently had a discussion today with a headfier regarding cables for iems.  A iem has a impedance graph that dips as low as 4ohms.  He told me a cable can be up to 1ohm/foot impedance.  That value is significant in relation to the impedance of the phone.
  
 Does 1ohm/foot exist?


----------



## Don Hills

astropin said:


> That is not a proper double blind test! ...


 
   
I didn't say it was. But it's close enough for rock'n'roll, provided that the cable swapper and the listener don't interact for the duration of the test. And it only needs 1 helper instead of 2, making it more likely for someone to actually do it. You still have to be careful performing it, for example always unplugging the just auditioned cable before plugging in either the same one or the other one. I agree with the rest of your post.

  
 In any case, if you can't do better than chance in a single-blind test as I described, there's little point in going to full double-blind - the results won't be any different.


----------



## lids369

ab initio said:


> These assertions lack evidence, which won't fly here in the sound science forum.
> 
> Your schiit Lyr has a huge, over-designed power supply section, especially considering the HD600's don't require a lot of power (high impedance, low current). If you want to claim that your power cord is actually causing and audible change the the sound reproduced by your amp and headphones, then you will need to get a friend to help you perform an double blind test to prove that you can discern an audible difference when swapping cords.
> 
> ...


 
 This Schiit Lyr pulls a max of 30 Watts from the wall, when the power cable was pulled off of a Mark Levinson amp consuming closer to 1000 watts, which leads me to conclude that the power supply in the Schiit is anything but huge and over designed. It has a power supply along the lines of a preamp, and there is never too much power, by the way.
  
 I heard things in the music when the Nordost was plugged in that I just couldn't with my stock cord in.
  
 I think the whole double blind thing is a bust because with this amp, it takes a minimum of 30 seconds between each test. My ears already forgot what it was listening to. Instead, I would put on a song, notice details, commit those details to my short term memory, and then switch them out. I don't need to do a full blown study on the damn cables, especially to appease people who are armchair engineers, when I have the degree, and I can pick them up for just a $100. The science makes absolute sense when you think about it correctly. This article cleared a lot of the science up for me: http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/powercords.html
  
 I would never recommend someone to buy this stuff off of what I wrote. I am just recommending that people try it out. That's the same logic the store I worked at during summers used. They would let everyone take home cables, and if they noticed a positive difference warranting the cost, they would buy them. They never had a problem selling cables. 
  
 I used to be a skeptic, but then I realized everyone who was telling me that these power cords work have 30-40 years of experience in this stuff, and own incredible systems costing $50k (some of them made that money being electrical engineers), and everyone who was telling me these don't work ran a crappy Chinese $100 DAC/Amp combo to a set of M50s, so I tried them out.
  
 If you really are so concerned with Nordost writing things on their website that you can't understand, ask them. I think they know a bit about wiring, since they worked on the wiring for the space shuttle program with NASA.


----------



## x838nwy

silverears said:


> Hi, I recently had a discussion today with a headfier regarding cables for iems.  A iem has a impedance graph that dips as low as 4ohms.  He told me a cable can be up to 1ohm/foot impedance.  That value is significant in relation to the impedance of the phone.
> 
> Does 1ohm/foot exist?




Wikisearch "resistivity". In basic terms, uniform copper conductors are (1.68e-8)/A Ohms/meter.

If you were to have 1 Ohm/foot you're looking at A = 1.68e-8 / 3.281 => about 81 microns diameter according to my iphone calculator.

That's about 80% of the diameter of hair (human, from the head). So while it IS possible, i wouldn't advise making iem cable out of it of you want to move your head without breaking the cable.


----------



## Don Hills

silverears said:


> Hi, I recently had a discussion today with a headfier regarding cables for iems.  A iem has a impedance graph that dips as low as 4ohms.  He told me a cable can be up to 1ohm/foot impedance.  That value is significant in relation to the impedance of the phone.
> 
> Does 1ohm/foot exist?


 
  
 That's almost exactly the resistance of a strand of 40 AWG wire. I doubt anyone is using conductors that small. (A human hair is appoximately the same diameter as 40 to 44 AWG wire.)


----------



## x838nwy

lids369 said:


> This Schiit Lyr pulls a max of 30 Watts from the wall, when the power cable was pulled off of a Mark Levinson amp consuming closer to 1000 watts, which leads me to conclude that the power supply in the Schiit is anything but huge and over designed. It has a power supply along the lines of a preamp, and there is never too much power, by the way.
> 
> I heard things in the music when the Nordost was plugged in that I just couldn't with my stock cord in.
> 
> ...




I totally get where you're coming from and based on my own attempts (with interconnects) i think that a dbx is not going to be able to answer the question we're asking. I've covered expectation bias earlier but since my little tests i've also been in touch with a few people in the industry and really there are other factors involved not least important of which are psychological.
If you don't tell the listener that there may or may not be a difference then you're highly unlike to find anyone detecting any difference even between amplifiers. So you have to tell them, but then it turns into an exercise of a.)discovering for themselves what those differences are - and if they exist and b.)detecting those differences with any kind of accuracy. It's not just audio but also for things like telling differences between to digital cameras also - it's about knowing where to look and once you do look in the right places, you still have to interpret what you see. Some would say this is just training your bias but i think it's impossible to do one without affecting the other. Some might say that if you have to train to hear the difference then it's surely not worth it, but often things don't have immediately apparent, suddenly palpable effect.
What i would say as the bottom line though, is that even if it is never possible to answer the question of whether cables (of all types) make a difference, cables will remain for me quite low in my "sound/$" list. Along with all the expensive cables i already own, I will continue to use bjc as my reference/par cables and avoid freebies for quality reasons.


----------



## Astropin

lids369 said:


> This Schiit Lyr pulls a max of 30 Watts from the wall, when the power cable was pulled off of a Mark Levinson amp consuming closer to 1000 watts, which leads me to conclude that the power supply in the Schiit is anything but huge and over designed. It has a power supply along the lines of a preamp, and there is never too much power, by the way.
> 
> I heard things in the music when the Nordost was plugged in that I just couldn't with my stock cord in.
> 
> ...


 
  
 In regards to your link.
  
 1) There is no real science on that website.
 2) Caelin Gabriel who wrote the "article" and is CEO of Shunyata Research Inc. and as near as I can tell it's sole employee; does not have a college degree and is not a scientist.
 3) The "article" deals with POWER cables while we are talking about interconnects.......not that it makes much difference.
  
 4) To date....No One, No Where, has ever passed a double blind test on audio cables.
  
_"I heard things in the music when the Nordost was plugged in that I just couldn't with my stock cord in." "I think the whole double blind thing is a bust because with this amp, it takes a minimum of 30 seconds between each test. My ears already forgot what it was listening to."_
  
 So your Nordost made a big improvement in the sound......so big that it can't last more than 30 seconds.


----------



## lids369

astropin said:


> In regards to your link.
> 
> 1) There is no real science on that website.
> 2) Caelin Gabriel who wrote the "article" and is CEO of Shunyata Research Inc. and as near as I can tell it's sole employee; does not have a college degree and is not a scientist.
> ...


 
 It's not mine; it's back at the store. I could tell the difference during my own comparison, meaning I listen to 15 seconds of a song, notice a particular detail, and then switch. The Nordost had detail that the stock cable did not have. Plain and simple. If I wasn't looking for that detail, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. 
  
 Edit: What is wrong about what's said in that article? Wilson Audio knows a bit about music reproduction, and they use his cables.


----------



## bigshot

Expectation bias. Just get a monoprice.


----------



## esldude

lids369 said:


> It's not mine; it's back at the store. I could tell the difference during my own comparison, meaning I listen to 15 seconds of a song, notice a particular detail, and then switch. The Nordost had detail that the stock cable did not have. Plain and simple. If I wasn't looking for that detail, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Edit: What is wrong about what's said in that article? Wilson Audio knows a bit about music reproduction, and they use his cables.


 

 Plain and simple, since you are looking for that detail, you will think you found it when you know the cable has changed. 
  
 As for the article, what about it is scientific?  Analogies (which are deceptive if one isn't careful) to a waterhose, pleas that believe us it matters, and obfuscation saying there are lots of opinions, please where is the meat of the article?  What part of it is convincing to you?
  
 Wilson makes some fine speakers, some of the best I have heard, but they sound that way with or without Shunyata cabling.


----------



## castleofargh

don hills said:


> silverears said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, I recently had a discussion today with a headfier regarding cables for iems.  A iem has a impedance graph that dips as low as 4ohms.  He told me a cable can be up to 1ohm/foot impedance.  That value is significant in relation to the impedance of the phone.
> ...


 

 well if it's only about impedance, it's pretty easy to lower it by use of 1/R= 1/R1+1/R2+1/R3.... by multiplying the braids (each insulated from the other, up to jack).
 but it's bound to have consequences elsewhere (big stiff cable for iem might not be super fun). and the surface receiving EMI will be that much bigger too, etc.
  
  
 @ lids369 did you create an account to avoid any risk of troll? sorry it's the first thought I had yesterday.
 what about all the wire running inside your walls, outside to a pole, etc? how adding 2meters of something "possibly good" to hundreds of meters of the most basic electric copper wire, could make any kind of difference? I just can't see it. oh but they have the answer here http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/powercords.html . that article made me laugh tbh, did it really explain anything to you? it's stating random stuff, but I don't see any conclusive point telling us to do this instead of that. "EMI must be filtered", "or not". "the last part is the first part of the circuit", and is pretty much just a part so why does it matter? very strange article indeed. whatever need to filter the current, the amp manufacturer could do it, they don't wait for super power cord guy to come save them. this makes no sens. and then it talks about all the stuff that shouldn't be in a power cord, and use those to justify why sound could change... crazy way of thinking.
  
 placebo I'm know and understand very well. you pay more attention, so you hear more details. that I also understand. people with 50k audio gears being reluctant to go with a 10$ power cord, I also understand, but that is about human behavior, not rational thinking or physical needs for the amp. if I'm a billionaire, will I go get a more expensive coca cola just because cheap stuff stands out? probably in front of my rich friends...
 and the fact that the brand does some wiring for NASA, well it means they could do the wiring needed for NASA, how is that relevant for audio? I know some great brands that do ethernet cables, that doesn't convince me to go there to get my power cord. it's nice advertising, but that's it.
  
 and even taking that strange idea of a power cord being meaningful for audio to the end. if adding a small length of good stuff before an amp could significantly improve an amp, don't you think that all amp manufacturers would roll 2meters of said cable inside the box of the amp? boom best audio trick ever! take that competition, I put the great power cord inside the box! ^_^
 if going from one power cord to another had any significance, then wouldn't just getting rid of that extra length be the ultimate way to improve sound? just soldering the wires inside the power outlet to my amp should make wonders to improve my sound. and taking my amp to the power plant, I dare say it would be the ultimate experience. minimum EMI, premium grade electrons, what a treat.
  
 I'm pretty sure that turning my lights off would physically have more impact on my amp than your power cord. I can think of zero reason why it could be anything but a scam. like most expensive cables.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> I totally get where you're coming from and based on my own attempts (with interconnects) i think that a dbx is not going to be able to answer the question we're asking. I've covered expectation bias earlier but since my little tests i've also been in touch with a few people in the industry and really there are other factors involved not least important of which are psychological.
> If you don't tell the listener that there may or may not be a difference then you're highly unlike to find anyone detecting any difference even between amplifiers. So you have to tell them, but then it turns into an exercise of a.)discovering for themselves what those differences are - and if they exist and b.)detecting those differences with any kind of accuracy. It's not just audio but also for things like telling differences between to digital cameras also - it's about knowing where to look and once you do look in the right places, you still have to interpret what you see. Some would say this is just training your bias but i think it's impossible to do one without affecting the other. Some might say that if you have to train to hear the difference then it's surely not worth it, but often things don't have immediately apparent, suddenly palpable effect.
> What i would say as the bottom line though, is that even if it is never possible to answer the question of whether cables (of all types) make a difference, cables will remain for me quite low in my "sound/$" list. Along with all the expensive cables i already own, I will continue to use bjc as my reference/par cables and avoid freebies for quality reasons.


 

 You know abx testing by audiophiles is different than is done in research.  There is skin on the line about whether you hear well, some ego involvement etc with audiophile challenges. True with training and some supervision there are some aspects of sound you previously didn't bother with as significant that later you can.  Learning to play a musical instrument forever changes how you listen to music as well.  Ditto for trying to do some sound recording of your own.  But how do you separate the real from the 'training of bias'?  Well the abx test.  If you are trained to hear a real difference you then can hear it blind when before you may not.  If after the training blinding yourself makes it disappear then it wasn't real in the first place.
  
 Much of real research into human hearing ability isn't at all like that done with audiophile egos on the line in a challenge.  Volunteers are brought in, have the test procedure explained and asked to see if they can hear something or not.  I volunteered for such in my college years before I was an 'audiophile'.  Very different and mostly unstressed test environment.  Was paid for my time with nothing hinging on doing well or not.  Still I did try and do well just wasn't stressed as no claims about my abilities were made ahead of time.  Instead the testing was simply that....testing of what my abilities were.   One was hearing words obscured by noise, picking out words from several spoken together was another, and some tests of thresholds in various ways.  Did some volunteering for some sight related testing too.  Again just walk in, and test your abilities.  You weren't even sure what was being tested for ahead of time. 
  
 So the often cited complaint abx testing is stressful and obscures abilities in casual listening may or may not have merit.  But it is wholly different than genuine research done into the hearing abilities of humans.  Not like saying beforehand, "ha, they are doing tests to see if you can hear speaker cables, I know I will ace that.  You watch and see I am perceptive as heck".  So quit listening to shills in the industry who live lavishly separating you from your money.  Cables, interconnect etc just don't matter the way the high end accessories industry tells you it does.  There is a wonderful stress free audiophile existence awaiting you if you can just let go of your bias a little bit.  Monoprice is your friend.  Though BJC is alright if you need a little more coaxing.


----------



## lids369

castleofargh said:


> well if it's only about impedance, it's pretty easy to lower it by use of 1/R= 1/R1+1/R2+1/R3.... by multiplying the braids (each insulated from the other, up to jack).
> but it's bound to have consequences elsewhere (big stiff cable for iem might not be super fun). and the surface receiving EMI will be that much bigger too, etc.
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 It must be difficult on your kidneys to be so salty. Try out the cables sometime.


----------



## bigshot

The thing about achieving great sound is that there are things that make a big difference and things that make no difference. It isn't about the last 5%. It's about the other 95%. People waste their time on details and ignore the big issues.


----------



## shockdoc

If ingesting a small wafer and some wine on a somewhat regular basis can supposedly get me into heaven why in the world can't some "magic" wires allow me to enter audio nirvana?


----------



## lids369

bigshot said:


> The thing about achieving great sound is that there are things that make a big difference and things that make no difference. It isn't about the last 5%. It's about the other 95%. People waste their time on details and ignore the big issues.


 
 Yeah I understand that. And my system is nowhere to being close to 95% done. I just thought I would try out that power cord to see if it made a difference, and it did, but that $290 would be better saved for Audeze's or a badass dac


----------



## esldude

shockdoc said:


> If ingesting a small wafer and some wine on a somewhat regular basis can supposedly get me into heaven why in the world can't some "magic" wires allow me to enter audio nirvana?


 

 Because the wafer wasn't made with oxygen free dough, and the wine did not receive cryogenic treatment.


----------



## liamstrain

lids369 said:


> I just thought I would try out that power cord to see if it made a difference, and subjectively, I think it did, though I cannot prove it - nor is there any science to suggest that it even could.


 
  
 Fixed that for you.


----------



## bigshot

lids369 said:


> I just thought I would try out that power cord to see if it made a difference, and it did, but that $290 would be better saved for Audeze's or a badass dac


 
  
 You want me to help you cut to the chase with that choice too?


----------



## Astropin

bigshot said:


> You want me to help you cut to the chase with that choice too?




What... You mean how a $100 DAC will sound just as good as a $1500 one?


----------



## cjl

astropin said:


> What... You mean how a $100 DAC will sound just as good as a $1500 one?


 
 Oh, it's worse than that. Not only will the $100 DAC sound the same as the $1500 one (assuming both are competently designed), they'll both also sound the same as the DAC in something like an iPhone or Sansa Clip.


----------



## Speedskater

astropin said:


> In regards to your link.
> 1) There is no real science on that website.
> 2) Caelin Gabriel who wrote the "article" and is CEO of Shunyata Research Inc. and as near as I can tell it's sole employee; does not have a college degree and is not a scientist.
> 3) The "article" deals with POWER cables while we are talking about interconnects.......not that it makes much difference.
> ...


 
 Back in 2010 Caelin Gabriel wrote a chapter in a booklet for 'the absolute sound'. The booklet was "The Golden Ear's Guide to Audio System Setup an Evaluation" and the chapter was "Technical Background: AC Power" | 'AC Power and Sound Relationships'.
  
 Now considering the author and the publisher, the chapter had lots of good information. (I didn't expect any good info).
 In the past about 2/3 of the chapter segments were on the Shunyata Research website.  But when they completely redid the site, many of the old pages were lost.


----------



## lids369

astropin said:


> What... You mean how a $100 DAC will sound just as good as a $1500 one?


 
Have you ever heard a $1500 dac? Or expensive power cables or interconnects? I have, and I'm a real scientist. My professors at engineering school told us that observations rule over equations, and my observations told me the power cord and expensive DACs work better. Especially use observations over equations when there aren't any equations for how music sounds. The Bryston BDA-2 blew away everything I knew about what music could sound like from my headphones compared with my modest Schiit Modi DAC. It was bigger than the jump from my first headphones to my HD600s. If you guys want to be obstinate because you can't afford this stuff, go ahead and complain about sour grapes, and I'll just go out and experience the stuff.


----------



## cjl

lids369 said:


> Have you ever heard a $1500 dac? Or expensive power cables or interconnects? I have, and I'm a real scientist. My professors at engineering school told us that observations rule over equations, and my observations told me the power cord and expensive DACs work better. Especially use observations over equations when there aren't any equations for how music sounds. The Bryston BDA-2 blew away everything I knew about what music could sound like from my headphones compared with my modest Schiit Modi DAC. It was bigger than the jump from my first headphones to my HD600s. If you guys want to be obstinate because you can't afford this stuff, go ahead and complain about sour grapes, and I'll just go out and experience the stuff.


 
 Observations mean nothing without proper experimental procedure and controls (double blind comparison, level matching to <0.1dB difference, etc). When subjected to these criteria, nobody has yet shown there to be an audible difference between two competently designed dacs (or cables).


----------



## bigshot

lids369 said:


> Have you ever heard a $1500 dac? Or expensive power cables or interconnects? I have, and I'm a real scientist. My professors at engineering school told us that observations rule over equations, and my observations told me the power cord and expensive DACs work better.


 
  
 And I bet they told you that controlled tests rule over both.
  
 DACs perform to spec or they don't. They aren't supposed to color the sound, just translate it accurately from digital to analog. If they do that without audible levels of distortion or alteration of the sound, they all sound alike... and they pretty much do.


----------



## limpidglitch

lids369 said:


> Have you ever heard a $1500 dac? Or expensive power cables or interconnects? I have, and I'm a real scientist. My professors at engineering school told us that observations rule over equations, and my observations told me the power cord and expensive DACs work better. Especially use observations over equations when there aren't any equations for how music sounds. The Bryston BDA-2 blew away everything I knew about what music could sound like from my headphones compared with my modest Schiit Modi DAC. It was bigger than the jump from my first headphones to my HD600s. If you guys want to be obstinate because you can't afford this stuff, go ahead and complain about sour grapes, and I'll just go out and experience the stuff.


 
  
 If you want to assert your penile girth, you've come to the wrong place. Bright red muscle cars and $1500 DACs is the domain of 'the other side'.
  
 Just saying you're a scientist loud enough (and clicking your shoes) doesn't magically make it so. You also have to pay heed to the second part of the lesson I'm sure your professor taught you. The one about objectivity.


----------



## cjl

limpidglitch said:


> If you want to assert your penile girth, you've come to the wrong place. Bright red muscle cars and $1500 DACs is the domain of 'the other side'.


 
 What's wrong with bright red muscle cars? At least they are objectively and measurably faster, more powerful, and louder than the majority of cars on the road...


----------



## Astropin

lids369 said:


> If you guys want to be obstinate because you can't afford this stuff, go ahead and complain about sour grapes, and I'll just go out and experience the stuff.


 
  
  
 Careful, your immaturity and ignorance is showing. I choose Monoprice for my cables because I've done my homework and don't like to throw away money; not because I can't afford them.
  
 Oh....and my computer DAC cost me $60. I'll put it up against any DAC you can find in a double blind test.


----------



## limpidglitch

cjl said:


> What's wrong with bright red muscle cars? At least they are objectively and measurably faster, more powerful, and louder than the majority of cars on the road...


 

 Nothing. Nothing wrong with $1500 DACs either.


----------



## bigshot

Audiophile bats need $1500 DACs.


----------



## bfreedma

limpidglitch said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by cjl What's wrong with bright red muscle cars? At least they are objectively and measurably faster, more powerful, and louder than the majority of cars on the road...Nothing. Nothing wrong with $1500 DACs either.





Agreed

I spent about that a few years back because the DAC had the features I wanted including a remote, the company is stable and offers a long warrantee and has a good reputation for honoring it, and I liked their domestic manufacturing model. Not expecting to change it out for at least a decade because DACs are a fairly mature technology, so the stability of the manufacturer was an important part of the decision.

And I just wanted a new toy...

I didn't spend the money because I expected it to sound better than a less expensive DAC.


----------



## castleofargh

lids369 said:


> Especially use observations over equations when there aren't any equations for how music sounds.


 
 what? you might at least want to rethink that part. how you will like your sound, ok we have no equation about that. but how music sounds we know entirely and completely. and even better, we know how it should sound even before we measure it. again that might be different from what you prefer, but taste and science should be well kept apart before telling something is "better" than another. I like red and dislike green, that doesn't make red better.
  
 each audio gear gets an information and is supposed to output said information a certain way. any gear that has good timing, signature, distortion and noise, will sound oh so very close to what it's supposed to sound like. and as there is only one, exactly perfect way to express the music information of a CD, it's a given that all good gears with good specs will sound the same.
 anytime you tried something and heard night and day difference, you were badly tricked. that's how it really is. when one dac has 0.005% THD+noise, a neutral signature and any reasonable jitter, it will sound as it's supposed to sound. and the "very better" dac with 0.002% thd+noise, while being better, will sound so damn close a human might not be able to tell them apart in DBT on usual music.
 that's how is really is. that is science. if whatever duper dac you've tried sounded really better and different, then it had a different signature, or maybe a pleasant but real big distortion. in both cases that doesn't make it better at all. at best you preferred the altered sound to the real one(and that's perfectly ok). that and placebo are the only responses. altered(so not hifi) sound for audible stuff, and placebo for any differences well under -80db.
  
 all good stuff will sound identical. that is science because fidelity has only one answer.


----------



## ab initio

bigshot said:


> Audiophile bats need $1500 DACs.




We did research with bats. Im pretty sure they dont care about $1500 DACs. However, they are mighty fond of $0.01mealworms

Cheers


----------



## ab initio

lids369 said:


> Have you ever heard a $1500 dac? Or expensive power cables or interconnects? I have, and I'm a real scientist. My professors at engineering school told us that observations rule over equations, and my observations told me the power cord and expensive DACs work better. Especially use observations over equations when there aren't any equations for how music sounds. The Bryston BDA-2 blew away everything I knew about what music could sound like from my headphones compared with my modest Schiit Modi DAC. It was bigger than the jump from my first headphones to my HD600s. If you guys want to be obstinate because you can't afford this stuff, go ahead and complain about sour grapes, and I'll just go out and experience the stuff.




Be careful here. There are probably a lot more folks here with more schooling and degrees here than you expect. Your uncontrolled experience is peanuts compared to proper test proceedures. For example, how did you control for the difference in output levels between you modi and bryston?

Cheers


----------



## cjl

limpidglitch said:


> Nothing. Nothing wrong with $1500 DACs either.


 
 Except $1500 DACs aren't noticeably better than $100 DACs, but the 400+hp in a Mustang GT can easily be felt relative to a 117hp Honda Fit. I think this kind of analogy way overstates the difference between a cheap DAC and an expensive one.


----------



## liamstrain

lids369 said:


> My professors at engineering school told us that observations rule over equations, and my observations told me the power cord and expensive DACs work better.


 
  
 As has been said, observations without adequate controls do NOT rule over equations. Observations under controlled experimental conditions, may. Which, if you are the scientist you claim to be, you will understand. While changes in AC power may affect some aspects of an amplifier - changes in the CORD, should not unless one of them is faulty.
  


> Especially use observations over equations when there aren't any equations for how music sounds.


 
  
 There are plenty of equations for how music sounds. But you can do a very simple, and more objective test. Compare waveforms from the output of two dacs (using the same source - and volume matched, if no line level is available). Ideally you can compare that with the source waveform - but just comparing the two will be helpful. If the waveforms do not significantly deviate from each other - then you know what you "heard" was psychoacoustic in nature, and not actually due to the DAC. 
  


> Have you ever heard a $1500 dac? Or expensive power cables or interconnects? I have, and I'm a real scientist. ... If you guys want to be obstinate because you can't afford this stuff, go ahead and complain about sour grapes, and I'll just go out and experience the stuff.


 
  
 And yes, I have listened to expensive cables, expensive dacs, very expensive amps (and speakers and headphones). And based on my observations (under both casual, and more rigorous conditions), made decisions about where it made sense to spend real money. (hint, it's not the cables, or in the DAC's unless one has features you desire and cannot get elsewhere).


----------



## limpidglitch

cjl said:


> Except $1500 DACs aren't noticeably better than $100 DACs, but the 400+hp in a Mustang GT can easily be felt relative to a 117hp Honda Fit. I think this kind of analogy way overstates the difference between a cheap DAC and an expensive one.


 

 To me they're both equally pointless and impressive at the same time.
 You're not a Mustang owner, by any chance?

 My point was that both can be used to assert perceived authority (my 'whatever' is bigger/more expensive than your 'whatever'), and that sort of discussion isn't what we're aiming for here.


----------



## cjl

limpidglitch said:


> To me they're both equally pointless and impressive at the same time.
> You're not a Mustang owner, by any chance?
> 
> My point was that both can be used to assert perceived authority (my 'whatever' is bigger/more expensive than your 'whatever'), and that sort of discussion isn't what we're aiming for here.


 
 No, I'm not (I enjoy Mustangs, and I have had the chance to drive one pretty aggressively a few times, but on the whole, it isn't the car for me). I do see your point though.


----------



## lids369

ab initio said:


> Be careful here. There are probably a lot more folks here with more schooling and degrees here than you expect. Your uncontrolled experience is peanuts compared to proper test proceedures. For example, how did you control for the difference in output levels between you modi and bryston?
> 
> Cheers


 
 Just A/B'ed the schiit modi vs the Arcam D33 DAC at a hifi shop on a pair of Klipsch palladiums w/ conrad johnson preamp and amp, and everyone in the room could tell the difference as soon as the music was audible again. I reset the volume down to zero between the switch. Took about 10 seconds to switch out the interconnects and usb cable.


----------



## bfreedma

lids369 said:


> ab initio said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful here. There are probably a lot more folks here with more schooling and degrees here than you expect. Your uncontrolled experience is peanuts compared to proper test proceedures. For example, how did you control for the difference in output levels between you modi and bryston?
> ...




You're putting out a sighted, non level balanced test as supporting evidence?


----------



## lids369

bfreedma said:


> You're putting out a sighted, non level balanced test as supporting evidence?


 
 Wasn't sighted, switched it out and they said that had to be the Arcam.


----------



## bfreedma

lids369 said:


> bfreedma said:
> 
> 
> > You're putting out a sighted, non level balanced test as supporting evidence?
> ...




No controls described. - still sounds sighted. And you were in the room and knew which was playing and may have unknowingly been giving visual or vocal cues.

And still no mention of how you level matched.

There really isn't any value in an uncontrolled test like this in audio or any other area of science.


----------



## bigshot

Auditory memory for similar sounds is around 2-3 seconds. You need a switcher and preamps to level match.


----------



## liamstrain

bigshot said:


> Auditory memory for similar sounds is around 2-3 seconds. You need a switcher and preamps to level match.


 
  
 And calibrated SPL meters (or other objective meter) to level match if the line levels differ - doing it by ear won't cut it.


----------



## esldude

If specs on each DAC are right, then the Arcam would be 3.33 db louder.  Level matching is job one in any comparison.  If the volume wasn't changed no wonder it was obvious which was which.  As already mentioned checking level by ear won't cut it.


----------



## x838nwy

Can i just ask one thing: we're now saying basically all dacs sound the same? This is getting odd.


----------



## bigshot

All DACs *should* sound the same... shouldn't they?


----------



## cjl

liamstrain said:


> And calibrated SPL meters (or other objective meter) to level match if the line levels differ - doing it by ear won't cut it.


 
 The best (and easiest) way to calibrate them accurately is by using a voltmeter and a sine wave test signal, instead of relying on a SPL meter.


----------



## bigshot

Now I know why people don't do any controls at all.


----------



## liamstrain

cjl said:


> The best (and easiest) way to calibrate them accurately is by using a voltmeter and a sine wave test signal, instead of relying on a SPL meter.




Makes good sense. Thanks.


----------



## lids369

bigshot said:


> All DACs *should* sound the same... shouldn't they?


 
  
  
 No, because they all have *different* power supplies, chipsets, and analog output stages. I didn't keep the preamp at the same volume by the way. I set the volume down to 0, and then set it back to a reasonable volume. As I was ramping up the volume, that's when everyone said, yeah, this is the Arcam. It wasn't that it sounded louder; it sounded better. I put on Highway to Hell. And the guitars on the Schiit sounded stale in comparison to the Arcam. You guys keep on talking about confirmation bias, but it works both ways. If you don't think there will be a difference, there won't be one. Try the stuff out. You don't need a voltmeter, SPL meter, and a sine wave test signal to tell you that Audezes sound better than Skullcandys.


----------



## esldude

lids369 said:


> No, because they all have *different* power supplies, chipsets, and analog output stages. I didn't keep the preamp at the same volume by the way. I set the volume down to 0, and then set it back to a reasonable volume. As I was ramping up the volume, that's when everyone said, yeah, this is the Arcam. It wasn't that it sounded louder; it sounded better. I put on Highway to Hell. And the guitars on the Schiit sounded stale in comparison to the Arcam. You guys keep on talking about confirmation bias, but it works both ways. If you don't think there will be a difference, there won't be one. Try the stuff out. You don't need a voltmeter, SPL meter, and a sine wave test signal to tell you that Audezes sound better than Skullcandys.


 

 Sorry friend, that method won't get it.  The tiniest bit louder sounds better, but not louder.  I understand thinking what you did is sufficient, but like I said, JOB #1 in any comparison even if sighted is level matching.  Without that you have close to nothing.  Your procedure is almost tailored to fool yourself.  Won't pass muster in this forum.  Those picky little troublesome details like using a voltmeter are what make the difference between being fooled and not.  That is without getting into other problems with your method.  No need to bother with that, you didn't match levels.


----------



## lids369

esldude said:


> Sorry friend, that method won't get it.  The tiniest bit louder sounds better, but not louder.  I understand thinking what you did is sufficient, but like I said, JOB #1 in any comparison even if sighted is level matching.  Without that you have close to nothing.  Your procedure is almost tailored to fool yourself.  Won't pass muster in this forum.  Those picky little troublesome details like using a voltmeter are what make the difference between being fooled and not.  That is without getting into other problems with your method.  No need to bother with that, you didn't match levels.


 
  
 I'm saying that everyone chose the Arcam when it was quieter than the Schiit.


----------



## limpidglitch

lids369 said:


> I'm saying that everyone chose the Arcam when it was quieter than the Schiit.


 

 Wait, you _made_ them sound different, and then everybody agreed that they sounded different?
 That's not a test, it's a performance.


----------



## esldude

lids369 said:


> I'm saying that everyone chose the Arcam when it was quieter than the Schiit.


 

 Levels not matched then test not meaning much of anything.  Don't know any plainer way to put it.
  
 Again, plenty of other things to discuss about how you did this and not corrupt the choice.  But there is no need.  Doing a comparison levels must match.   If you don't pick up anything else from reading this forum that one thing is worth learning.


----------



## bfreedma

lids369 said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > All DACs *should* sound the same... shouldn't they?
> ...




For a scientist, you sure don't seem to be dedicated to any scientific method. The testing you did proves nothing due to lack of proper controls.

And now the old canards come out:
"expectation bias works both ways". Sure can. That's why a DBT is the only way to go because expectation bias is removed.
"Change subject to headphones". Of course two different headphones can sound different. No one argued that. Ever. Nice strawman though....


----------



## lids369

limpidglitch said:


> Wait, you _made_ them sound different, and then everybody agreed that they sounded different?
> That's not a test, it's a performance.


 
  
 I started at zero volume for the Schiit, and started at zero volume for the D33. I upped the volume to about 28 on the c-j, and then let it play for 20 seconds. Then I switched the dacs out (Schiit for D33), reset the volume to zero, and began to up the volume to a similar level, but before I could actually get there, everyone said that was the Arcam.


----------



## castleofargh

lids369 said:


> You don't need a voltmeter, SPL meter, and a sine wave test signal to tell you that Audezes sound better than Skullcandys.


 
 and what we keep telling is that there will probably be more differences between the left and right driver on your audeze, than between 2 correctly made dacs.
 but you're the scientist, just go look at the values of distortion and frequency responses of different dacs, and put that in perspective with the sound coming from even the best of headphones.
 a very average dac will output exactly the right sound from 0 to maybe -80db, a great one will have exactly the right signal up to maybe -100db. and you're talking about how some guitar sounded different when they were probably at best in the first 50db of dynamic, so exactly identical if both dacs were as they pretend to be. it just does not make sens in a mathematical way, and math is pretty much the only area where something said impossible, is impossible.
 again, timing, signature, distortion, noise, those are all the things needed to explain sound. and that's the hard way to look at it. the output of a dac is just a simple function of voltage upon time. no mysteries here and it's very simple to actually know if a dac is different from another one.
  
 I'm starting to wonder if your purpose isn't just to heat up the topic until one of us gets banned. wouldn't be the first time.
 you say some wrong and/or unverified stuff like it's a fact(power cord, no equation for sound, I'm a scientist...), we explain how the false parts are false. some kindly play the open mind game and just ask for a few basic rules before making subjective observation. you dismiss them one after another because you believe you are above the average human and won't fall for placebo effect. when at the same time your little "power cord incident" is telling us that you are indeed very receptive to bias.
 every time someone makes a point that doesn't go your way, you just change subject. this is going nowhere. I don't see how someone well educated can accept the idea that a power cord is changing the sound of an amp, but can't even envision the possibility of his own mind playing tricks when that part at least is very well documented.
 it's beyond me.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Can i just ask one thing: we're now saying basically all dacs sound the same? This is getting odd.




Electrically, DACs have the easiest job in the chain. They just need to produce a low power 20kHz bandwidth signal. The real difference I've noticed between dacs is in the signal to noise ratio. I'll take the dac with the least amount of noise. Distortion and frequency response should never be sn issue unless the designer was incompetent.

 Cheers


----------



## stv014

DAC noise should not be much of an issue either, if the volume control is after the DAC. Even an iPod is capable of better than 100 dB SNR at maximum volume. Audible noise from a DAC is usually the result of incompetent design, digital volume control with too much gain after the DAC, or external sources (interference, ground loops, etc.).


----------



## x838nwy

bigshot said:


> All DACs *should* sound the same... shouldn't they?


 
  
 If we use "should" in the sense that it is their ultimate goal, than yes, they should as their goal is to transform music encoded in the digital signal to the most exact facsimile of the original analogue signal as possible. Extending that definition to its conclusion, ALL hifi equipment SHOULD sound the same, be it a $50 mini component system from Kenwood or a $50k uber-fi system and I hope we can all agree that reality strays quite far from the "should".
  
 Now do all DAC's sound the same? They do not. I do not design electronics but I do machines and  the processes bear similarities. But before I go further, let me first get the price thing out of the way. Price is no indication of a device's ability. People spending 5 figures on a DAC expects it to look good in the same way you expect your Lamborghini to look nice as well as go like $hit off a shovel. Different companies have different balance points within the features/price/margin/looks/customer service/reliability matrix and that's good for the consumer but will  also give rise to $500 DACS sounding similar to a $1,000 DAC but those examples are more exceptions rather than the rule.
  
 With that out the way, I propose the reasons for the difference are as follows:
  
 1.) Design constraints: There are always cost, space/volume, supply constraints in design (plus a whole bunch of others) and it is more than likely that in the choosing of components, the design of the board layout, the strategy for isolation, etc are limited by them. If we assume that manufactures of chips and various components that make up your DAC do manufacture goods that are of different abilities/spec/quality between their different models then one of the designer's job is to choose the array of parts available to her/him to synthesize from them what he/she thinks is the "best" possible DAC. The endless permutations of parts then have to conform to said constraints in a particular arrangement before it all gets a go ahead.
  
 For example, the designer probably wanted to use transformer brand X, model Y having tested to confirm that it is a better choice (better meaning allowing the DAC to perform better than it can with other solution, or even just better specs meaning with more desirable characteristics) but the resulting package my be too large so he had to keep to brand X but model Z. Perhaps using the preferred chip set means taking up too much power (specially in portable devices). May be the a well designed DAC is outperformed by another, newer DAC simply because of the chips or firmware used. Legacy items are also a bit of an issue - if the main DAC part was and has been very good but its USB implementation is not so great then making better said interface will improve the final sound quality. So constraints play a role in the resulting products. Different companies pose different constraints on their designers/engineers. These constraints affect the parts used and how they are used as such it is logical that the end result is also effected. Different constraints = Different products.
  
 2.) Human ability: give me and Jason from Schiit audio the same amount of money and ask us to design and build a DAC within that budget and I'm pretty sure you'll get a pretty decent DAC and a pile of parts. Talent, ability, intelligence, proficiency and knowledge are not attributes that are evenly distributed among mankind. So for $400, one designer can make a rubbish DAC and another a very good one. That's pretty much why how talented and skilled people make a living. So DACs sound different according to the skill of the designer (and others involved in the manufacturing process, but mostly the designer).
  
 3.) Design philosophy: this is different to the ability of the designer and it also plays a part in why things work differently. Some designers will believe that using few but extremely high (boutique?) components is the way to go. Others will tend to throw everything inclusive of kitchen sinks at it (Audio-Gd must consume like 1/3 of all components used in the hifi industry or something). Some will not use capacitors in the signal path and some will prefer silver where possible. Some will go for class D and others will not be happy unless it's a SET OTL class A / room heater combo. etc, etc. Each to his own and each will have its characteristics in terms of sq. Which path is best or what the best compromise may be will probably be a debate that goes on for longer than the internet itself.
  
 These factors play the biggest roles in why DACs sound different. They are all working against arriving at a fictitious 'perfect' DAC however simple a task that may be. The ultimates goal of all DACs is to sound same as I mentioned above, but it is how far and to which side they fall short of this goal is the difference we hear. So they sound different because the things that are "wrong" with them are different.
  
 And it's because you've been using the wrong cables. 
  
 Or maybe the right ones but they haven't burnt-in properly yet.
  
 Or you didn't look for the direction arrow on the interconnect, did you?


----------



## limpidglitch

lids369 said:


> I started at zero volume for the Schiit, and started at zero volume for the D33. I upped the volume to about 28 on the c-j, and then let it play for 20 seconds. Then I switched the dacs out (Schiit for D33), reset the volume to zero, and began to up the volume to a similar level, but before I could actually get there, everyone said that was the Arcam.


 

 As I'm sure you can gather from our responses, this is a highly unorthodox way to compare devices.
 Any specific reason why you didn't just do a straight level matched comparison?


----------



## lids369

limpidglitch said:


> As I'm sure you can gather from our responses, this is a highly unorthodox way to compare devices.
> 
> Any specific reason why you didn't just do a straight level matched comparison?




I was at a store and couldn't shut down their high end room for the test. It had to be quick.


----------



## limpidglitch

Ah. Quick and dirty, out of necessity.

 Does this mean that you don't either consider this a very rigorous trial?


----------



## cjl

bigshot said:


> Now I know why people don't do any controls at all.


 
 Why? Because hooking up a voltmeter to the outputs once to check the levels is that onerous? It's a pretty easy and straightforward task, and if you're going to go to the trouble to do a proper comparison, why wouldn't you want to ensure it's done right? I know you're a huge advocate of doing everything by ear, but it has been shown that if two otherwise identical components are very close (but slightly mismatched) in volume, most people fail to perceive the louder one as being louder. Instead, they perceive the louder one as being better quality, while believing the two to be matched in volume. If you match with a voltmeter, this will not happen, and thus you can get a much more accurate comparison.
  
 As for your prior post? Yes, all DACs should really sound the same, unless there's something wrong with one of them.


----------



## castleofargh

x838nwy said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 and all those differences adds up and can be found in the differences of distorsions, jitter, frequency response and noise. that we can measure on all dacs.
 what you say is all very true and lots of dacs are different in one way or another. no arguying about that. but it's pretty common for a dac to have: noise, distorsion and jitter well under -80db (even crosstalk is well under 80db).
 so when those said differences are measured to be under the level of audibility while playing music, is it still wrong to say they sound the same? again I take it that a good dac will have high fidelity in the response signal, so as you said, all dacs tend toward the same sound with more or less success.
 in reality I suspect some manufacturers might give up on that part and just add some kind of dsp to please the listener and make the dac to stand out, instead of fighting to get 0.001% less distorsion than the competition.
 when we're looking at numbers, what should be audible between ok dacs is usually no other than some slight changes in the frequency responses. I guess even some +0.2 at one end and -0.3db on the other might be enough to feel the roll off and hear that one dac is warmer that the other. but I wouldn't pay 2000$ for a 0.5db EQ ^_^.
  
 it all comes down to decide if when we say high end, we talk about measuring well=high fidelity. and if, when we talk about how something sounds, we're meaning something that will be heard(actually heard, not daydreamed).


----------



## bigshot

x838nwy said:


> If we use "should" in the sense that it is their ultimate goal, than yes, they should as their goal is to transform music encoded in the digital signal to the most exact facsimile of the original analogue signal as possible.


 
  
 Thankfully, every piece of equipment I own from expensive headphone amp to iPod to blu-ray player to $40 Chinese DVD player all produce sound that is for all intents and purposes perfect. Maybe I've been lucky. But it proved to me that money means absolutely nothing to sound quality in this case.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> so when those said differences are measured to be under the level of audibility while playing music, is it still wrong to say they sound the same?


 
  
 If you can't hear a difference with human ears, it sounds the same.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> If we use "should" in the sense that it is their ultimate goal, than yes, they should as their goal is to transform music encoded in the digital signal to the most exact facsimile of the original analogue signal as possible.
> 
> _Snippage in the middle._
> 
> ...


 
 I think you are working hard to miss the point.  "should" was not used in the sense that is the ultimate goal they all sound the same, though that is of course true.  It was used in the sense that with the accuracy of reproducing the signal nearly all modern DACs keep inaccuracies below the audible level.  So looking at what is on the market they should sound indistinguishable when level matched into an acceptable load at the output.
  
 One also wonders about some highly expensive DAC designs.  Are they designed with a goal of genuine fidelity or are they designed to sound different?  Then that difference can be promoted as better justifying the high price tag.


----------



## x838nwy

To me "should" implies that they "ought to" sound the same. In other words, same output for same input. And if what they ought to do is the same thing then their goals are the same. "Should" to me is not a scientific word and there's nothing wrong with that, it just implies an idealized situation where reality may be different. So if we measure thing going into and coming out of the chips they ate probaly all the same but when one takes all the crap that surrounds the dac chip (which in a perfect world should be totally transparent) into account, they do not.

Anyway, that aside, to me, and i am sure many others, my dacs do NOT sound the same. I mean, honestly my Dragonfly does not sound like my Gungnir for example. The DF is brighter as the most obvious difference. I did not level match them obviously - who does on a regular basis, really.

Is there any data that shows that differences between dacs are inaudible? It is possible that the outputs from the dac chips themselves are the same, but what about other parts such as the output stage? In fact, i just recalled that the volume controls on some dacs actually 'lose' bits so these actually effectively do their d->a work off a different input as to one that does not 'lose' bits so even if it's same output for same input, the two outputs will not be the same in this case.

I will try to look for some dac measurements to go with all this, but before i got off into google land, non-bs companies like schiit do offer dacs from $99 to $800 and they are not the type of guys who'd do this if they all sound the same...?

In the end, if you're happy with what you have, i'm happy for you. If you don't need to spend more than $50 for a prefect dac then i totally envy you. But to label everything as sounding the same and calling any measurable difference inaudible is to me non-scientific. A while back Purrin and a bunch of other guys did dac comparisons with surprising results. It was no abx but they knew what they were doing and as far as i can tell had no affiliation with any brand tested. I don't know the man, but from his posts i don't think Purrin would hesitate to say they all sound the same if they in fact did... Many instances show a cheaper dac beating one 3-4 times the price and i'm cool with that, but in those tests if the sounded the same there would be no reason to report that they did.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> To me "should" implies that they "ought to" sound the same. In other words, same output for same input. And if what they ought to do is the same thing then their goals are the same. "Should" to me is not a scientific word and there's nothing wrong with that, it just implies an idealized situation where reality may be different. So if we measure thing going into and coming out of the chips they ate probaly all the same but when one takes all the crap that surrounds the dac chip (which in a perfect world should be totally transparent) into account, they do not.
> 
> Anyway, that aside, to me, and i am sure many others, my dacs do NOT sound the same. I mean, honestly my Dragonfly does not sound like my Gungnir for example. The DF is brighter as the most obvious difference. I did not level match them obviously - who does on a regular basis, really.
> 
> ...


 

 Ask the fellow who used the should how he meant it. 
  
 Otherwise all your objections to the idea (not blind, not level matched etc.) are all the old practices that let people get fooled.  Who level matches on a regular basis really?  I do.  Even sighted you will find that one step greatly reduces differences in gear quality you thought you were hearing.  I don't know Purrin, but if they didn't level match then I would say they did not know what they were doing.  It simply is required due to how human hearing works.  No amount of care or attitude can change that factor.  Humans need level matching for useful comparisons.  The simplest and most important step in such procedures, but getting people to believe its necessity seems a Sisyphean task.
  
 Now if a device like a DAC gets the same data stream, puts out an analog result that is close enough to be audibly transparent it will sound the same.  Chips to make it happen don't matter, analog design don't matter, switched or linear supplies don't matter, just the resulting signal.  The resulting signal is what you actually listen to in the end. 
  
 Finally you are constructing a comforting straw man there. 
  
_But to label everything as sounding the same and calling any measurable difference inaudible is to me non-scientific. _
  
 That is not what is being done here.  The reverse is what you are trying, which is saying any measurable differences, any difference in circuitry, any thing creates changes which can be heard.  That simply is not the case.  You then attempt to support that idea once again using casual sighted listening opinions to back it up.  It is old, and it is insufficient for this forum. 
  
 Is it possible DACs can sound different?  Yes it is, but it will show in the measurements at a level that could be expected to be audible.  But in modern DACs even fairly inexpensive models it is very uncommon.


----------



## limpidglitch

DACs should sound the same, in the same way that the wheels should stay attached to your car when you're hurtling down the highway.

 That is, barring incompetence or wanton sabotage, they _will_ sound the same.


----------



## paradoxper

Purrin did not level match, so there's that -- everything is moot.  Besides, his whole basis was judging the DACs by personal preference, which is pretty much subjective. Not gonna fly 'round these parts.


----------



## x838nwy

paradoxper said:


> Purrin did not level match, so there's that -- everything is moot.  Besides, his whole basis was judging the DACs by personal preference, which is pretty much subjective. Not gonna fly 'round these parts.




Not saying his preferences are gospel, but it indicates differences between dacs.

Also i was under the impression that there's an analogue stage after the dac chip which handles the output to other things. Does the performance of this not matter?


----------



## paradoxper

Right. He indicated differences between DACs through subjective measures. Makes a ton of sense in this venue, er, or not. 
 Esldude touched on your question 2 posts up.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> Thankfully, every piece of equipment I own from expensive headphone amp to iPod to blu-ray player to $40 Chinese DVD player all produce sound that is for all intents and purposes perfect. Maybe I've been lucky. But it proved to me that money means absolutely nothing to sound quality in this case.


 
 I don't associate money with SQ.  But, I hope that outrageously priced DAP sounds bad so that I feel better about not buying it.  People do not buy equipment thinking that high price = quality.  Most reasonable audio enthusiasts here atleast do some research or audition them so that they are not taking a huge financial risk.  I'm probably one of the most skeptical of hi end audio and it took me a very long time to get into the higher end stuff.  Some people more comfortable taking risks vs others.  Some people are just mindless and just buy probably because they don't have a budget limit.  I've seen some ridiculous setups.
  
 Anyway, those that do not A/B DACs or have experienced testing many DACs can speculate all they want, but it will never be anything beyond speculation.  Why? Because how can you make a conclusion without trying?  Only form of deduction here is by trying out the high end to low end regardless of cost, and making a conclusion. Does DACs matter, and does price go along side good sounding design?
  
 Just saying the tried argument of specs show they are all the same, doesn't really fly IMO.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> I don't associate money with SQ.  But, I hope that outrageously priced DAP sounds bad so that I feel better about not buying it.  People do not buy equipment thinking that high price = quality.  Most reasonable audio enthusiasts here atleast do some research or audition them so that they are not taking a huge financial risk.  I'm probably one of the most skeptical of hi end audio and it took me a very long time to get into the higher end stuff.  Some people more comfortable taking risks vs others.  Some people are just mindless and just buy probably because they don't have a budget limit.  I've seen some ridiculous setups.
> 
> Anyway, those that do not A/B DACs or have experienced testing many DACs can speculate all they want, but it will never be anything beyond speculation.  Why? Because how can you make a conclusion without trying?  Only form of deduction here is by trying out the high end to low end regardless of cost, and making a conclusion. Does DACs matter, and does price go along side good sounding design?
> 
> Just saying the tried argument of specs show they are all the same, doesn't really fly IMO.


 

 You are making the assumption it is speculation.  I can tell you one of the things about level matching is those multi-kilobuck DACs everyone thinks sound so much better than the DACs of a few hundred dollars suddenly sound a whole lot more similar when levels line up.  Many still think they hear a difference, but not the size difference they previously thought.  Not speculation either.  There are others here with experience of a wide variety of DACs.  Further as the comparisons adopt controlled methodology those differences evaporate.  For such huge differences they have been awfully hard to actually pin down.


----------



## x838nwy

paradoxper said:


> Right. He indicated differences between DACs through subjective measures. Makes a ton of sense in this venue, er, or not.
> Esledude touched on your question 2 posts up.




Umm yes they do indicate differences were perceived. Consistently so. Do things not count as fact unless level-matched? When you change songs do you need to level match to confirm that you have, in fact, done so? I don't think you would, so there IS some information we can gain from listening without level matching, correct? I wasn't present at the time, but i doubt they were doing their listening at wildly different levels and at these levels they found differences. Not if the perceived differences only came about through things being louder, the loudest dac in the test surely would have done. I do not recall that it did. (Will check.)

As for the statement "analog design doesn't matter" really? Where's the proof of this? Isn't amplifier/buffer design all about reducing distortion? What if it was poorly designed? We've seen competent companies stumble before - meridian explorer with it's high output impedance, akg 812 with its funky square wave response (source: inner fidelity) so some quite blatant oddities that would have showed up in the design stage do reach the market. Who's to say there are none in dacs?

There's so much absolutism around here. It is so decisive when people say things "sound the same" or "don't matter" or "inaudible". But without any data it's just the same as others saying "unicorns". The people who say otherwise have to drag up all sorts to meet with blunt statements with no actual factual data or even any reasoning to back it up.

Dac chips do the same things therefore all dacs sound the same. Great. Now that's pretty much the same as saying all computers with the same cpu and clock speed perform tasks at the same speed regardless of ram, hdd, operating system other software. It may be measurable with a stopwatch but surely a few seconds are unnoticeable by humans therefore they're the same. What?

In the final part of his post eslude mentioned that (and i paraphrase) it is possible for dacs to sound different and also that it is "fairly uncommon" for them to do so. Now this is, i think, quite a bit a way from "all dacs sound the same".

I am not advocating that *all* things that can be measured can be detected by the human ear. But there is a trend here of:

1.) stating that non difference can be found through measurements, then
2.) well alright some can be, but it's not audible

And both are without any justification other than saying pretty much that dacs are dacs. I'm pretty sure we all understand there's more than a chip in that box and everything has to be designed and the design may or may not influence the outcome. It is clear that in some cases they do. There's an article and i think a youtube clip from ps audio (iirc) about the role the reference voltage plays in their new dac. Basically it says that their fpga works against a reference voltage and if this voltages shifts the conversion goes awry. Now in a lab with a controlled simulated mains supply this may work perfectly, but a good designer will design in a good tolerance to real home supplies while a bad designer may not thus things will possibly sound odd with the latter. Just an example of how other parts in a dac can make a difference. Not saying it will, just that it can. It is for me to find information that it does (in any case not just this) AND for people who think otherwise to produce their information that it does not. Not just keep banging on about things are "inaudible" and "no difference".

And even if we ignore all results/comments however unscientific, the reasons i mentioned earlier (3 of them) remain as possible causes of differences in the eventual output. And if there are possible causes we should look into information on what is and is not audible.

Finally, no company wants to increase cost so if they really do make no difference, why bother with designing these things? It cannot all be marketing/trends/fashion because if it is, dacs will look a $hit ton better than they do now cos that will be all that matter. Benchmark and i think Mytek are also in the pro industry so they must be doing something right and reasonable. People made a song and dance about how many companies use Sony CD transports but the industry as a whole accepted it, so why not do the same with DACs? It would make a load of sense, surely to just buy a dac board the same way they did transports because not so long ago a lot of the more established manufacturers really had little knowledge about digital audio and that would save them a load of money trying to design their own. A lot of facts that have nothing to do with placebos or bias also point to the possibility of there being something more to dacs than "they're all the same" and "nope, inaudible".

Lastly, just because it has the word "science" in the title of this forum it does not exclude discussions about observations. Purrin's test is just as valid here as the statement saying "all dacs sound the same". How many dacs have you listened to? Is it a representative sample? Level-matched? What are the control conditions and variables? Was it a double blind test? If this venue is open to one, it must open to another.


----------



## SilverEars

esldude said:


> You are making the assumption it is *speculation*.  I can tell you one of the things about* level matching *is those multi-kilobuck DACs everyone thinks sound so much better than the DACs of a few hundred dollars suddenly sound a whole lot more similar when levels line up.  Many still think they hear a difference, but not the size difference they previously thought.  Not speculation either.  There are others here with experience of a wide variety of DACs.  Further as the comparisons adopt controlled methodology those differences evaporate.  For such huge differences they have been awfully hard to actually pin down.


 
 So what you're saying is fact? Not, speculation?  You think the difference is only in the loudness level?  I think you're narrowing the possibilities.  I alludes you see people as simpletons, very negative thinking.  You don't think your speculation isn't simple?
  
 Can you list me what DACs you have tested?


----------



## paradoxper

x838nwy said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Again, yea, differences were consistently perceived. Sighted that is, You're missing the entire point. It's unacceptable to claim x,z purely subjectively -- mucking about,
 all the while not having a shred of 'objective' data to back it up. Period. This part of the forum plays by different rules.
  
 The rest of your argument should be answered by Esl as it was his point you're contrarian to.
  
 I think Big's comment sums it up though: If you can't hear a difference with human ears, it sounds the same.


----------



## cjl

silverears said:


> So what you're saying is fact? Not, speculation?  You think the difference is only in the loudness level?  I think you're narrowing the possibilities.  I alludes you see people as simpletons, very negative thinking.  You don't think your speculation isn't simple?


 
 A combination of loudness and expectation bias, yes. Calling people simpletons because they believe in reality isn't going to change matters either.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> So what you're saying is fact? Not, speculation?  You think the difference is only in the loudness level?  I think you're narrowing the possibilities.  I alludes you see people as simpletons, very negative thinking.  You don't think your speculation isn't simple?
> 
> Can you list me what DACs you have tested?


 

 Yes, if the fidelity of the DAC is sufficient to be transparent, and you match levels they sound the same.  You miss levels slightly one sounds better than the other.  Throw in sighted bias, and it doesn't take much to hear DACs differently when they actually are not.
  
 Yes, I can provide the whole list, but won't.  The most expensive is about $6k.


----------



## SilverEars

esldude said:


> Yes, if the fidelity of the DAC is sufficient to be transparent, and you match levels they sound the same.  You miss levels slightly one sounds better than the other.  Throw in sighted bias, and it doesn't take much to hear DACs differently when they actually are not.
> 
> Yes, I can provide the whole list, but won't.  The most expensive is about $6k.


 
 If you miss a level how does one sound better than the other?


----------



## cjl

silverears said:


> If you miss a level how does one sound better than the other?


 
 Typically, people perceive a slightly louder source as being clearer, punchier, and more dynamic, possibly with better bass and treble extension. Sound familiar?


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> If you miss a level how does one sound better than the other?


 

 If two audibly transparent sources are played thru the same equipment, one being as little as .2 db louder will sound better.  It won't sound louder, but it will consistently sound of higher quality.  Up somewhere around a 1 db difference will perhaps be perceived as louder as well as better.  Though unless one is careful as in turn down one source, swap and turn up while setting new levels by ear you can easily be 2-3 db off without realizing it.


----------



## SilverEars

Have you guys thought about change in power input changes the FR?  I looked into Tyll's graph and you can see noticeable distortion difference in at different power input levels.  This is not related to perception.


----------



## cjl

If you're talking about headphone measurements, absolutely. Most drivers behave significantly different at high output levels compared to low output levels, and there's really not much getting around that.


----------



## x838nwy

paradoxper said:


> Again, yea, differences were consistently perceived. Sighted that is, You're missing the entire point. It's unacceptable to claim x,z purely subjectively -- mucking about,
> all the while not having a shred of 'objective' data to back it up. Period. This part of the forum plays by different rules.
> 
> The rest of your argument should be answered by Esl as it was his point you're contrarian to.
> ...




And bigshot's claims - as far as i know - are also based on sighted tests of a limited number of dacs and himself. There's nothing wrong with his statement and i'm not saying he's wrong. But my opinion is of another direction.

Now if you feel my opinions are invalid and more importantly unsuitable for this thread because even though i offer what i feel to be logical reasons there's no objective, blind tests, i ask of you where's the data that proves that any difference between any dacs is not perceivable by human ears? Where's the data that says there is no possible way for a dac to deviate from a typical dac that such deviation is perceivable by humans? You did say that all dacs are the same, right?

I'm not like a superhero or have like special hearing abilities but one other thing we must consider is that if you take a sample of a bunch of humans and make them do sprints, you'd probably conclude that no human can do a 100m sprint in less than 10. Or may be a conclusion that the average human being can sprint 100m in 18 seconds. This by is by no means conclusive that it is impossible to do so. So in experiments such as audibility, conclusions must be drawn based on likelihoods and probabilities. Such as in general 80% of folks cannot hear something or whatever not that it is impossible to.


----------



## SilverEars

Anyway, looks like people have have their belifs(and I respect that as I hope they respect other's beliefs), it's probably best to keep an open mind for possibilities.  Closed mindedness does not lead to discoveries.


----------



## paradoxper

x838nwy said:


> And bigshot's claims - as far as i know - are also based on sighted tests of a limited number of dacs and himself. There's nothing wrong with his statement and i'm not saying he's wrong. But my opinion is of another direction.
> 
> Now if you feel my opinions are invalid and more importantly unsuitable for this thread because even though i offer what i feel to be logical reasons there's no objective, blind tests, i ask of you where's the data that proves that any difference between any dacs is not perceivable by human ears? Where's the data that says there is no possible way for a dac to deviate from a typical dac that such deviation is perceivable by humans? You did say that all dacs are the same, right?
> 
> I'm not like a superhero or have like special hearing abilities but one other thing we must consider is that if you take a sample of a bunch of humans and make them do sprints, you'd probably conclude that no human can do a 100m sprint in less than 10. Or may be a conclusion that the average human being can sprint 100m in 18 seconds. This by is by no means conclusive that it is impossible to do so. So in experiments such as audibility, conclusions must be drawn based on likelihoods and probabilities. Such as in general 80% of folks cannot hear something or whatever not that it is impossible to.


 
 I think what you have to say is fine, however, it's completely contrary to how these parts work. Just the same as the rest of the forum being DBT-free, etc. I would think one would want to respect that. But at the same time -- these folks really are hated. So.
  
 And by injecting some anecdotal 'evidence' of one's evaluation of DACs without following some proper procedures -- I find, well, disrespectful.
  
 Lastly, if you look at my gear -- I'm in the wrong. I enjoy this hobby purely subjectively, but again, I respect these guys and their thinking. And hell -- they COULD just be
 on to something. That is, they could be right all along.
  
 After all, STILL none has passed a DBT, hm. If things were only SOO apparent, right? 
  
 And stop using irrelevant analogies, the same stupid crap takes place in the rest of the forum to push people's points. Stop it.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Umm yes they do indicate differences were perceived. Consistently so. Do things not count as fact unless level-matched? When you change songs do you need to level match to confirm that you have, in fact, done so? I don't think you would, so there IS some information we can gain from listening without level matching, correct? I wasn't present at the time, but i doubt they were doing their listening at wildly different levels and at these levels they found differences. Not if the perceived differences only came about through things being louder, the loudest dac in the test surely would have done. I do not recall that it did. (Will check.)
> 
> As for the statement "analog design doesn't matter" really? Where's the proof of this? Isn't amplifier/buffer design all about reducing distortion? What if it was poorly designed? We've seen competent companies stumble before - meridian explorer with it's high output impedance, akg 812 with its funky square wave response (source: inner fidelity) so some quite blatant oddities that would have showed up in the design stage do reach the market. Who's to say there are none in dacs?
> 
> ...


 
 You, me, anyone, has no little chance of combating bias of all kinds.  If you listen to DAC A, compare it to B and decide B is better you will be off on a long chain of events that simply cement B as being better in your mind.  It isn't to belittle you or anyone.  It simply is how things have been found to work.  So, miss the level even a tiny bit, and voila, you decide B is better than A.  The fact someone consistently prefers B isn't enough to validate the difference by itself under such conditions.  It can seem so very real as is possible, and yet be misleading.
  
 As for the statement analog design doesn't matter?  I never made that statement.  I did say if the analog circuits were of a enough quality to be audibly transparent the circuit didn't matter.  A subtle, but important difference.

 As for claims here being without data and like unicorns, there is plenty of good data.  Far better more useful data than some guys heard some stuff and agreed on what was better. 
  
 You next ask about all sound the same or most do.  Look DACs are in all sorts of items these days.  Old laptop computers have not so terrible DACs, but are backed by audibly noisy analog chips and other issues that can be audible like inadequate drive for headphones or even some pre-amps resulting in audible levels of distortion or frequency response variations.  So by all DACs we would say everything in the world.  That isn't what is being claimed here.  Modern DACs competently designed which need not cost all that much money can be audibly transparent.  And most of those available are.    If you keep listening to high end purveyors, of course they will feed you all sorts of rationalization about why their product is different and better.  Is reference voltage for DACs important?  Sure it is.  But once it is good enough it is good enough you can't hear it if it gets better.  You want information such differences don't matter.  Conclusively for all time proving a negative is unlikely to be conservative.  But there is lots of info indicating such is the most probably result, and it is those claiming a difference who lack credible data these things actually sound different in a way humans can hear.
  
 In the science forum, no Purrin's comments and tests are not as valid as anything.  Yes, the observations can be discussed as in why such a comparison isn't revealing, but instead contributes to confusion. 
  
 You are the second person asking what DACs I listened to.  In the subjective world having heard with your own ears the leading contenders is apparently taken as form of credibility.  And of course I think most here have probably listened to products to see if there is anything to it.  Without stopping to count I couldn't say how many DACs I have listened to extensively.  Probably something like 50 or so over all the years since digital audio was available.  Of course not all auditioning was blind or even level matched.  Just like others such uncontrolled conditions made some DACs seem clearly superior.  Match levels and some seemed mildly superior.  Do it without knowing and they seem the same.  I am excepting some that were different for known reasons.  One well known maker has an audibly different frequency response due to the filtering used.  Of course it sounded different, even level matched.  A couple of others were using tube output stages with also compromised frequency response and really sounded different. 
  
 So if you have facts unveil them.  Just realize unmatched, uncontrolled, sighted listening has many pitfalls and is not a reliable basis for such distinctions.  Didn't you find such to be the case in your own tests of audiophile cable?


----------



## x838nwy

paradoxper said:


> I think what you have to say is fine, however, it's completely contrary to how these parts work. Just the same as the rest of the forum being DBT-free, etc. I would think one would want to respect that. But at the same time -- these folks really are hated. So.
> 
> And by injecting some anecdotal 'evidence' of one's evaluation of DACs without following some proper procedures -- I find, well, disrespectful.
> 
> ...




If my analogies irk you, please skip over them. I try to talk from principles that apply universally and not just audio and sometimes examples away from the topic calls up less emotion. May be i'm wrong.

I was not aware that me saying i hear differences between dacs or that a group of guys (who weren't shy about voicing their opinion) felt there's a difference between dacs is any more or less respectful than someone saying they do not. I think someone also mentioned some 'test' some one did also. None of us cited any scientific reference of any kind, just opinions and thoughts. 

Anyhow, for the fans of objectivity, please read the odac development blog. It talks about 4 revisions of the design iirc. There was even a point where the designer mentioned that a tubed output stage would color the sound and earlier he specifically said that (this revision) is not even close to what the chip cam deliver but "many companies would stop here". That version had nothing wrong with it, it just wasn't optimum in a few areas. Between the lines and knowing that his work are closely based on audible results, it means dacs of even similar designs can sound different, according to him.


----------



## paradoxper

Fair enough. IT does irk me, but I'll live.
  
 I said my small piece and 'round these parts enjoy reading more than blabbering, so to the shadows I shall go.


----------



## x838nwy

Esldude - i actually think we're on the same page on most things. I never said that more expensive dacs are better neither did i say that cheap dacs are no good. If you go back to my original post on the subject, i said the differences are possible and design play a large role. This was in response to a claim that there was no difference between (hifi) dacs while there is - you yourself mentioned on manufacturer using a different filter.

The purrin thing i referred to simply as they used some of the dacs i have or have heard so that it's not all in my head or all that the dealer's facilities.

Data - i cannot find any that leads to a conclusion that shows there is no difference between dacs. None that is more stringent of conditions than a bunch of guys listening to stuff. The only addition was that it was done blind.

In my little tests, the differences were tiny if they were even there at all. But the differences between dacs in my (probably invalid again) experience can be very apparent that in my opinion it is not an absolute requirement to do so blind. I'm not saying sighted tests are as valid, but for cases between some dacs, there's no need specially if it's to see if they are different.


----------



## limpidglitch

x838nwy said:


> This was in response to a claim that there was no difference between (hifi) dacs while there is - you yourself mentioned on manufacturer using a different filter.


 

 Different filter, as in:
 –"Holy smokes, dude, output's -3dB at 15kHz, and look at those side bands. Something must be wrong here!"
 –"Naw, man, it's audiophile, innit. 'tis s'posed to be like tha' – pass me the filters, and the papers, will ya?"

 We've all seen the the horror stories, Wadia, Macintosh, HiFi-man etc. Of course a DAC can sound different if it's been sufficiently botched up.


----------



## Astropin

Look, as I said earlier. Find the most expensive DAC you can (that you think earns that price point) and I'll put up my $60 DAC in a DBT anytime, any day.
  
 We run enough trials and you will not be able to consistently pick the more expensive DAC. I'd put money on it.


----------



## SilverEars

limpidglitch said:


> Different filter, as in:
> –"Holy smokes, dude, output's -3dB at 15kHz, and look at those side bands. Something must be wrong here!"
> –"Naw, man, it's audiophile, innit. 'tis s'posed to be like tha' – pass me the filters, and the papers, will ya?"
> 
> We've all seen the the* horror stories, Wadia, Macintosh, HiFi-man etc*. Of course a DAC can sound different if it's been sufficiently botched up.


 
 Can you tell me where I can read up these stories you are referring to?


----------



## limpidglitch

silverears said:


> Can you tell me where I can read up these stories you are referring to?


 

 I can't remember the specific model of Wadia, but they seem to prefer slow roll-off for many of their DACses.
 Macintosh had that music server a while back, and HiFi-man had the HM-801.
 The NuForce uDac and CDP were pretty bad too.

 Stereophile has measurements for most of these, you-know-who measured the uDAC, and various RMAA runs exist of the HM-801.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Esldude - i actually think we're on the same page on most things. I never said that more expensive dacs are better neither did i say that cheap dacs are no good. If you go back to my original post on the subject, i said the differences are possible and design play a large role. This was in response to a claim that there was no difference between (hifi) dacs while there is - you yourself mentioned on manufacturer using a different filter.
> 
> The purrin thing i referred to simply as they used some of the dacs i have or have heard so that it's not all in my head or all that the dealer's facilities.
> 
> ...


 

 I know sighted listening of DACs sounds convincing.  But like other things it just doesn't pan out.
  
 You say you cannot find data leading to the conclusion there isn't a difference between DACs that is more stringent than guys listening to stuff.   There is plenty.
  
 Frequency response is 20hz-20khz for humans.  Keep that flat and there is no room for that to matter.   Generally distortion is inaudible below .1% and usually much higher with music.  Signal to noise, instantaneous SNR for ears is maybe 60 db but just to be safe less ask for 80 db.  But with the fact few rooms are quieter than 30 db noise levels adding 96 db on top of that puts you over the threshold of pain.  None of this is unsupported data.  It is all well established material.  I am not going to cite each and every source for that, but if you doubt it such is easy to find.  Or we can point to textbooks with the info for you to read.  So, did I mention DACs in this paragraph yet?  Nope I didn't.  However, any musical delivery system, any blackbox that can take in a music signal digital or analog and put it out with accuracy equal to or better than the above envelope will sound audibly transparent.  .01% THD will not sound audibly different than .00001%.  So on and so forth. 
  
 So  looking at the above guidelines how many DAC's fail to be flat in response, less than .1% in THD and IMD, with less than 80 db of SNR?  I think you will find the answer is very few indeed.  So for a DAC to sound different you need a signal different.  When the differences lie at extremely low levels (and they do I have measured a few, so have many people) what is present in the signal to hear as better or worse?  So no we don't go around performing an ABX test on every pair of DACs in existence.  We don't need to do so.  We have well supported data to the abilities of human hearing, and when something fits well within it the result won't be discernibly different.  Those times when more rigorous testing has been done give results that line up with that knowledge.  No need to re-invent the wheel in each case so to speak. 
  
 Now the other part of this is how we get fooled in hearing differences we can perceive as so real, but aren't there.  In this there is much data, much research, not just in hearing, but in all of our senses showing how easily our brain generates non existent differences.  Our brains could be described as pattern matching difference engines.  Predisposed in a myriad of ways for finding a difference.  There was great evolutionary and survival value in that built in bias.  But at the margins of perception it generates differences which aren't real.  Usually it is much safer to operate on possible differences that aren't real than it is to perhaps miss a difference which is real.  Real missed differences could cost you your life.  Just as obviously is the emotional, gut level, strength at which those perceptions will function.  It had survival value for our kind.  But in a modern context for which we have not biologically adapted it can lead you astray.  Buying overly complex or expensive audio equipment isn't deadly for the most part.


----------



## x838nwy

limpidglitch said:


> Different filter, as in:
> 
> –"Holy smokes, dude, output's -3dB at 15kHz, and look at those side bands. Something must be wrong here!"
> 
> ...




Umm no, not that one. Although i don't know which esldude was talking about, there are many dacs that have switchable filters (apodising, pre/post ringing, that sort of thing) in the digital domain. I think Meridian use their own one of these which is supposedly different to others. What esldude mentioned sounds like an analogue filter, so best pm him to find out.


----------



## SilverEars

limpidglitch said:


> I can't remember the specific model of Wadia, but they seem to prefer slow roll-off for many of their DACses.
> Macintosh had that music server a while back, and HiFi-man had the HM-801.
> The NuForce uDac and CDP were pretty bad too.
> 
> Stereophile has measurements for most of these, you-know-who measured the uDAC, and various RMAA runs exist of the HM-801.


 
 Looks like Wadia and HM-801 use PCM1704K.  This seems like poor choice of DAC chip used or I don't know why they chose that one.  Any ideas??  I know about u know who.  These were unacceptable. I really don't know what was going through their minds.  How can they design a circuit with measurements like this?  It's so rediculous.


----------



## limpidglitch

x838nwy said:


> Umm no, not that one. Although i don't know which esldude was talking about, there are many dacs that have switchable filters (*apodising, pre/post ringing, that sort of thing*) in the digital domain. I think Meridian use their own one of these which is supposedly different to others. What esldude mentioned sounds like an analogue filter, so best pm him to find out.





  
 Mostly gimmick, I'm afraid. Different reconstruction filters have different draw backs, but applied correctly any of them will operate transparently.
  
  
 Quote:


silverears said:


> Looks like Wadia and HM-801 use PCM1704K.  This seems like poor choice of DAC chip used or I don't know why they chose that one.  Any ideas??  I know about u know who.  These were unacceptable. I really don't know what was going through their minds.  *How can they design a circuit with measurements like this?*  It's so rediculous.


 

 Design by ear? Sighted listening tests?
 To be fair, the HM-801 is orders of magnitude worse than the Wadia. I doubt I could detect -.5dB at 14kHz, or whatever it is.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> Can you tell me where I can read up these stories you are referring to?


 

 I can testify to Wadia.  I owned a couple of them.  They used different filters which did result in something like -3 db at 15 khz which in those days I could hear.   Now I may or may not notice it.  They also had kick ass output stages with the ability to put out several volts and very low output impedance.  Fittingly enough one of those is why I learned about level matching somewhat.  I loaned it out to several audiophile friends for weeks at a time.  All thought it great.  Now all had to turn it down as it put out something like 4.5 volts vs usually somewhere around 2-2.5 volts for others.  I got to noticing everyone turned it down, but not quite enough.  Eventually I would go to retrieve it and insist on level matching for a final audition before I took it home.  Several people who had raved about it when comparing it sighted to level matched DACs they owned found,   "oops, not as different as I thought".  None could shake the idea the Wadia was better, but they did hear it was not the huge difference they thought it was. 
  
 Now the latter Wadia also convinced me that digital was not a problem. It was a Wadia 25.  I paired it with an MSB AD converter.  People thought I was crazy to digitize my phono.  But it simply was so transparent as to be a big step forward.  Phono, reel-to-reel tape from my Revox, even FM radio seemed simply transparent.  The MSB seemed to do nothing more than a set of analog interconnects.  Feed the digital result to the 25 which had a good digital volume control and I had very nice sound.   The great thing is you can get that for a fraction of the price with current equipment.  So really the MSB Audio Director AD is really what convinced me.  I digitized all analog fed it to the Wadia and controlled volume digitally.  The Wadia did sound different, different by design.  Not fully transparent in fact.


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> I know sighted listening of DACs sounds convincing.  But like other things it just doesn't pan out.
> 
> You say you cannot find data leading to the conclusion there isn't a difference between DACs that is more stringent than guys listening to stuff.   There is plenty.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Stuff in bold: Yup, that's pretty much normal.
  
 Sutff underlined: That's very few. Different to none. Even "hifi" DACS. SilverEars just managed to post an FR that isn't flat to 20kHz.
  
 Stuff in bold + italics: The magnitude of the difference really depends on the DAC. I'm sure if you listen to the Wadia or the 801 posted earlier, you'd notice a difference between them and other DACs. I'm pretty sure the difference between the HM-801 and the Clip+ will be audible.
  
 I really think we're arguing over different things here. What you seem to be saying is that all modern Hi-fi DACs are the same. I am saying NOT ALL of them are the same. Most are very similar, but not ALL. I'm not talking about only obscure DACS from flea bay, but DACs you find on most audio forums and sites. That is all. I am not stating that there is, say a difference between a Mytek and a Benchmark or whatever. Simply that not ALL sound the same.
  
 The information I mentioned I cannot find is that there is no information that states that ALL DACS sound the same.
  
 Again, I refer you to the ODAC's development blog. One part of the very long blog mentions:
  


> The ODAC has been through four lengthy revisions—two of the earlier boards are shown to the right. Despite the fact we started with essentially the reference design from the datasheets, the devil was in the details. The  first version played music and sounded OK. Many companies and DIYers that “design by ear” would have stopped there. But that first version didn’t come close to delivering what the DAC chip is capable of. Each revision cycle took at least several weeks, cost hundreds of dollars, and involved countless hours of work. But, in the end, it resulted in _much_better performance compared to where we started..


 
  
 I'd like to focus on the "much better performance" part. The designer was someone who's never far away from the "what's audible" since the start and began with what was close to what you mentioned in terms of human hearing ability. So I am assuming that he's saying version 4 is audibly better than version 3, 2 or 1.
  
 At the end he said that in a blind test he and one other could not tell the difference between ODAC rev.4 and the Benchmark 1. Which is great and follows what you're saying. But had they stuck to Rev.1, 2 or 3 for production it would not have been. Which is sort of my point - *DACs can be designed poorly and the difference between a poorly designed DAC and a well designed one is audible.* I don't know how good DAC's are in things like cheap CD players and so on, but the ODAC was designed using many very sophisticated equipment and the designer himself insisted that he would not be able to achieve this result without said equipment. Some people design "by ear" and some simply just don't have the test equipment or simply do not/cannot use them who knows. But it is possible to design a poor dec and even more possible to sell them.


----------



## x838nwy

> Originally Posted by *esldude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> <Snip>
> 
> ...


 
  
  


esldude said:


> <Snip>
> 
> Now if a device like a DAC gets the same data stream, puts out an analog result that is close enough to be audibly transparent it will sound the same.  Chips to make it happen don't matter, _*analog design don't matter*_, switched or linear supplies don't matter, just the resulting signal.  The resulting signal is what you actually listen to in the end.
> 
> <Snip>


 
  
 Just for your information that I didn't claim you said what you didn't. I think your point is that you're looking at the DAC as a box and its output as the RCA or XLR output.
  
 What I was talking about was that while DAC chips do the same thing for a given input, the analogue design stage will influence the final output. As such the analogue stage is one more variable for DACs to sound different.


----------



## SilverEars

I own several DACs, and continue to look for better DACs because I hear differences.  Dragonfly which was popularized for it's asynchronous ability sounds very smooth, lacking details.  One of my headphones can pick up certain details because of it's sound signature the other cannot.  The one that cannot pick up the subtle details from the dragonfly, puts out the details when sourced from ODAC.  I also have gamma 2.  I have fed in both(Gamma 2 and ODAC) to my Objective 2 amp, and can decern difference between the two as ODAC sound more transparent.  Matter a fact, ODAC is probably my favorite DAC as it sounds transparent compared to my other sources.  I have also tried the Fiio E17, which does have a more colder sound signature, and not as transparent as the ODAC.  I hear the differences, and if you do not, that's fine.  No need to waste you money on looking for best DAC.  All of these have measurements public and all are spec'd less than what are audible distortions.  I haven't found measurements for Dragonfly though. 
  
 I'm not looking for the most expensive DAC or have the desire to spend a lot, but I need to know if high end DACs make sonic difference as I'm searching for greater sounding setup.  Some maybe hogwash, but there are many out there, and I do research to make as much educated guess as possible for my purchases.  I have not delved into expensive DACs yet, but I'm itching to because I'm curious.  The way I think about it is, I cannot know if there is not difference unless I try listening to DACs and compare them. I long figured out specs cannot help me know how they would sound.
  
 I have also listened to the overpriced AK240, and was surprised.  I unfortunately compared it to my galaxy s4, and it was very obvious coming out of Ultimate Ears reference monitors IEM.  My opinion is based on my own experiences, you experiences may differ.  I like to try everything before concluding.  I like to make the most educated purchases, but people that has tried lot more gear blindly know much more than I do on what sounds the best since they have tried many gear.


----------



## ab initio

Should we start a new thread to discuss issues with DAC design? Because it's a little off topic in the cables thread.
  
 Anyone know the science behind "diode effects" in "directional, burned-in" cables?
  
 How about dielectric-bias systems?
  
  
 Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

ab initio said:


> Should we start a new thread to discuss issues with DAC design? Because it's a little off topic in the cables thread.
> 
> Anyone know the science behind "diode effects" in "directional, burned-in" cables?
> 
> ...




Yeah, it was going off a bit wasn't it 

And yes, the cable directionality thing actually exist i found. In XLR cables. Plugging them in the wrong way round really messes up the sq. 

Sorry, that was a really bad joke.


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Yeah, it was going off a bit wasn't it
> 
> And yes, the cable directionality thing actually exist i found. In XLR cables. Plugging them in the wrong way round really messes up the sq.
> 
> Sorry, that was a really bad joke.




I'm all for bad jokes!

Cheers


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *x838nwy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Sutff underlined: That's very few. Different to none. Even "hifi" DACS. SilverEars just managed to post an FR that isn't flat to 20kHz.


 
   
The cheap DAPs look fine. It is only the HM-801 that looks bad, and that is mainly because it intentionally uses outdated (non-oversampling) DAC technology which is "better" according to audiophile beliefs. It seems the problems are often with the expensive boutique products, while those they are intended to "upgrade" (iPods, sound cards, etc.) work fine, so maybe it is better to just avoid them, and not try to fix what is not broken ?


----------



## elmoe

astropin said:


> Look, as I said earlier. Find the most expensive DAC you can (that you think earns that price point) and I'll put up my $60 DAC in a DBT anytime, any day.
> 
> We run enough trials and you will not be able to consistently pick the more expensive DAC. I'd put money on it.


 
  
 That's interesting, and I'm assuming you're talking about the uDac2?
  
 Going from the measurements, it is clear that the udac2 is one of the examples of a badly made DAC, and I will take you up on the DBT vs my Benchmark DAC-1 anyday - how much money would you like to put on it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 To be fair, there are a lot of DACs in the 1000 dollar range that do a better, AUDIBLE job than most of the 100 dollar range DACs out there. I am talking about MEASURABLE, AUDIBLE differences.
  
 Are the differences HUGE? Well that depends on what's huge to you or not. Is it worth spending an extra 800 bucks to get the DAC-1 for these differences? To me it was, and still is.
  
 Now onto personal experience: I did my own DBT, level matched test between all the sources I own. The DAC-1, my Samsung Galaxy S2 phone, my Realtek onboard soundcard and an Emu 1212M soundcard. I could tell them apart 10/10 times. So certainly, while theoretically, DACs should all sound the same, the reality is different.
  
 Now, past the thousand dollar point (for me, my DAC-1), will there be worthwhile upgrades? That remains to be seen. I've heard higher end DACs like the NAD M51 that subjectively sounded better to my ears. I wasn't able to compare directly though, so jury's still out.


----------



## limpidglitch

The uDAC has since been revised. Those measurements hold no more than academical interest.


----------



## SilverEars

stv014 said:


> The cheap DAPs look fine. It is only the HM-801 that looks bad, and that is mainly because *it intentionally uses outdated (non-oversampling) DAC technology which is "better" according to audiophile beliefs*. It seems the problems are often with the expensive boutique products, while those they are intended to "upgrade" (iPods, sound cards, etc.) work fine, so maybe it is better to just avoid them, and not try to fix what is not broken ?


 
 Yes, I recall people talking about this around that time.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And, look at the HM-901 now, it's using the newer dual desktop ESS9018 (other is the mobile version ESS9018K2M with 4 channels per chip), I guess HM learned his lesson.  Each has 8 channels of signal path with total of 16 channels. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've heard each 9018 costs $65 whereas 9023 the one ODAC is using with costs $5 each.  
  
 Based on the treble roll-offs on both graphs and both using same chip, I was assuming it's the chip causing it.
  
 Is it true that ODAC was designed around the chip using only parts that are on the datasheet to get the chip to function to reduce the cost?  If so, that works for me as it's the best DAC I've heard so far, I'm trying to find something better.


----------



## elmoe

limpidglitch said:


> The uDAC has since been revised. Those measurements hold no more than academical interest.


 
  
 Great, though personally I wouldn't give my money to a company that can't even measure and design their product accurately the first time. So the interest is more than just academical.


----------



## paradoxper

For those that say they've DBT, etc and can ALWAYS tell the difference. Why is it in a controlled environment no-one has ever passed a DBT.
 I hate to call you all liars, but it's just, well, sketchy, ain't it?


----------



## elmoe

paradoxper said:


> For those that say they've DBT, etc and can ALWAYS tell the difference. Why is it in a controlled environment no-one has ever passed a DBT.
> I hate to call you all liars, but it's just, well, sketchy, ain't it?


 
  
  
 Be it sketchy or not, between the gear I listed, there was a definite difference. Whether you believe that or not is of no consequence to me (which is why I haven't argued extensively on the DAC topic), I tested it out for myself, heard what I heard, and that's good enough for me.
  
 That brings on another question: how many tests in a controlled environment have you actually heard of? Real documented tests made by professionals with published results in a renowned scientific publication comparing DACs in a DBT?
  
 An interesting observation: seems a little hypocritical to have a guy who it seems has owned over 10 thousand dollars worth of DACs and still owns a Cantata (I'm guessing the music center?) which costs 7000 dollars put into question the fact that different DACs can be differentiated in a DBT... Do you just waste thousands and thousands of dollars on your gear for fun then?


----------



## paradoxper

elmoe said:


> Be it sketchy or not, between the gear I listed, there was a definite difference. Whether you believe that or not is of no consequence to me (which is why I haven't argued extensively on the DAC topic), I tested it out for myself, heard what I heard, and that's good enough for me.
> 
> That brings on another question: how many tests in a controlled environment have you actually heard of? Real documented tests made by professionals with published results in a renowned scientific publication comparing DACs in a DBT?
> 
> An interesting observation: seems a little hypocritical to have a guy who it seems has owned over 10 thousand dollars worth of DACs and still owns a Cantata (I'm guessing the music center?) which costs 7000 dollars put into question the fact that different DACs can be differentiated in a DBT... Do you just waste thousands and thousands of dollars on your gear for fun then?


 
 It's just hard to believe 10/10 -- when it's been shown that none have passed a DBT.
 Perhaps there haven't been enough tests done, but still none have passed those given. Not to mention all the foolery over the years. It just seems a bit funky to me.
 I am bit young so I can't cite specifics to you, but I'm sure someone else may be able to provide that info.
  
 It's not hypocritical at all. I never said all DACs sound the same, did I? I've already stated that yea, here -- I go against the grain..AND could very well be wrong.
 I also acknowledge how no-one has demonstrated the ability to pass a DBT. I don't review gear -- for this reason. Subjectivity rules my enjoyment of this hobby
 and in that, gear will differ person to person -- what is best, neutral, etc. So I don't bother trying to write gospel.
  
 All that said, I think it's irrelevant. Maybe I like the Cantata's looks -- that could possibly sound the same as an ODAC -- I'm willing to shell out for aesthetics? I'm neurotic, sorry.
 And what if I'm wasting thousands of dollars for fun? That is of no consequence to you. The fact remains, there's lots of bogus claims. And around these parts
 simply saying I heard what I heard and trust my ears and that's good enough for me isn't going to cut it.
  
 I just question if there weren't other factors in your test that introduced bias, etc.


----------



## elmoe

paradoxper said:


> It's just hard to believe 10/10 -- when it's been shown that none have passed a DBT.
> Perhaps there haven't been enough tests done, but still none have passed those given. Not to mention all the foolery over the years. It just seems a bit funky to me.
> I am bit young so I can't cite specifics to you, but I'm sure someone else may be able to provide that info.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Where has it been shown? I've seen some DBTs with positive results when comparing DACs before, be it due to bad designs or something else. It seems you haven't even bothered clicking the links I provided, there's a double blind test comparison on there. Certainly the results aren't perfect, but they are coincidentally (?) contingent with what should be expected. Many DBTs do fail, but there are some that do not. You're young and can't cite specifics? So you're basing your opinion on what, word of mouth? Sorry but I've done my research, and while you're right for a big majority, there are still some properly done DBTs that show some differences can be heard between some sources. I encourage you to go through this particular topic, it's very interesting:
  
 http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777
  
 Especially the french DBTs (helps to speak French for those though).
  
 You're definitely contradicting yourself though. On the one hand, you're willing to spend tens of thousands for higher quality sound (or is it purely aesthetic? Because I'd be more than willing to put an ODAC in a big fancy case with LCD display for you if you're willing to give me 20k for it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), on the other hand you're arguing that nobody has passed a DBT (which again, is wrong). Of course it's of no consequence to me, it's your money, I'm the first to admit I spent my fair share of hard earned bucks on audio equipment, but I actually have tested and came to the conclusion that it does in fact make a difference...
  
 If you need to question my test that's fine. In fact, you should, so much so that you should do your own tests, and figure things out for yourself. My only goal is satisfying my own curiosity, whether or not others believe the validity of whatever I do is of no consequence to me. I just gave you plenty of other tests (some positive, most negative), you can believe whatever you want to believe. I didn't film myself or have any kind of record of my results to begin with, so there's no point arguing about it. I've been thoroughly schooled on these very forums on the proper procedure of a DBT, which is enough for me.
  
 edit: here is another interesting one, scroll down for the procedure:
  
 http://forums.audioreview.com/digital-domain-computer-audio/hifi-choice-dac-blind-listening-test-35748.html


----------



## paradoxper

elmoe said:


> Where has it been shown? I've seen some DBTs with positive results when comparing DACs before, be it due to bad designs or something else. It seems you haven't even bothered clicking the links I provided, there's a double blind test comparison on there. Certainly the results aren't perfect, but they are coincidentally (?) contingent with what should be expected. Many DBTs do fail, but there are some that do not. You're young and can't cite specifics? So you're basing your opinion on what, word of mouth? Sorry but I've done my research, and while you're right for a big majority, there are still some properly done DBTs that show some differences can be heard between some sources. I encourage you to go through this particular topic, it's very interesting:
> 
> http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777
> 
> ...


 
 With repeatable results? No. IF you say 10/10 times you can tell the difference, then that generally should be repeatable, but has not been the case.
 Unless, that is, you have Golden Ears?
  
 Citing specifics like providing you exact links, etc. Over the years AVS, HA, AA etc there are countless discussions, experiments, et cetera. You can look for them. 
 You may well believe that fluke performances are burden of proof, I do not. 
  
 I still don't see how that's contradicting? IF DBT's are indeed impassable, I've already stated I approach this hobby purely subjectively. That is, perhaps
 bias/placebo influences my perceived experience of increased performance, which is where I justify the costs of gear?
  
 That's fine. Post up your experiences/tests or whatever else. But it shouldn't be a shock that one question's your methods or results.


----------



## elmoe

paradoxper said:


> With repeatable results? No. IF you say 10/10 times you can tell the difference, then that generally should be repeatable, but has not been the case.
> Unless, that is, you have Golden Ears?
> 
> Citing specifics like providing you exact links, etc. Over the years AVS, HA, AA etc there are countless discussions, experiments, et cetera. You can look for them.
> ...


 
  





 Alrighty then.


----------



## castleofargh

if the differences in the music are for sounds below -80db, then usual listening should never be able to discriminate between 2 dacs (or amps, or cables or anything). that's my vision of things and when I call something inaudible.
 because how something is audible when playing no sound doesn't matter. we're buying audio systems to listen to music.
 from my own pseudo trials of very dubious nature, I seem to be easily bothered by sounds around -60db below music. and up to -70db/-75db on silent parts while paying mighty attention and knowing what I'm looking for(all that while avoiding listening loud because I actually hear less from loud music). I'm pretty much never listening at 90 or 100db.
 something at -75db with music playing above, I honestly don't hear it. and I'm not talking about white noise, I'm talking about another music or my own voice recorded at -75db and under, on music with the loudest part close to 0db. my tests were not rigorous but the scale of sounds was always in that range.
 so -80db (or 0.01%) sounds to me like a very safe zone of inaudibility when music is playing at normal levels at the same time.
  
 based on that, if all the measurements (I feel like a broken record) of time errors, distortion, and noise are below -80db. if the frequency response of both gears have less than 0.2db variations, if crosstalk is around the same values. and if the same voltage gets into the amp. then I can positively say that they will sound the same to me, and I'm pretty confident that they will sound the same for pretty much everybody.
 it's not theory, it's not wild guess, if all those factors are true, I will end up with music playing at the same volume level on both gears, and sounding exactly the same up to -80db, sound level that I don't hear when playing music. that's my definition of sounding the same and a lot of dacs should be able to deliver just that without involving big prices.
  
  
 so if someone is really having audible differences on 2 dacs measuring well under -80db for everything , I would say that the measures are wrong on one of the dacs (manufacturer specs are often very wrong).
 and most of the times, I would guess that differences are frequency response related(sound signature) or volume level related( just like cables). and impedance might be one of the reasons why. 
  
 that is why a good DBT will show no difference. because a good DBT would try to get rid of any frequency or volume level mismatch before starting the test, to free the listeners from those bias and let them concentrate on the rest.
  
  
  
  
 now if money was not a concern to me, I would probably want to buy a benchmark too. and I might when everything else in my system will be close to perfection. let's be honest, knowing I have one of, if not the best, can be very much satisfying I would guess.
 but then I certainly wouldn't go for a tube amp  . cause spending money to get rid of -90db noises when a tube amp will create distortions probably above -60db (0.1%), it doesn't sound like a reasonable move. as always it's a matter of proportions and what we are really trying to obtain. nice sound or real sound?


----------



## elmoe

Exactly right. To my ears the Benchmark on its own is too bright, almost shrill in fact, no matter if I use its headphones out or use it as a preamp feeding the power amp. I also absolutely love the sound of my tube amp/preamp, and I couldn't care less about what's "real" or "high fidelity" if what I have sounds better. I'm not the only one, a great many Head-fiers who own the DAC-1 also own tube amps, and the pair sounds.. well... simply awesome. In the end the final judge is always going to be my ears...
  
 Anyway, to follow up on what you're saying, I agree about volume matching, but how would you take care of frequency mismatch? What would be the point of that since that's exactly what (seemingly) causes the differences to begin with? A good DBT will show differences if differences there are, and none if there are none.


----------



## bigshot

If there is a frequency response imbalance, I wouldn't bother to test it any further. I'd box it up and send it back to the store. No excuse for that. Even cheap equipment can control that.
  
 It's a pain in the rear to have sources with different response curves. I apply equalization at the last step to correct for my speakers and room. If the sources didn't match, I'd need EQ settings for every source. Chaos.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> based on that, if all the measurements (I feel like a broken record) of time errors, distortion, and noise are below -80db. if the frequency response of both gears have less than 0.2db variations, if crosstalk is around the same values. and if the same voltage gets into the amp. then I can positively say that they will sound the same to me, and I'm pretty confident that they will sound the same for pretty much everybody.


 
  
 It depends on the type of noise or distortion too. What you are quoting here is absolute worst case. In the real world, stats wouldn't even have to be this good to be audibly transparent.


----------



## castleofargh

yup I always go for the real bad situation(but still trying to use actual values) as I believe that if my argument can stand with it, it can stand always in practical situations.
  


elmoe said:


> Anyway, to follow up on what you're saying, I agree about volume matching, but how would you take care of frequency mismatch? What would be the point of that since that's exactly what (seemingly) causes the differences to begin with? A good DBT will show differences if differences there are, and none if there are none.


 
 well good point. a real objective DBT would probably not pass on this(that's where you know I'm only half assed objectivist^_^). I though it would be ok for some slight 0.2 or 0.3db roll off, else I would act like bigshot stated and get rid of it. I would EQ it, given that a very small EQ would have very little negative effects, it should at least be in the inaudible range. so a much better option than an audible roll off IMO. (I'm talking hypothetical situation here, I don't even have anything to match levels at home).
 from that, if the results were to show people guessing, as it usually does for dacs with god specs, I wouldn't bother looking further. if on the other hand, the one upon which I used EQ is clearly disliked and identified, then it would be a real problem ^_^.
 I guess I could apply the EQ to the other one to determine if we're judging the EQ or the dac.


----------



## bigshot

Good luck discerning the frequency response deviations in digital audio with human ears!


----------



## elmoe

Not doubt but we are talking about analog audio here since any distinction will be made after the conversion and the analog signal going through the output phase.


----------



## cjl

elmoe said:


> Exactly right. To my ears the Benchmark on its own is too bright, almost shrill in fact, no matter if I use its headphones out or use it as a preamp feeding the power amp. I also absolutely love the sound of my tube amp/preamp, and I couldn't care less about what's "real" or "high fidelity" if what I have sounds better. I'm not the only one, a great many Head-fiers who own the DAC-1 also own tube amps, and the pair sounds.. well... simply awesome. In the end the final judge is always going to be my ears...


 
 Considering that the Benchmark is one of the best-measuring pieces of audio equipment that money can buy (at any price), this tells me that you are either subconsciously biased against solid state (due to your love of tubes) and hearing flaws that aren't there, or you have trained yourself to like a poor frequency response and your tube gear is rolling off the highs pretty severely. The easy way to tell which one is the case would be to do a blinded test, or to measure the tube gear and see what it's doing to the signal.


----------



## elmoe

cjl said:


> Considering that the Benchmark is one of the best-measuring pieces of audio equipment that money can buy (at any price), this tells me that you are either subconsciously biased against solid state (due to your love of tubes) and hearing flaws that aren't there, or you have trained yourself to like a poor frequency response and your tube gear is rolling off the highs pretty severely. The easy way to tell which one is the case would be to do a blinded test, or to measure the tube gear and see what it's doing to the signal.


 
  
 Hadn't heard tubes before I bought the DAC1 (years ago, it was my first DAC), and found it to be bright, so no subconscious tube bias could exist then. My opinion on the DAC1 is pretty much commonplace amongst its owners though, almost every single review you can read finds it bright. Maybe I've "trained myself" as you put it, though that's unlikely. I have no way to measure the tube gear, no interest in it either, it sounds great as is right now and I wouldn't change a thing. Unlike the popular opinion of the Sound Science forum, I wholeheartedly disagree that "best sound" = flat frequency response throughout the spectrum, so I am not really interested in changing what I have, only curious to hear different things so long as it doesn't cost me anything.


----------



## cjl

elmoe said:


> ...Unlike the popular opinion of the Sound Science forum, I wholeheartedly disagree that "best sound" = flat frequency response throughout the spectrum...


 
 I'd be very curious to hear your justification for this statement here...


----------



## elmoe

cjl said:


> I'd be very curious to hear your justification for this statement here...


 
  
 What do you mean?


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> I'd be very curious to hear your justification for this statement here...




It's very simple. "Best sound" is a decidedly subjective assessment. Perhaps a better term would be "personal preference." At least that doesn't have the implication of "best sound" being something universal.

se


----------



## nick_charles

elmoe said:


> Hadn't heard tubes before I bought the DAC1 (years ago, it was my first DAC), and found it to be bright, so no subconscious tube bias could exist then. My opinion on the DAC1 is pretty much commonplace amongst its owners though, almost every single review you can read finds it bright. Maybe I've "trained myself" as you put it, though that's unlikely. I have no way to measure the tube gear, no interest in it either, it sounds great as is right now and I wouldn't change a thing. Unlike the popular opinion of the Sound Science forum, I wholeheartedly disagree that "best sound" = flat frequency response throughout the spectrum, so I am not really interested in changing what I have, only curious to hear different things so long as it doesn't cost me anything.


 
  
 The Benchmark is almost a dictionary definition of flat, in terms of accuracy it is , well a benchmark, every serious evaluation of it shows it to be neutral not bright, the subjective reviews that describe it as bright merely indicate that subjective evaluations have their limits and that they cannot be relied on to be accurate. The broader point is that few of these subjective reviews have even been critically evaluated by requiring the reviewers to demonstrate any reliable ability to discriminate between A and B. That you prefer something that is not utterly flat and neutral is of course your privilege !


----------



## elmoe

steve eddy said:


> It's very simple. "Best sound" is a decidedly subjective assessment. Perhaps a better term would be "personal preference." At least that doesn't have the implication of "best sound" being something universal.
> 
> se


 
  
 Oh that's what he meant. Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
  
  


nick_charles said:


> The Benchmark is almost a dictionary definition of flat, in terms of accuracy it is , well a benchmark, every serious evaluation of it shows it to be neutral not bright, the subjective reviews that describe it as bright merely indicate that subjective evaluations have their limits and that they cannot be relied on to be accurate. The broader point is that few of these subjective reviews have even been critically evaluated by requiring the reviewers to demonstrate any reliable ability to discriminate between A and B. That you prefer something that is not utterly flat and neutral is of course your privilege !


 
  
 Yes, I'm not arguing that the benchmark isn't perfectly neutral. My headphones are on the bright side already, so paired up with a "neutral" DAC it sounds too bright for my taste.


----------



## bigshot

The problem there are the cans. A simple dash of EQ could probably fix that right up.


----------



## elmoe

Why fix something that isn't broken? My system sounds awesome as it is


----------



## bigshot

The problem with EQing upstream, instead of as the last step is if you are using a colored source, you end up with different sounds for different sources, and if you use a colored amp, you don't have the control to fine tune the response you do with simple equalization. Also, if your amp does happen to be colored exactly the way you want it, when the time comes to replace it, you have to find one with the exact same coloration, which might not be easy. It's simpler to keep everything flat up to the last step and apply correction precisely using an equalizer. Then you can swap in replacement equipment without affecting the precise EQ correction you like.


----------



## elmoe

bigshot said:


> The problem with EQing upstream, instead of as the last step is if you are using a colored source, you end up with different sounds for different sources, and if you use a colored amp, you don't have the control to fine tune the response you do with simple equalization. Also, if your amp does happen to be colored exactly the way you want it, when the time comes to replace it, you have to find one with the exact same coloration, which might not be easy. It's simpler to keep everything flat up to the last step and apply correction precisely using an equalizer. Then you can swap in replacement equipment without affecting the precise EQ correction you like.


 
  
 Don't need to replace it. I put my hands into it enough to be able to pretty much rebuild it or change any broken parts should the need arise. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 You're right though, eventually, when I have the time and money to build a second system, I will try it out your way, EQing on the last step. Sounds fun.


----------



## cjl

elmoe said:


> What do you mean?


 
 I think this has already been explained, but I think "best sound" is a fairly objective criterion, and would require the sound to be a faithful reproduction of the intended material (which requires, by definition, a flat frequency response). However, to say you prefer a different sound is a much more subjective thing, and though I may disagree with your preference, I wouldn't object at all to you claiming you prefer the way a particular non-flat response sounds.
  
 (That having been said, I do agree with Bigshot that if you're trying to improve the sound of a bright pair of headphones by buying an amp with rolled off highs, you'd be able to do a better job of getting your final desired response by just using your Benchmark or similarly excellent gear along with appropriate EQ)


----------



## elmoe

Right, as explained then, replace 'best sound' by 'what sounds better to my ears'. I've tried EQing pretty extensively but I just couldn't get the DAC1 to sound anywhere nearly as good as it does paired with my tube amp though.


----------



## lids369

ab initio said:


> Should we start a new thread to discuss issues with DAC design? Because it's a little off topic in the cables thread.
> 
> Anyone know the science behind "diode effects" in "directional, burned-in" cables?
> 
> ...


 
  
 http://www.jandrpc.com/Quantum%20Tunnel%20of%20Love.htm


----------



## cjl

lids369 said:


> http://www.jandrpc.com/Quantum%20Tunnel%20of%20Love.htm


 
 Until it is established that differences in cables (or differences in the same cable pre and post burn-in) exist through a proper, double blind study, speculation on why exactly cables burn in is kind of pointless. It would be like speculating on why the emperor chose a fine silk for his new wardrobe rather than cashmere when, in fact, nobody can prove that he ever had any clothes in the first place.


----------



## castleofargh

naked emperor! wizard if you ever need a third brand name, I suggest avoiding that one.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
 I tend to disagree with just how bob describes what he believes in, in his intro... so no need to go further for me.
 he seems to know a lot about electrons, but not so much about how memory works on humans. and if I had to agree about something we don't know how to measure yet (which I really don't as far as audio is concerned), it would just lead us to an even bigger problem, how are we supposed to trust our own memory of something we heard a month before? (1 month with a few hours of use each day, being the delay for a good burn-in of most products with a 30days return policy).
 this article is keeping an open mind on something very improbable, and at the same time, dismissing something very obvious. naked emperor!!!!!!!!


----------



## x838nwy

Actually, there are companies like Morrow audio that offer a burn-in service.

One could order a pair of cables withOUT burn-in and another pair of the same length and model WITH the burn-in service and listen to them.

I'd offer to do this, but my wife has hinted at the high probability that if one more cable i do not need arrives in the mail; all my gear would accidentally appear in the same bin and on fire. Since she spends more time at home than i do, i think she knows about these things...


----------



## Steve Eddy

cjl said:


> I think this has already been explained, but I think "best sound" is a fairly objective criterion...




I strongly disagree.

"Best measurements, "best specifications," "best reproduction," these would be decidedly objective criteria. But "best sound" very strongly implies there's a human being at the end of the chain. Have you ever walked up to an Audio Precision rig and asked it "How's it sound?" Of course you haven't. But I'm sure you've asked that question of plenty of humans.

I'm sorry, but in my book, how something sounds is a human experience and therefore decidedly subjective.

se


----------



## lids369

castleofargh said:


> naked emperor! wizard if you ever need a third brand name, I suggest avoiding that one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 He cites a PEER REVIEWED STUDY that states MATERIALS CHANGE OVER PERIODS OF TIME WHEN YOU APPLY ELECTRICITY. Quantum Tunneling isn't a minor effect that is hard to measure. If you want to see quantum tunneling at work, look outside at the big glowing ball of hydrostatically stable gas giving you life. The fact that I gave you guys an article with legitimate citations, and that still wasn't good enough to maybe admit that your high school or basic college physics classes aren't enough to explain what happens in cables is ridiculous.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lids369 said:


> http://www.jandrpc.com/Quantum%20Tunnel%20of%20Love.htm




You can say anything when you make up your own facts.

_"Only a few years ago, audiophiles complained that circuits employing negative feedback affected the sound of amplifiers adversely. The number crunchers denied it because the distortion figures were so much improved with the use of feedback. Turns out the audiophiles were right... "_

No on has ever demonstrated this to be the case.

The "article" is a great example of taking grains of truth, blowing them all out of proportion and out if context in order to weave a nice bit if propaganda that will sway the average person. Quacks and charlatans have been using this sort of approach for years.

se


----------



## x838nwy

Not saying it's not enough - i'm of the "believer", Fox Molder camp (though i have yet to appear in a porno. Not one that anyone sane would buy at least). It'd just be nice to hear it for myself.

Btw, "best" sound is entirely based upon the definition of "best" or "good" in the first place. For a particular crowd, it could be simply the jaw dislocating ability of a woofer, another probably something different.


----------



## Steve Eddy

lids369 said:


> He cites a PEER REVIEWED STUDY that states MATERIALS CHANGE OVER PERIODS OF TIME WHEN YOU APPLY ELECTRICITY. Quantum Tunneling isn't a minor effect that is hard to measure. If you want to see quantum tunneling at work, look outside at the big glowing ball of hydrostatically stable gas giving you life. The fact that I gave you guys an article with legitimate citations, and that still wasn't good enough to maybe admit that your high school or basic college physics classes aren't enough to explain what happens in cables is ridiculous.




"Legitimate citations" used to fool those who don't know any better. The piece is pure propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.

se


----------



## cjl

steve eddy said:


> I strongly disagree.
> 
> "Best measurements, "best specifications," "best reproduction," these would be decidedly objective criteria. But "best sound" very strongly implies there's a human being at the end of the chain. Have you ever walked up to an Audio Precision rig and asked it "How's it sound?" Of course you haven't. But I'm sure you've asked that question of plenty of humans.
> 
> ...


 
 Fair enough. This is certainly a subjective enough point that I'm not going to argue about it.


----------



## cjl

lids369 said:


> He cites a PEER REVIEWED STUDY that states MATERIALS CHANGE OVER PERIODS OF TIME WHEN YOU APPLY ELECTRICITY. Quantum Tunneling isn't a minor effect that is hard to measure. If you want to see quantum tunneling at work, look outside at the big glowing ball of hydrostatically stable gas giving you life. The fact that I gave you guys an article with legitimate citations, and that still wasn't good enough to maybe admit that your high school or basic college physics classes aren't enough to explain what happens in cables is ridiculous.


 
 Even if we assume for a moment that cables do change over periods of time when you apply electricity, that alone isn't enough to demonstrate that cable burn in is real or significant. You would have to show that the changes were of a sufficient magnitude to affect the sound in an audible way, which is definitely not shown in that article.


----------



## lids369

steve eddy said:


> You can say anything when you make up your own facts.
> 
> _"Only a few years ago, audiophiles complained that circuits employing negative feedback affected the sound of amplifiers adversely. The number crunchers denied it because the distortion figures were so much improved with the use of feedback. Turns out the audiophiles were right... "_
> 
> ...


 
  
 Negative feedback in the context of the Global feedback does affect the sound due to the time delay, and that's why it sounds better to not include that in your circuit. 
  
 He even says that whether these effects are audible is another story. His point with the article is stating that the cable does change its properties over the course of time, and therefore it does "burn in." 
  
  
 Edit: The point of posting that article was that person was asking someone to explain some of the terms on the Nordost website.


----------



## cjl

lids369 said:


> Negative feedback in the context of the Global feedback does affect the sound due to the time delay, and that's why it sounds better to not include that in your circuit.


 
 *citation needed*
  
 (both for the delay itself, including quantitative descriptions of its magnitude, and for the audibility of such a delay)


----------



## ab initio

Wow. In that article the author rambles on about things he clearly doesn't understand (or hopes the reader doesn't understand). I'm not impressed nor would anyone with the slightest inkling of quantum mechanics, electricity&magnetism, or materials science be fooled.

Cheers



lids369 said:


> http://www.jandrpc.com/Quantum%20Tunnel%20of%20Love.htm


----------



## Steve Eddy

lids369 said:


> Negative feedback in the context of the Global feedback does affect the sound due to the time delay, and that's why it sounds better to not include that in your circuit.




More mythology.




> He even says that whether these effects are audible is another story. His point with the article is stating that the cable does change its properties over the course of time, and therefore it does "burn in."




He demonstrated absolutely no such thing. Again, he's taken things totally out of context as well as things that don't apply to bulk materials which are what cables are made of and crafts it into a big pile of pure propaganda.




> Edit: The point of posting that article was that person was asking someone to explain some of the terms on the Nordost website.




Except the article explains nothing. It's just as big a pile of steaming BS as the Nordost stuff.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

ab initio said:


> Wow. In that article the author rambles on about things he clearly doesn't understand (or hopes the reader doesn't understand). I'm not impressed nor would anyone with the slightest inkling of quantum mechanics, electricity&magnetism, or materials science be fooled.




The sad thing is, it works, as evidenced here.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

lids369 said:


> He cites a PEER REVIEWED STUDY that states MATERIALS CHANGE OVER PERIODS OF TIME WHEN YOU APPLY ELECTRICITY. Quantum Tunneling isn't a minor effect that is hard to measure. If you want to see quantum tunneling at work, look outside at the big glowing ball of hydrostatically stable gas giving you life. The fact that I gave you guys an article with legitimate citations, and that still wasn't good enough to maybe admit that your high school or basic college physics classes aren't enough to explain what happens in cables is ridiculous.


 

 You don't even have to step outside to witness it.
 Quantum tunnelling has a hand in the mutations happening in your body right at this moment. Bonding hydrogen in the DNA has a tendency to jump up and down in energy state rather haphazardly, and when they do it facilitates unconventional base pairings, resulting in replication errors and mutations. Pretty cool, eh?

 Still fail to see what any of this has to do with the movement of charges at audio frequencies through macroscopic copper conductors.


----------



## esldude

elmoe said:


> Right, as explained then, replace 'best sound' by 'what sounds better to my ears'. I've tried EQing pretty extensively but I just couldn't get the DAC1 to sound anywhere nearly as good as it does paired with my tube amp though.


 

 I agree with you on this elmoe.  Best sound is best to my ears or your ears, or a crowd of people's ears.  I distinguish them by saying highest fidelity.  Flat low distortion is highest fidelity.  Since it is so available it makes the best reference.  However, very often, almost 100% of the time, I, and most people I know prefer something not maximal fidelity.  Exactly how and how much to depart from fidelity varies considerably among people.  I think this is part of the fog in high end audio.  It is held prima facie that better sound to our ears is higher fidelity sound.  I find this to be very rare, and probably only with highest fidelity recordings which had nothing done to them.  No EQ, no compression, nothing just straight off good mics and into digital.  As such recordings are less than 1 in a thousand, most recorded music has been seasoned to someone's taste.  And further seasoning or unseasoning to fine tune for highest individual pleasure is pretty much a given.  Nor am I against it.  Just don't confuse that subjectively determined seasoning with better fidelity.


----------



## Steve Eddy

limpidglitch said:


> Still fail to see what any of this has to do with the movement of charges at audio frequencies through macroscopic copper conductors.




One of my pet peeves is that they virtually always seem to approach things from the assumption that the electrons are otherwise just sitting around, calm and collected and when a signal us applied, start moving down the wire, until disaster strikes when the electrons run into an impurity or crystal boundary, boogering up the signal.

The reality is that under normal conditions, the electrons are being bitch slapped in all directions like so many hos due to the thermal energy in the wire as a consequence of it being at room temperature (lattice vibrations). In fact, it is this which is responsible for virtually all of the wire's rsistance.

Any consequences of electrons banging into impurities or crystal boundaries will be completely swamped by the thermal noise of the wire itself and you're never going to hear even the wire's thermal noise. So talking about all this other stuff is just marketing masturbation aimed at those who don't know any better and will not only swallow it without question, but spread it elsewhere.

se


----------



## esldude

lids369 said:


> http://www.jandrpc.com/Quantum%20Tunnel%20of%20Love.htm


 

 Care to point which direction in audio cables the electrical pressure is?  As an AC signal it generally has no direction over any length of time.  Goes one way and then the next.

 Further, if the effect is real it will change the measurements as we can measure below what we can hear in a number of ways.  Measurements don't show a change.


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> Care to point which direction in audio cables the electrical pressure is?  As an AC signal it generally has no direction over any length of time.  Goes one way and then the next.




Further, the "signal" is the transverse electromagnetic wave that propagates down the cable, not the electrons. The TEM wave propagates at a decent proportion of the speed of light. Calculate the amount of energy that would be required to shove electrons down a cable at such speeds. The cables and anything near them would be vaporized.

The propagandists pass themselves off as speaking from a position of authority, but more often than not they demonstrate that they haven't any understanding even of some pretty basic stuff.




> Further, if the effect is real it will change the measurements as we can measure below what we can hear in a number of ways.  Measurements don't show a change.




You'd have to measure down below the thermal noise of the wire. But at that point, it's already moot. You're simply never going to hear it.

se


----------



## castleofargh

so a cable is not eternal, point taken, I'm gonna return those ouroboros cables pronto, that was snake oil again...
  
  
 the problem I have with cables, is that on one hand everybody accepts the fact that a dac is turning digital to analog nicely, with who knows how many components and materials. everybody accepts that an op amp succeeds in an almost magical way to add gain to a signal with close to no loss or distortion. in short, the more complex the stuff, the less doubt and questions about it(probably because it is that much harder to pretend to know the subject). but take a stupid piece of passive component like a short cable, and everybody's a rocket scientist that thinks about all the technical advancements to make it better (when at the same time most of the best dac chips have been the same model for years).
 the reason why any average dude can pretend he invented a very new better cable that makes the sound "this and that" and has those effects, and need such and such special treatment, and a handful of salt over my shoulder, and should burn-in 172.5hours ... is because all those silly stuff have close to no effect on sound. if we were to let them do to dacs what they do to audio cables, the results would be the most crappy dac ever built(if it could output anything but noise).
  
 if we want to have an open mind and use logic to understand things, let's try to stop focusing our efforts only on the very worthless things that are already perfectly known like cables.
 my own personal opinion on most burn-in over 200hours reported as being night and day changes, is that it is plain and simple ********.
 and the reason is called dopamine. no need to look into cables to explain what happens in the brain of a guy with his new toy. and the same guy one month later can never feel the same way or focus the same way on sound when listening to that toy. that is known and explained and fits perfectly with everything described by audiophiles, no need to chase after quantum particles.


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> The reality is that under normal conditions, the electrons are being bitch slapped in all directions like so many hos due to the thermal energy in the wire as a consequence of it being at room temperature (lattice vibrations). In fact, it is this which is responsible for virtually all of the wire's rsistance.
> 
> 
> se


 
 wouldn't having a turtle close to the cable, solve that lattice problem?
 I'm trying to help here!!!


----------



## esldude

castleofargh said:


> wouldn't having a turtle close to the cable, solve that lattice problem?
> I'm trying to help here!!!


 

 It is sounding like we need a Wire Pimp to keep all the bitch slapped ho electrons in line.


----------



## Steve Eddy

castleofargh said:


> wouldn't having a turtle close to the cable, solve that lattice problem?
> I'm trying to help here!!!




I think rabbits would br more effective.

se


----------



## ab initio

steve eddy said:


> _*The reality is that under normal conditions, the electrons are being bitch slapped in all directions like so many hos due to the thermal energy in the wire as a consequence of it being at room temperature (lattice vibrations). In fact, it is this which is responsible for virtually all of the wire's resistance.*_


 
   
Best. Quote. Ever.

  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

if electrons were unionized(uber pun) they would all go in the same direction for a better sound. but then sometimes they would go on strike and you'll have no music.


----------



## ab initio

lids369 said:


> Edit: The point of posting that article was that person was asking someone to explain some of the terms on the Nordost website.


 
  
 I appreciate that you were trying to post an honest explanation that appears to be founded in scientific principles. For that, thank you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 However, as it should be obvious now, the article lacks true scientific merit. It superficially sprinkles references to papers without truly understanding the papers themselves, without understanding the full body of scientific knowledge regarding phenomena that are actually relevant to audio, and without grasping which phenomena apply at the time, length, and temperature scales that our audio equipment operate at.
  
 For example, I can do the same type of bollocks regarding fiber-optic cables:
  


> It is a well known phenomenon that the amplitude of electromagnetic waves is subject to nonlinear processes by which the energy contained in the fundamental of a beam of light is converted into harmonics, thereby reducing the energy contained in the original light source and leaking as light at different wavelengths [1]. The generation of multiple electromagnetic wave frequencies brings the complications of chromatic dispersion to the design of fiber-optic interconnects. Chromatic dispersion results as different wavelengths of light travel through the same medium at different propagation speeds. The result is a temporal smearing of light pulses that pass through a length of fiber-optic cables, which in turn makes detecting the exact timing of each light pulse difficult for the receiving electronics. These timing errors are the main culprit which leads to high amounts of jitter which destroy the fidelity of the reproduced music.
> 
> [1] - _N__ature_ *396*, 653-655 (17 December 1998) | doi:10.1038/25303


 
  
 As you can see, I quote (arguably) the highest impact scientific publication regarding a very real and measurable physical phenomenon. I then applied the results to a completely unrelated aspect of audio interconnects, and concluded (falsely) that the aforementioned physical process is the key process by which audible differences in fiber-optic cables can be generated.
  
 This is a direct analog to the misinformation that was published in the previous article that you linked. This is why everybody here who knows the difference between quantum effects in single-molecule wires and the propagation of electric fields through bulk materials is laughing at the contents and claims of the article you posted. I hope this example helps you understand how lobbiests for the luxury cable companies use real science to pull the wool over your eyes regarding the actual merits of their products.
  
 Cheers


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> if electrons were unionized(uber pun) they would all go in the same direction for a better sound. but then sometimes they would go on strike and you'll have no music.


 

 This is also very good! 
  
 Cheers


----------



## lids369

esldude said:


> Care to point which direction in audio cables the electrical pressure is?  As an AC signal it generally has no direction over any length of time.  Goes one way and then the next.
> 
> Further, if the effect is real it will change the measurements as we can measure below what we can hear in a number of ways.  Measurements don't show a change.


 
  
 Depends on which convention you use. Luckily, the whole AC signal isn't a problem because power supplies convert from AC to DC. It's really crazy!! 
  
 You guys should just try this stuff out. It has nothing to do with distortion levels, measurements, or any of that ********. Until you actually know how this stuff works on the theoretical and practical levels, by which I mean engineer your own DAC, cables, etc. from beginning to end, just listen to it. One thing I learned is it is never about knowing the equations. All models are wrong, and some models are useful. Any ******* can sit at home on wikipedia and memorize equations. Take home something like a BDA-1 and plug it into your normal system that you know by heart, and you'll hear the difference.
  
 Also, here is an excellent article on feedback in amplifiers from a guy who makes better amplifiers than the one you have (probably). https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback


----------



## esldude

lids369 said:


> Depends on which convention you use. Luckily, the whole AC signal isn't a problem because power supplies convert from AC to DC. It's really crazy!!
> 
> You guys should just try this stuff out. It has nothing to do with distortion levels, measurements, or any of that ********. Until you actually know how this stuff works on the theoretical and practical levels, by which I mean engineer your own DAC, cables, etc. from beginning to end, just listen to it. One thing I learned is it is never about knowing the equations. All models are wrong, and some models are useful. Any ******* can sit at home on wikipedia and memorize equations. Take home something like a BDA-1 and plug it into your normal system that you know by heart, and you'll hear the difference.
> 
> Also, here is an excellent article on feedback in amplifiers from a guy who makes better amplifiers than the one you have (probably). https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback


 

 Were I a moderator on sound science this load of bull crap would be nixed.  You tell me how the electron flow is having effects flowing in one direction, then wish to ignore that the very effect you are referring to on the very cables is an AC phenomenon which has electrical pressure in one direction then the other.  Meaning your supposition of the effect doesn't happen, much less the info Steve Eddy has supplied also abrogating such claims. 
  
 Then the claim it has nothing to do with distortion levels, measurements or any of that stuff.  Yeah, right, sure , just go with the feel right?  Bull crap garbage.  If it doesn't alter the signal it doesn't sound different.  And altering the signal is the definition of distortion.  All of which we can measure far below human abilities to hear. 

 Then the ridiculous article by Nelson pass on feedback.  Look what matters is the signal coming out of the output.  Do it with no feedback, low feedback or huge feedback and it doesn't matter if that result is clean enough it is inaudible.  Not to mention the hubris, totally unjustified supposition that Mr. Pass' products are better than what I or anyone else has.  Guess what? I have owned a couple of Mr. Pass' products including a no feedback design.  What I have is better, both in how it sounds to me, and in how it measures, not to mention how well it powers my power hungry speakers.  So much for your garbage suppositions.
  
 Finally are we to take it that you have engineered your own DAC, cables, speakers, amps etc. or otherwise by your criteria all the bull crap you just spouted is something no one by your criteria should listen to.  Kind of crazy is exactly how I would characterize it.  Crazy! Man! Crazy!!


----------



## ab initio

lids369 said:


> Depends on which convention you use. Luckily, the whole AC signal isn't a problem because power supplies convert from AC to DC. It's really crazy!!




I believe it is called a straw man when you arguments rely on a purposeful misrepresentation of the topic. Here, cable Burn-in which involves audio signal (I.e., AC waveforms.... AC is what the technically inclined call alternating current where the net charge Flux alternates the direction of travel) whereas you're now arguing about DC power supplies. Please make up your mind about what you're discussing. The discussion will be much more productive that way.

Cheers


----------



## HulkHogan

I recabled my stock DT880s with some tapped alumium foil.  Smoother treble, midrange is a tad forward, much better than stock!


----------



## ab initio

hulkhogan said:


> I recabled my stock DT880s with some tapped alumium foil.  Smoother treble, midrange is a tad forward, much better than stock!




Amen to that, brother!

Cheers


----------



## BlindInOneEar

hulkhogan said:


> I recabled my stock DT880s with some tapped alumium foil.  Smoother treble, midrange is a tad forward, much better than stock!


 

 I think you mean "taped," not "tapped."  Also, you need to tell us that your mod made the bass "faster," and that the "entire soundstage" is "bigger" and "darker," with some reference to how the music "emerges" and also throw in some use of the term "organic." 
  
 Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it!


----------



## BlindInOneEar

esldude said:


> Were I a moderator on sound science this load of bull crap would be nixed.


 
  
 I'm not sure I agree with you.  While my initial impulse is to agree with you, it would do wonders for my blood pressure, I think it's better to debate and rebut these type of opinions, not just ignore them.


----------



## ab initio

blindinoneear said:


> I think you mean "taped," not "tapped."  Also, you need to tell us that your mod made the bass "faster," and that the "entire soundstage" is "bigger" and "darker," with some reference to how the music "emerges" and also throw in some use of the term "organic."
> 
> Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it!
> 
> :wink_face:




Or that the bass comes out like the Undertaker while the treble comes flying at you like Rey Mysterio, Jr. 

I imagine the mids are quite macho, oh yeah! 

Cheers


----------



## elmoe

lids369 said:


> Depends on which convention you use. Luckily, the whole AC signal isn't a problem because power supplies convert from AC to DC. It's really crazy!!
> 
> You guys should just try this stuff out. It has nothing to do with distortion levels, measurements, or any of that ********. Until you actually know how this stuff works on the theoretical and practical levels, by which I mean engineer your own DAC, cables, etc. from beginning to end, just listen to it. One thing I learned is it is never about knowing the equations. All models are wrong, and some models are useful. Any ******* can sit at home on wikipedia and memorize equations. Take home something like a BDA-1 and plug it into your normal system that you know by heart, and you'll hear the difference.
> 
> Also, here is an excellent article on feedback in amplifiers from a guy who makes better amplifiers than the one you have (probably). https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback


 
 Hilarious post and article. Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## cjl

lids369 said:


> Also, here is an excellent article on feedback in amplifiers from a guy who makes better amplifiers than the one you have (probably). https://passlabs.com/articles/audio-distortion-and-feedback


 
 That isn't actually a bad article, except that it really doesn't talk at all about feedback. It plots a lot of different outputs without feedback showing that (to nobody's surprise) designs that are intended from the start to use feedback to achieve a clean output perform like crap when they have no feedback. He also waffles around a bit in claiming that feedback can cause stability issues (true, but avoiding these is part of the design process) and that it can introduce additional distortion components (also true, but who cares when all of the final distortion is 90+dB below the signal). Aside from those two largely irrelevant points, he doesn't even really address feedback at all. It's more just assumed as a premise of the article that an amp that achieves good numbers without feedback is somehow more desirable, or a more elegant solution. In reality, I'll take a well-designed class AB or B amp with lots of feedback over one of the Pass designs, since it'll be much more efficient, smaller and lighter for the same output power, and have substantially better real-world performance.


----------



## ab initio

cjl said:
			
		

> In reality, I'll take a well-designed class AB or B amp with lots of feedback over one of the Pass designs, since it'll be much more efficient, smaller and lighter for the same output power, and have substantially better real-world performance.




Comment redacted.


----------



## x838nwy

Seeing nome of us design make and sell world-famous amps that are universally acknowledged to be nothing short of awesome, I'd say Nelson Pass knows a $hit ton more about amps than all of us combined. And i'd do quite a lot for one of his amps.

Having said that, i think like all things, if properly designed and implimented, no one topology is "better" than others. Feedback (done right) is mathematically advantageous but not using feedback isn't the end of the world either.


----------



## stv014

cjl said:


> That isn't actually a bad article


 
  
 In fact, it is, since the much higher distortion with the multi-tone signals (as shown on figures 8 and 13, for example) is mainly simply because they have a higher amplitude (are not normalized to the same peak level) than the single tone input. As the distortion is simulated with a simple cubic polynomial, it will of course have a higher level when the input level is higher, but this would happen also with a single tone normalized to the same peak to peak range.
  


x838nwy said:


> Seeing nome of us design make and sell world-famous amps that are universally acknowledged to be nothing short of awesome, I'd say Nelson Pass knows a $hit ton more about amps than all of us combined.


 
  
 That does not prevent the article from possibly being biased or even intentionally incorrect with the purpose of selling products, though.


----------



## elmoe

x838nwy said:


> Seeing nome of us design make and sell world-famous amps that are universally acknowledged to be nothing short of awesome, I'd say Nelson Pass knows a $hit ton more about amps than all of us combined. And i'd do quite a lot for one of his amps.
> 
> Having said that, i think like all things, if properly designed and implimented, no one topology is "better" than others. Feedback (done right) is mathematically advantageous but not using feedback isn't the end of the world either.


 
  
 Eh, there's plenty of "universally acknowledged to be nothing short of awesome" gear out there that turn out to be duds. Considering that it took a few guys on an online forum to pick apart his "scientific" article, I'd say Nelson Pass probably doesn't know as much as you think he does.


----------



## Steve Eddy

ab initio said:


> Who cares about performance when what really matters is how much money you spent?




I'd just like to point out that while the Pass Labs gear is expensive, Nelson has been a HUGE benefactor to the DIY community. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

elmoe said:


> Eh, there's plenty of "universally acknowledged to be nothing short of awesome" gear out there that turn out to be duds. Considering that it took a few guys on an online forum to pick apart his "scientific" article, I'd say Nelson Pass probably doesn't know as much as you think he does.




It wasn't a "scientific" article. It was just a little primer that the editor of Six Moons asked him to write.

se


----------



## cjl

stv014 said:


> In fact, it is, since the much higher distortion with the multi-tone signals (as shown on figures 8 and 13, for example) is mainly simply because they have a higher amplitude (are not normalized to the same peak level) than the single tone input. As the distortion is simulated with a simple cubic polynomial, it will of course have a higher level when the input level is higher, but this would happen also with a single tone normalized to the same peak to peak range.


 
 Ahh - good point. I admit that I just skimmed the article earlier, since I didn't have a ton of time, and I definitely agree with you here that those figures are misleading.


----------



## Digitalchkn

Thought this was a thread on cables. Am I in the wrong place?


----------



## jcx

Pass has written up his cable measurements too - showing numbers for loudspeaker cables where skin effect is certainly measureable but on the edge of causing enough frequency response droop to be audible by Clark's curves
  
 for IC, headphone cable skin/proximity effect is an order of magnitude or more smaller and for all headphones completely below any demonstrated human hearing capability
  
  
 his feedback article is a disappointment - not a positive contribution - "tsunami of distortion" is pure rhetoric - pandering to a audience with a known and uneducated position
  
 the Pass Feedback article strings together a few isolated true statements but doesn't do the math for their levels/relations in real, well designed high feedback amplifiers
  
 a big effect that he totally ignores is that of high gain on internal amp signal levels, how it linearizes the stages inside the amp by the huge reduction of signal in the early stages
  
  
 Putzeys is much better on feedback http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/images/pdf/Volume_1_BP.pdf


----------



## ab initio

steve eddy said:


> I'd just like to point out that while the Pass Labs gear is expensive, Nelson has been a HUGE benefactor to the DIY community.
> 
> se




That comment wasnt directed at the article. It was just a general gripe about how i perceive the rest of headfi outside of the science forum assessing the quality of audio equipment. It was pretty bitter and i should retract the statement before outsiders read it and get insulted.

My apologies.


----------



## castleofargh

jcx said:


> Putzeys is much better on feedback http://www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/images/pdf/Volume_1_BP.pdf


 
 google gave me this pdf a few days ago when I was wandering about noise measurement compared to distortions from 2 sinewaves. and I have to say, I felt even more lost in space than when I watched the MIT videos about feedback, root locus killed me.(maybe it would be good to put that link with the videos, if you believe it is an interesting piece of intel?).
 I find it interesting, but I clearly fail to grasp everything said.
 that's really above my actual education level. the formula is:
 real level of hard earned diplomas / (how many years since I didn't even think about any of this) * (alcool+drugs)²


----------



## castleofargh

ab initio said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > I'd just like to point out that while the Pass Labs gear is expensive, Nelson has been a HUGE benefactor to the DIY community.
> ...


 

 don't worry, we will all be long gone and banned, before you succesfully offend someone.


----------



## Digitalchkn

castleofargh said:


> google gave me this pdf a few days ago when I was wandering about noise measurement compared to distortions from 2 sinewaves. and I have to say, I felt even more lost in space than when I watched the MIT videos about feedback, root locus killed me.(maybe it would be good to put that link with the videos, if you believe it is an interesting piece of intel?).
> I find it interesting, but I clearly fail to grasp everything said.
> that's really above my actual education level. the formula is:
> real level of hard earned diplomas / (how many years since I didn't even think about any of this) * (alcool+drugs)²


 
  
 Well as a quick refresher basically when you take a linear amplifier with a certain set of characteristics and place it in a negative feedback configuration (making sure it is stable in the process, of course) you get another linear amplifier with a different set of characteristics. Depending on what you want to achieve, you can extend bandwidth or increase input impedance. Or improve linearity for small signals. There are tradeoffs to be made, as nothing comes for free in physics (e.g. bandwidth vs gain).
  
 How is this related to cabling again?


----------



## esldude

Below is an explanation by Bruno Putzeys on why people take a decent zero feedback design and add some feedback then decide it sounds worse.  He agrees that can be the result, but the problem isn't that feedback was used rather than not enough was used.   This quote is from a nice interview with his background and how he came to the opinions he holds.
  
 BTW, I don't find Nelson Pass articles or products wrong.  Those I owned were good, and he has used feedback in more than he hasn't.  But they aren't as good as some of the better switching amps which what I currently use.
  
 http://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/features-menu/general-interest-interviews-menu/455-searching-for-the-extreme-bruno-putzeys-of-mola-mola-hypex-and-grimm-audio-part-one
  
_*BP:*Of course, the next question is how to explain that when so many people disagree with that point of view. You can’t just go around saying, “Hey, I’ve made a negative-feedback amplifier that sounds great, so you are all wrong.” You have to accept that, for those people who say they tried feedback and it didn’t sound good, they had real experiences -- they didn’t make it up or start a religion. People have really, honestly heard what they have heard, and what they heard didn’t sound good. So I had to reverse-engineer all these experiments they had been doing and work out exactly what caused that particular subjective sonic experience. The “F-word” article is, in its first part, just a rundown of feedback structures and an attempt to get terminology straight. An interesting observation identified in that first section of the article is that local feedback with a bit of global feedback is, actually, identical to full global feedback -- mathematical fact. The second part looks back at the history to see what, in different scenarios, was responsible for feedback sounding bad in those particular cases. One of those you hinted at is that, if you take a simple amplifier which has acceptable distortion (just a second harmonic is what I use as an example) and you start applying feedback, harmonics will appear that were not there originally. Higher-order harmonics, even and odd, turn up out of the blue. So if you apply a little bit of feedback, the second harmonic that you wanted to reduce drops by a little, but out of the blue you get this whole smattering of high harmonics. It is quite understandable that this doesn’t sound good. That observation has been made and published by various people over the years, but the most important conclusion was never drawn: If you keep increasing feedback, if you turn the feedback knob up and up and up, you quickly hit a point where those distortion products all start coming down again and the signal does start getting cleaner. And if you get to very large amounts of feedback, the result is just supersmooth. So that is why I say that it is normal for an experimenter to experience that if you take a good-sounding zero-feedback amplifier and add 6dB of feedback, the result sounds worse. They heard that right. But had they been in a position to add 60dB, well then, suddenly they would have been confronted with a sound that is little short of magical._
  
 As to how this relates to cables, well it doesn't directly.  Just a product of thread drift.  If it bothers others too much we could start a negative feedback thread if one doesn't already exist.   Of course the same Mr. Putzeys has done an excellent article measuring and explaining cables.  Finding nothing there down the limits of his measuring equipment to explain a difference one would hear in normal use.  But I do believe I have linked it some pages earlier in the thread.  Here it is again.
  
 http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/cable-distortion-and-dielectric-biasing-debunked
  
 At the bottom of the second page are two links to the actual measurements and additional comments by BP.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Basically to summarize Bruno, if you're going to use negative feedback, use a lot of it.

se


----------



## Digitalchkn

esldude said:


> As to how this relates to cables, well it doesn't directly.  Just a product of thread drift.  If it bothers others too much we could start a negative feedback thread if one doesn't already exist.   Of course the same Mr. Putzeys has done an excellent article measuring and explaining cables.  Finding nothing there down the limits of his measuring equipment to explain a difference one would hear in normal use.  But I do believe I have linked it some pages earlier in the thread.  Here it is again.
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/cable-distortion-and-dielectric-biasing-debunked
> 
> At the bottom of the second page are two links to the actual measurements and additional comments by BP.


 
  
 Lovely.  Not sure I follow the point about balanced cables at it applies to headphone connectivity in particular. There is only one chassis (i.e. the amp) so the CMRR is really irrelevant from perspective of the far end (the headphone). Cable inductance and "coupling" simply yield a low pass filter effect (if any).


----------



## ab initio

You guys are all being very negative! 

Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

elmoe said:


> Eh, there's plenty of "universally acknowledged to be nothing short of awesome" gear out there that turn out to be duds. Considering that it took a few guys on an online forum to pick apart his "scientific" article, I'd say Nelson Pass probably doesn't know as much as you think he does.


 
  
 Yes, plenty. But just because plenty exist, there is no implication that all - or most, in fact - are. And I don't think any of his amps have been proven to be duds.
  
 I don't feel the article was picked apart, but I think it was presented out of context. To me it read as though it was trying to clarify the topic of feedback. Most of you seem more knowledgable than I so you perhaps don't see what all the fuss is about, but for me as a noob, all I hear about with regards to feedback is that it is either
  
 (a) EVIL. Use feedback and you might as well say your amp is made by clubbing baby seals.
  
 (b) well, not evil. Used all over the place. Mathematically sensible, good results.
  
 So it's confusing for a lot of folks - how come a lot of high end gear makes a song and dance about NOT using feedback while others are happily using it and getting great results. Oddly it seems important for people to advertise how LITTLE feedback they use. This cements in people minds that feedback = crap. There also seems to be some odd thing about "zero global feedback" or some such which sort of means they're using some other type of feedback, (not the type called "global") but don't want to talk about it or something.
  
 For me the article basically says that feedback does more than just reduce distortion and if not used carefully, it can cause problems and excessive complexity. All the plots are just typical amps - there's no indication that they're anything even near commercial/hifi/reference standard but just segments of designs or whatever used to demonstrate what he's talking about. I don't think he took or claimed to have taken the "best" of each type and took measurements. He then went on to say that he'd prefer a simpler design with no feedback - that's just his preference. He didn't say it was absolutely better or whatever. A good designer uses the advantages of a particular topology while minimizing or eliminating its weaknesses. That's true with anything be they amps with or without feedback.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Yes, plenty. But just because plenty exist, there is no implication that all - or most, in fact - are. And I don't think any of his amps have been proven to be duds.
> 
> I don't feel the article was picked apart, but I think it was presented out of context. To me it read as though it was trying to clarify the topic of feedback. Most of you seem more knowledgable than I so you perhaps don't see what all the fuss is about, but for me as a noob, all I hear about with regards to feedback is that it is either
> 
> ...


 
  Sure it is confusing.  Hence the reason for the hoopla.  Keep the consumer confused, use it to paint your product as different than or better than the competition and profit.  If you make feedback an issue (or anything say silver conductors) which your products uses differently or more of or less of then at least some people are likely to believe it matters and purchase your product over others. 
  
 Now one has real difficulty designing good gear with no feedback.  You can have an input stage, voltage gain stage and current gain stage.  Each of which uses feedback.  But no Global feedback from output all the way back to input.  Lets you have your cake and eat it too.  HEY< HEY WE USE NO GLOBAL FEEDBACK (which puts us on the no feedback bandwagon).  While in fact they might be using plenty in a loop around each individual stage.   There are many ways to skin a cat.  More important than how is the cat ends up skinned. 
  
 The final signal should be audibly clean.  You can do that without feedback great.  Do it without global feedback great.  Do it with mega-monster feedback great.  The end result is what should matter more than how it was managed.  Until you start paying for it.  Then perhaps your no feedback design costs 5 times as much with no real benefit.  Then it matters.  Then you need to imply the inherent purity of your process goes beyond the end result justifying your extra cost.   The customer is like Mulder in the X files.....he wants to believe.  He wants to believe a Zen circuit master with calm tranquility in his soul has meditated upon and developed the enlightened simplicity using no feedback that allows greater pure fidelity beyond measurements and beyond reason.  An inner peace and joy that oozes forth from his pure unadulterated audio product enlightening the listener discerning enough to go the extra mile.  One not soul nourishingly satisfied with simple complex products designed by soul killing western trained EE types.


----------



## HulkHogan

esldude said:


> Sure it is confusing.  Hence the reason for the hoopla.  Keep the consumer confused, use it to paint your product as different than or better than the competition and profit.  If you make feedback an issue (or anything say silver conductors) which your products uses differently or more of or less of then at least some people are likely to believe it matters and purchase your product over others.
> 
> Now one has real difficulty designing good gear with no feedback.  You can have an input stage, voltage gain stage and current gain stage.  Each of which uses feedback.  But no Global feedback from output all the way back to input.  Lets you have your cake and eat it too.  HEY< HEY WE USE NO GLOBAL FEEDBACK (which puts us on the no feedback bandwagon).  While in fact they might be using plenty in a loop around each individual stage.   There are many ways to skin a cat.  More important than how is the cat ends up skinned.
> 
> The final signal should be audibly clean.  You can do that without feedback great.  Do it without global feedback great.  Do it with mega-monster feedback great.  The end result is what should matter more than how it was managed.  Until you start paying for it.  Then perhaps your no feedback design costs 5 times as much with no real benefit.  Then it matters.  Then you need to imply the inherent purity of your process goes beyond the end result justifying your extra cost.   The customer is like Mulder in the X files.....he wants to believe.  He wants to believe a Zen circuit master with calm tranquility in his soul has meditated upon and developed the enlightened simplicity using no feedback that allows greater pure fidelity beyond measurements and beyond reason.  An inner peace and joy that oozes forth from his pure unadulterated audio product enlightening the listener discerning enough to go the extra mile.  One not soul nourishingly satisfied with simple complex products designed by soul killing western trained EE types.


 
  
 Maybe I should start buying cables from Jesus?


----------



## shockdoc

hulkhogan said:


> Maybe I should start buying cables from Jesus?


 

 I bought some from him once. He has a little shop right near the Centro Civico in Tijuana. Nice guy. Almost 100% off.


----------



## x838nwy

hulkhogan said:


> Maybe I should start buying cables from Jesus?


 
  
 I don't think he makes cables. All I keep hearing about is that he SAVES. Never "Jesus 7N OCC Silver RCA - New testament edition" or anything similar.
  
 Will drop by my local church tomorrow and enquire just to be sure. It'd be awesome to use interconnects made by the Son of God. Eat your heart out Mr.Nordost Valhalla 2!!!!!


----------



## castleofargh

-god is a dj
-jesus save me
-last night a dj saved my life

pretty easy from those irrefutable clues to understand that he took after his father and also became a dj.


----------



## limpidglitch

castleofargh said:


> -god is a dj
> -jesus save me
> -last night a dj saved my life
> 
> pretty easy from those irrefutable clues to understand that he took after his father and also became a dj.


 

 Almost, he's an MC.

 I wonder what deity would make the best cables. Zeus and Thor, maybe? The latter would deliver the big bassy sound, obviously.


----------



## liamstrain

> I wonder what deity would make the best cables.


 
  
 Any of them actually doing so would be more believable than most of the claims put out there by Nordost, et al.


----------



## Steve Eddy

liamstrain said:


> Any of them actually doing so would be more believable than most of the claims put out there by Nordost, et al.




Even if you're an atheist. 

se


----------



## SilverEars

I'm hearing cable difference.  I didn't think a day would come, but this was the day.  I got a new amp which seems very transparent.  It came with it's ofc cable, and been using that, but it didn't sound right.  I swap to a cable I made with braids, and the stage opened up.  The cable is going from my ODAC's output to the amp.  It's an interesting day for me...
  
 Right now, I have a very transparent setup.  I would say the best setup I've ever had as I get accurate translation to my super accurate phones.  I'm using IEMs, I don't know if this info would help to explain what's going on.


----------



## elmoe

So you got a faulty cable with your new amp. Ask for a replacement.


----------



## SilverEars

elmoe said:


> So you got a faulty cable with your new amp. Ask for a replacement.


 
 ok, I'll ask for another.  What would be faulty about it?  Cables only conduct L and R.


----------



## elmoe

silverears said:


> Cables only conduct L and R.


 
  
 Which is precisely why if there is any difference, one of the cables is faulty


----------



## SilverEars

elmoe said:


> Which is precisely why if there is any difference, one of the cables is faulty


 
 That could be true.  What's crazy is that the cable they provided advertise ofc and shielded, yet it sounds dry.  My other cables, normal ones, sound like it has wider sound stage.


----------



## SilverEars

Sorry about this, I don't think it was the cable, it was my printer sucking all the power from usb, while I'm listing to a setup sourcing USB as DAC.


----------



## elmoe

lol, well there you go.


----------



## liamstrain

As to your other question - what could be faulty... I expect bad soldering (cold solder) would mean higher resistance and imbalances (e.g. the Left signal path attenuated compared to right, or bad grounds) that could induce what you describe.


----------



## castleofargh

silverears said:


> Sorry about this, I don't think it was the cable, it was my printer sucking all the power from usb, while I'm listing to a setup sourcing USB as DAC.


 
 thanks, I've been smiling for 10mn. you solved one nice mystery here. someone else might have just stopped at "that cable is clearly better" and never looked back.


----------



## SilverEars

Ok, here is some cable measurements.  Discuss.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2013/06/hidition-new-tears-6-new-vs-old.html


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> Ok, here is some cable measurements.  Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 If I understand the top graph this is showing the impedance which appears to be just the plain resistance as it is constant with frequency.  The lower graphs one needs more info about the test to know what it shows.  My guess is it shows the response at his headphone with the various cables,  And the response of the phones he shows is consistent with that.  The response variation would appear to be an interaction in the impedance variation in the headphone and the added serial resistance of the cable.  Nothing mysterious really.  Though I wonder what length cable as the resistance of some seem rather high.  It also appears the amount of variation is not likely highly audible other than for a couple of the cables. 
  
 In other words rather than paying big bucks for cables like the Nordost for its high resistance, a resistor in series could be fine tuned if you prefer it with that response. Cost a buck or so instead of real money.  Better would be going with a very low resistance cable and EQ to taste.


----------



## SilverEars

I think the point is if I'm understanding correctly is that the cable with the best conductance or the lease impedance is showing most linear response.


----------



## liamstrain

No magic there - that's how you build crossovers. Don't build cables with wonky specs unless you want wonky results. Exotic materials in a cable with the same measurements make no difference.


----------



## bigshot

those graphs are very small and fuzzy, but am I seeing a deviation of about 1dB at worst? Because that would never be audible in music. Just barely audible with tones in a direct A/B comparison. None of these would matter.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> those graphs are very small and fuzzy, but am I seeing a* deviation of about 1dB at worst? Because that would never be audible in music. *Just barely audible with tones in a direct A/B comparison. None of these would matter.


 
 This is what I figured.  And, I'm hoping cable provided with multi-BA are at the impedance where it will not cause significant deviations, although the audio players output can have 3-4ohms(iphone) in the series to provide the same affect, the cable will only add to it.


----------



## bigshot

Figure 3dB for an audible difference in music, and it would be much less audible above 10kHz than below it.


----------



## goodvibes

viralrazor said:


> Well, debate has been going on for a while, do "audiophile" cable upgrades actually work, with a stronger debate going on for actual analogue signals.
> 
> I've just got a short post and a interesting question to share:
> 
> Assuming that changing cables changes sound signature and that its true, why do we never see people talking about how their sound quality from their headphones/speakers took a turn for the worse when they changed out from stock cables to "audiophile" cables. Would transmitting a slightly with ever so slightly less interference improve subjective sound quality at all? If the sound signature is changed, surely there must be some people who are disappointed with this change in sound. And yet we never see this when someone changes from a stock cable to a custom cable.


 

 I thought the 1st 5 audiophile cables I tried on my JH13s were worse in overall character to the stock cable. They're quite often downgrades. I've found a few I like but the ledger is still weighted towards less preferred than more and there isn't a price correlation to my preferences either. 3 of the 4 I like are under $70. The other is the twag V3$$$. I know that in home audio, I always liked a particular moderately priced cable to all the esoteric stuff until a few years back when I found a costly one that works for me.


----------



## bigshot

In general, high end audiophile cables are more likely to be hobbled to produce a "house sound" for the boutique manufacturer. Usually that means rolled off high end, because that is often the first thing to go when you are designing a totally inefficient cable. The same holds true for other kinds of equipment too... amps, cd players, DACs, etc. Midrange equipment usually has much better performance than esoteric high end stuff designed to perform out of spec.


----------



## castleofargh

silverears said:


> I think the point is if I'm understanding correctly is that the cable with the best conductance or the lease impedance is showing most linear response.


 
 that's only because the headphone itself doesn't have a linear impedance response over frequencies. else all those cables would do is slightly change the volume( an expensive one-position knob). it wouldn't do a thing to the signature. at least up to the point where the damping factor would become so bad that the driver would no longer behave right. not something those cables can do.
  keeping at least 1/10 is a sure way to never have to look after cables. but that's obviously hard to do with low impedance IEMs when some dap specs read <1ohm and actually measure several times that.


----------



## goodvibes

bigshot said:


> In general, high end audiophile cables are more likely to be hobbled to produce a "house sound" for the boutique manufacturer. Usually that means rolled off high end, because that is often the first thing to go when you are designing a totally inefficient cable. The same holds true for other kinds of equipment too... amps, cd players, DACs, etc. Midrange equipment usually has much better performance than esoteric high end stuff designed to perform out of spec.


 

 I know your feelings and don't entirely disagree about esoteric cables but I doubt many show roll before 20khz. Can't burn both sides of the spec candle. The earphone cables I was referring to were all braided and of sufficient guage to measure less than 1 ohm resistance except for a shielded moon audio. You need a whole lot of capacitance or inductance to show roll from a 2 ohm or even 50 ohm output impedance source.


----------



## SilverEars

esldude said:


> If I understand the top graph this is showing the impedance which appears to be just the plain resistance as it is constant with frequency.  The lower graphs one needs more info about the test to know what it shows.  My guess is it shows the response at his headphone with the various cables,  And the response of the phones he shows is consistent with that.  The response variation would appear to be an interaction in the impedance variation in the headphone and the added serial resistance of the cable.  Nothing mysterious really.  Though I wonder what length cable as the resistance of some seem rather high.  It also appears the amount of variation is not likely highly audible other than for a couple of the cables.
> 
> In other words rather than paying big bucks for cables like the Nordost for its high resistance, a resistor in series could be fine tuned if you prefer it with that response. Cost a buck or so instead of real money.  Better would be going with a very low resistance cable and EQ to taste.


 
 Notice the "Magnitude" on the axis.  This means it's taking the raw value with wether it has complex or reactive components in it.  Taking the magnitude of the the impedance(resistive and reactive).  The resistance should not be that high.  This means there is reactive components to the cable, wether it be capacitance or inductance, which explains the minor skew as the impedance magnitude goes up.  I know braid is for lowering the cap or induct and creating isolation without shielding.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> Notice the "Magnitude" on the axis.  This means it's taking the raw value with wether it has complex or reactive components in it.  Taking the magnitude of the the impedance(resistive and reactive).  The resistance should not be that high.  This means there is reactive components to the cable, wether it be capacitance or inductance, which explains the minor skew as the impedance magnitude goes up.  I know braid is for lowering the cap or induct and creating isolation without shielding.


 

 But with reactance the impedance would likely change rather than showing a flat line (assuming you are referring to the first graph) over the 20-20khz range. Again this is really no mystery.  If so it is mainly what were the details of how this measurement was made.


----------



## SilverEars

What I'm wondering about is how the resistance changes to this?  For audio frequencies should be an affect right?  I recall this for RF applications.  I've heard this model can be ignored for audio frequencies. capacitance is because of the metal end connectors become significantly capacitive at high frequencies.  And there is the skin affect at high frequencies.  I guess this model doesn't apply to cables since it's a straight conductor all way through.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> What I'm wondering about is how the resistance changes to this?  For audio frequencies should be an affect right?  I recall this for RF applications.  I've heard this model can be ignored for audio frequencies. capacitance is because of the metal end connectors become significantly capacitive at high frequencies.  And there is the skin affect at high frequencies.  I guess this model doesn't apply to cables since it's a straight conductor all way through.


 
 Well sometimes going to extremes shows the lay of the land.  Suppose your cable were wholly reactive.  Lets say a capacitance only, basically capacitor coupled.  If the capacitor were large enough versus the resistive load it would be -3 db at 2 hz, and flat essentially from 20 hz and above.  If it were some smaller, it might be -3db at 40 hz and rolling off at 6 db per octave into lower frequencies.  Above about 400 hz it would be flat. 
  
 Looking at the reverse, say your signal is simply an inductor.  It might be -3db down at 200 khz, and flat below 20 khz.  If the inductor is some larger it might be - 3db at 10 khz and flat below 1 khz.   And of course with parallel resistance, and caps as well as inductors mixed it can get messier.  But the formulae for figuring such response isn't too terribly awful.  Plugging in the proper values for impedance at both ends, and the appropriate inductance and capacitance values with typical cable it simply isn't an issue at audio frequencies for the most part. As others have said, sometimes boutique high end cable has been made with enough reactance to interfere at audio frequencies to give a house sound.  Typically soft highs.  Again, just bypass the con cable makers and use a basic good cable with no worries.  If you like the soft high end, EQ it in to your taste.


----------



## SilverEars

silverears said:


> Ok, here is some cable measurements.  Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 The right one follows the iem's impedance characteristic.  I wonder what this would do to the iem's FR?


----------



## castleofargh

not sure I understand your question. with the damping factor going bad, the change in FR of the IEM will always follow more and more the impedance response graph form.


----------



## SilverEars

Forget it, I figured it out.


----------



## SilverEars

castleofargh said:


> not sure I understand your question. with the damping factor going bad, the change in* FR of the IEM* will always follow more and more the impedance response graph form.


 
 Not true.  FR and impedance response graph is two different aspects of the iem.  FR is is measured dB of the sound level, and will look completely different from a load graph.  The power load graph will look like the impedance graph, hence it's called load graph.  What I think is that the second two bottom graphs are power transferred to the load graph.  As you can see, as the cable impedance gets larger and closer to the cable's impedance at the frequency, the power delivered drops at that frequency.  For example, if the cable's impedance was 8.2ohms around 10k, there should be -3dB(50%) power delivered to the load at that frequency.  
  
 -1dB of power transfer because of cable is significant, the treble is only getting 80% of the power(if you compare to the area that is close to 0dB), and this will change the FR.  
  
 Reason why, the FR will change is the power outputted to the load is not 1 to 1 for the whole frequency range, it varies, and it drops more than 20%(-1dB) at certain frequencies.  The cable with low impedance will only impede power of negligible value.


----------



## castleofargh

I maintain what I said, maybe "damping factor going bad" wasn't clear. I meant having a source+cable impedance getting bigger. did you understand it like that?
  
 I don't remember the calculations exactly right now as it involves both resistors in series and turning DB into voltage with log, and need some intel about the IEM specs that I'm not sure I'll find.(5am for me...) but the idea is simple if you take the extremes.
  
 with a source impedance close to zero(say zero),the voltage is going to be super low at the source, and become great once in the headphone resistor. that increase will be great in proportion to the headphone impedance variations, making the change in voltage over frequency a smaller part of what's deciding upon the final voltage.
  
 the opposite situation is when the source+cable impedance gets close to the values of the headphone. extreme situation again, damping ratio =1 at 1khz. so pretty much impedance matching instead of the usual impedance bridging. then the impedance variations over frequencies of the headphone become pretty much the only variable deciding on the voltage going into the headphone. because the difference in impedance from going from the source to the headphone is almost null at all frequencies( if exactly 1 as damping ratio). 
 in that situation finding the IEM signature is equal to adding the original frequency response graph (with close to zero source impedance) to the overall shape of the impedance response graph of the headphone(what I said in previous post). that is an effective rule of thumbs, I've been using it for years.
  
 not that I mistake ohms for DB, but simply because when the headphone impedance is high, the voltage will get high(so the IEM will be louder). and the other way around, when the impedance of the headphone is low, the voltage will be lower so less DB. so the variations of voltage will simply follow the variations in ohm. as simpe as that when close to impedance matching.
 take any measurement you want on M.R.O or other sites, and see how the signature changes by a variation of the shape of the impedance curve as soon as a resistor is added as source.
 and the higher the resistor, the closer both shapes will be.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> Not true.  FR and impedance response graph is two different aspects of the iem.  FR is is measured dB of the sound level, and will look completely different from a load graph.  The power load graph will look like the impedance graph, hence it's called load graph.  What I think is that the second two bottom graphs are power transferred to the load graph.  As you can see, as the cable impedance gets larger and closer to the cable's impedance at the frequency, the power delivered drops at that frequency.  For example, if the cable's impedance was 8.2ohms around 10k, there should be -3dB(50%) power delivered to the load at that frequency.
> 
> -1dB of power transfer because of cable is significant, the treble is only getting 80% of the power(if you compare to the area that is close to 0dB), and this will change the FR.
> 
> Reason why, the FR will change is the power outputted to the load is not 1 to 1 for the whole frequency range, it varies, and it drops more than 20%(-1dB) at certain frequencies.  The cable with low impedance will only impede power of negligible value.




The impedance of the cable would act as a voltage divider. In the hypothetical condition where the cable 
impedance matches the headphone impedance, the voltage delivered to the headphone is 1/2 the amp output. Power is V^2 / R, so the headphone gets only 1/4 of the power it would get in the absence of any source impedance. This would be -6 dB power. 

If i understand correctly, we percieve -10 dB power as "half as loud"

Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

ab initio said:


> The impedance of the cable would act as a voltage divider. In the hypothetical condition where the cable
> impedance matches the headphone impedance, the voltage delivered to the headphone is 1/2 the amp output. Power is V^2 / R, so the headphone gets only 1/4 of the power it would get in the absence of any source impedance. This would be -6 dB power.
> 
> If i understand correctly, we percieve -10 dB power as "half as loud"
> ...


 
 I dunno.  Since the voltage should be the same for both loads, and so should current.  So, P=IV for both loads.  I the same for both, V the same for both, so P the same for both.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> I dunno.  Since the voltage should be the same for both loads, and so should current.  So, P=IV for both loads.




The current will be different depending the impedance:

The voltage is set by the amp's volume knob, V. Given headphone impedance R, when there is no source impedance (i.e., perfect amp and cable) , then the current I = V/R.

If there is output impedance of the same magnitude as the headphone impedance, then the amp drives voltage across 2*R and this current I2 = V/(2*R) = 1/2 * I. The voltage across the headphone is R /(R +R) = 1/2 * V

In the first case, the power delivered to the headphones is P = (V/R) * V = V^2/R

In the second case, the power delivered to the headphones is P2 = (V/(2*R)) * ( V/2) = 1/4 * V^2/R.

As you can see, the presence of a souce impedance equal to the headphone impedance causes only 1/4 of the power to be delivered to thr headphone compared to the ideal zero source impedance case.

Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

ab initio said:


> The current will be different depending the impedance:
> 
> The voltage is set by the amp's volume knob, V. Given headphone impedance R, when there is no source impedance (i.e., perfect amp and cable) , then the current I = V/R.
> 
> ...


 
 How about the source impedance? Is it 1/4(P) also?  If that is the case, where has the 1/2(P) gone?


----------



## SilverEars

Lets say V=3, R=3. P of R(one of the load) = (3/2)^2/3 = 3/4
  
 Total P = 3^2/6=9/6=3/2  (This is P supplied, which should also be sum of loaded P)
  
 3/4 + 3/4(each load) = 3/2(Supplied P)
  
 There. Each load has 1/2 power of supplied, and satisfies nature's conservation law.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> How about the source impedance? Is it 1/4(P) also?  If that is the case, where has the 1/2(P) gone?


 

 yes, the source is 1/4 P also. The 1/2 P hasn't gone anywhere at all. Because the voltage source (the amp) sees a higher overall resistance, less current flows and less power is used.
  
  


silverears said:


> Lets say V=3, R=3. P of R(one of the load) = (3/2)^2/3 = 3/4
> 
> Total P = 3^2/6=9/6=3/2  (This is P supplied, which should also be sum of loaded P)
> 
> ...


 
 I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here?
  
 V is fixed. If you've got two impedances in series (e.g., cable impedance + headphone impedance), the voltage across either of the elements is a fraction of the V. See voltage divider
  
  
 Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

..


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


>


 
  
 Hope this clears it up
  

  
  
 Cheers


----------



## cjl

silverears said:


> Lets say V=3, R=3. P of R(one of the load) = (3/2)^2/3 = 3/4
> 
> Total P = 3^2/6=9/6=3/2  (This is P supplied, which should also be sum of loaded P)
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, each load gets half the supplied power, but each load gets 1/4 the power that would have been delivered to the main load if the cables had zero impedance.
  
 If you have a single load of 3 ohms in your same scenario, P = 3^2/3 = 9/3 = 3. There is no other load, so this is the total power supplied. Note that the total power supplied is twice what it was in your case, and the power delivered to the headphones is 4x what it was in your case. That's what ab initio was pointing out when he was talking about 1/4 the power.


----------



## SilverEars

cjl said:


> Yes, each load gets half the supplied power, but each load gets 1/4 the power that would have been delivered to the main load if the cables had zero impedance.
> 
> If you have a single load of 3 ohms in your same scenario, P = 3^2/3 = 9/3 = 3. There is no other load, so this is the total power supplied. Note that the total power supplied is twice what it was in your case, and the power delivered to the headphones is 4x what it was in your case. That's what ab initio was pointing out when he was talking about 1/4 the power.


 
 Thanks for pointing this out.  Yes, looks like Ab inito was referring the power loss from added impedance. 
  
 Ab inito, sorry for the confusion, and I take back what I said.  This is insightful as it tells that the drop in transfer of power is pretty significant with added impedance.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> Thanks for pointing this out.  Yes, looks like Ab inito was referring the power loss from added impedance.
> 
> Ab inito, sorry for the confusion, and I take back what I said.  This is insightful as it tells that the drop in transfer of power is pretty significant with added impedance.


 
  
 No worries. Sometimes these types of discussions are tough to have via message board without an easy way to sketch out the problem. I hope I was trying to solve the same problem you were discussing! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

well he sure doesn't seem to be a fan of my nobrain way of anticipating frequency variations ^_^.
 I've made something on a calc file to get an overall vision of the result, but even there I did cut corners, lot of corners ^_^.(my purpose being to have a general idea of the shape of the signature not to have the most exact values). stuff like deciding that 1volt was 100db on the headphone (I have no shame).
 as it still led to something close to what was on M.R.O graphs with 30 or 100ohm resistors added, I have decided that it was good enough for my needs on most headphones and never tried to get the real deal as I often lacked specs anyway to do a conclusive calculation on a headphone.
  
 you can see an example of what I get on my review of the 334 (no worries I wasn't on the front page 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) http://www.head-fi.org/products/fitear-to-go-334/reviews/10484 
 right at the bottom.


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> you can see an example of what I get on my review of the 334 (no worries I wasn't on the front page
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Uh-oh, have I now acquired the reputation of being "that ***hole guy"? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

ab initio said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > you can see an example of what I get on my review of the 334 (no worries I wasn't on the front page
> ...


 
 you can't blame me for that easy troll, it was just too tempting.
 but no mistake, I side with you on the subject.


----------



## goodvibes

silverears said:


> The right one follows the iem's impedance characteristic.  I wonder what this would do to the iem's FR?


 
 That response curve was taken with the IEM already there as load. It's why those response curves look like that. I haven't read that article but I believe Rin does those as differential curves. It has no relation to what's happening with your amp and source impedances which are also not using 4' cables. 1' cable means 1/4 the characteristics. All those cables in the length and loads you are using them would functionally measure as identical. That said, I've always been of the opinion that there's more going on than we can measure steady state so I believe your impressions but there's not much in those curves to explain it.


----------



## SilverEars

Now it's starting to come together.  I'm am realizing why people are saying silver is bright and copper is warm.  I notice they say this with multi-BA iems.  If you look at Multi-BA iems, the added drivers boosts the impedance of the low mid to bass region, and the treble impedance drops to less than 10 and extreme cases for such as SE846, it drops to like 5ohms.  The NT6 impedance graph shows that the treble drops to abot 7ohms.  What this means is that the copper made cables could have higher ohmage than the silver ones, although it still depends on the crossectional area of the conductor.  I believe the reduction of treble is interpreted as added warmth by many.


----------



## castleofargh

silverears said:


> Now it's starting to come together.  I'm am realizing why people are saying silver is bright and copper is warm.  I notice they say this with multi-BA iems.  If you look at Multi-BA iems, the added drivers boosts the impedance of the low mid to bass region, and the treble impedance drops to less than 10 and extreme cases for such as SE846, it drops to like 5ohms.  The NT6 impedance graph shows that the treble drops to abot 7ohms.  What this means is that the copper made cables could have higher ohmage than the silver ones, although it still depends on the crossectional area of the conductor.  I believe the reduction of treble is interpreted as added warmth by many.


 
 the crossection but also some cables run like 8breads each isolated from the others(not on the jack obviously). but they play with the impedance that way too.
  

 from my understanding, a single BA driver often have an impedance response that tend toward something rising at the end like that.

 the trebles get higher impedance response and only acoustic damping and roll off due to the physical limits of the driver, explain the final signature. being that most multi BA IEMs usually cut between 10 and 14khz and don't have high freqs anyway. so that ultimate rise is of no real concern.
 anyway in this example going from copper to silver would slightly lower the trebles.
  
 here with the shure846


 copper+resistor(or a 3ohm dap) would have slightly more bass and less mid/high mids (treble are cut off after 11 or 12khz so we don't care)
 with silver the opposite obviously, slightly less bass and more mids/high-mids.
 well all this is about cables that mostly won't even have a 1ohm difference so expecting a great change in signature would be foolish. here obviously the DAP will matter a lot more than the cable.
  
 and my favorite situation is with the W4
 FR:

  
 impedance response:


 they are both almost perfectly aligned and opposed. so here using silver would slightly increase the variations of the original signature(more bass, more 10khz...), while using a resistor to add impedance to the cable would actually flatten the FR and get us a more neutral IEM. so here silver is clearly a bad choice, and that's why it drives me crazy when people make generalizations like saying that "silver improves trebles". just because it did on the one IEM they tried it with, doesn't mean that all IEMs will react the same, and obviously they won't as it depends mostly on the crossovers and the type of driver. when I read that the LCD2 sounds is more balanced/brighter with silver cable I LOL, that thing has like perfectly flat impedance response. and if the impedance difference between copper and silver would actually change the sound just with the difference in damping, then obviously the headphone is driven by the wrong amp and something is wrong.


----------



## SilverEars

Do you think it's possible for LCD to do a perfectly flat response?  Their graphs are so flat, and I know he purposely drops the harsh frequencies to avoid harshness and make it less fitguing.  The reason why HD800 is harsh is because that region is bumped slightly above neutral I think.  If LCD make a flat response I think it will be perfectly neutral with not sounding dark like everybody says.  I'm sure there is a reason why he doesn't want to do that.  Graphically, it would impress people like me thought.  I got faith Audeze can flatten this.  Why do most headphones take a dip at 3k?


----------



## castleofargh

here the FR is compensated, in fact the raw FR of the LCD has a bump in the 3khz region. so it comes down to know what compensation curve is right for you.


----------



## mikeaj

castleofargh said:


> so here silver is clearly a bad choice, and that's why it drives me crazy when people make generalizations like saying that "silver improves trebles". just because it did on the one IEM they tried it with, doesn't mean that all IEMs will react the same, and obviously they won't as it depends mostly on the crossovers and the type of driver. when I read that the LCD2 sounds is more balanced/brighter with silver cable I LOL, that thing has like perfectly flat impedance response. and if the impedance difference between copper and silver would actually change the sound just with the difference in damping, then obviously the headphone is driven by the wrong amp and something is wrong.


 
  
 In these kinds of situations, people aren't doing comparisons with literally the only difference in the cables being the materials types, right?
  
 I mean, silver is what, 5% more conductive than copper? But also more expensive. Silver IEM cables are probably liable to be thinner, and who knows what the construction differences between actual products actually is. Even with all else equal, 5% less cable impedance should usually be no big deal.
  
  


silverears said:


> Do you think it's possible for LCD to do a perfectly flat response?  Their graphs are so flat, and I know he purposely drops the harsh frequencies to avoid harshness and make it less fitguing.  The reason why HD800 is harsh is because that region is bumped slightly above neutral I think.  If LCD make a flat response I think it will be perfectly neutral with not sounding dark like everybody says.  I'm sure there is a reason why he doesn't want to do that.  Graphically, it would impress people like me thought.  I got faith Audeze can flatten this.  Why do most headphones take a dip at 3k?


 
  
 Differences in individual listeners aside, there's no way they can make the frequency response exactly what they want with the current technology. They don't do it because they're trying and can't quite achieve it.


----------



## liamstrain

mikeaj said:


> I mean, silver is what, 5% more conductive than copper? But also more expensive. Silver IEM cables are probably liable to be thinner, and who knows what the construction differences between actual products actually is. Even with all else equal, 5% less cable impedance should usually be no big deal.


 
  
 5-7% is about right - but what that means practically is much less... on a 10 foot cable of equal gauge, shortening the copper cable by ~1cm makes them even again, from a resistance standpoint.


----------



## SilverEars

Ok, so I've been really intrigued with an iem that came out early this year from Japan called Dita - The Answer.  It's a dynamic driver iem and right now they sell two versions.  The regular one, and the other one they label as "Truth Edition" with a different cable on it.  Both supposedly has identical drivers.  Of course, they didn't make the cable's detatcheable for some reason, I'm curious if it has anything to do with what they did with the cable.  So the one with the better cable costs $400 more costing $1000, it's pretty insane for a different cable.  What is interesting is, it's dynamic which probably means the impedance response is flat, and what do you suppose they did with the cabling on the $1000 version?  Given it's dynamic, it can't be just matter of adding ohms to the cable, there's got to be more.
  
 http://www.ditaaudio.com/index.php/products/answer-truth-edition.html


----------



## castleofargh

dynamic drivers are usually less chaotic than BAs when it comes to impedance response over freqs, but it doesn't mean they're all flat. you hd800 isn't 
  
 in this case, I believe the price is only because it's pretty or sorft or maybe sturdy or whatever. not really that it does change anything in the IEM's sound.
 cable name:  "the truth"
 cable spec:  the best possible
  
 I think we have all we were looking for here... even if it happens to be a great cable, the way they advertise it is ludicrous.


----------



## Don Hills

I wouldn't call it 'ludicrous" advertising. I'd call it "advertising to your target market". Or, "There's one born every minute". Or, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."


----------



## castleofargh

I would buy a pricey cable if it was really beautiful maybe, or if  the specs said something like "low on microphonics and doesn't get entangled on its own every time you don't look". that would make for a great cable. 
 and a sport version "you can climb down a wall hanging on it with your mum on your back telling you to go slower" or "we slammed a door 50 times on it and it still works" .
  
 those are my expectations for cables ^_^.


----------



## bigshot

silverears said:


> Why do most headphones take a dip at 3k?




Fletcher Munson.


----------



## castleofargh

mikeaj said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > so here silver is clearly a bad choice, and that's why it drives me crazy when people make generalizations like saying that "silver improves trebles". just because it did on the one IEM they tried it with, doesn't mean that all IEMs will react the same, and obviously they won't as it depends mostly on the crossovers and the type of driver. when I read that the LCD2 sounds is more balanced/brighter with silver cable I LOL, that thing has like perfectly flat impedance response. and if the impedance difference between copper and silver would actually change the sound just with the difference in damping, then obviously the headphone is driven by the wrong amp and something is wrong.
> ...


 
 well I'm sure that just doing some braids, having some shielding, or changing the length or thickness of the conductor part of the cable is what makes a cable good or bad for the proper needs, not the choice of metal in it. and that's probably what makes enough differences to be audible. I was talking real variations but of laughable magnitude, that's why I had to put so many "slightly" in my sentences ^_^.


----------



## jcx

I've never seen braiding recommended on electrical grounds - may look pretty though
  
 EE's spec twisted pairs, star quad, coax, shielding - for electrical performance, immunity to external field coupling
  
 Litz wiring may be "braided" to move the individual conductors evenly over the radius of the cable - but it is then used as a single electrical conductor - and headphone cable are too a small gage wire to have audible skin effect loss
  
 braiding is likely to cause measureable increase in channel cross talk compared to normal EE cabling practice like individually twisted pairs for each channel


----------



## castleofargh

I hear that this opens the soundstage a great deal.


----------



## Steve Eddy

jcx said:


> I've never seen braiding recommended on electrical grounds - may look pretty though
> 
> EE's spec twisted pairs, star quad, coax, shielding - for electrical performance, immunity to external field coupling




Braided cable was patented back in 1960. It was invented by Henry Albert Milloit for the Perfection Mica Corporation. It is still sold today under the Inter-8 Weave trademark by Magnetic Shield Corporation (a subdivision of Perfection Mica). It does indeed offer better performance over twisted pair. 

http://custommagneticshielding.magneticshield.com/viewitems/magnetic-shielding-for-wiring-applications/inter-8-weave-cable

Ray Kimber was actually able to secure a patent on the very same braid. I was the one who broke the news to him that the money he had spent on the patent had been wasted and he should ask for a refund from his patent attorneys. 



se


----------



## jcx

I believe star quad will have same or superior electrical characteristics for similar wire awg and insulation thickness - the "inter-8" weave page gives no data - the shielding pdf only claims mechanical improvements when you recognize that star quad has the same conductor count when both are used as 2 conductor cable


----------



## Steve Eddy

jcx said:


> I believe star quad will have same or superior electrical characteristics for similar wire awg and insulation thickness - the "inter-8" weave page gives no data - the shielding pdf only claims mechanical improvements when you recognize that star quad has the same conductor count when both are used as 2 conductor cable




Perhaps so, though I would imagine the starquad would have a bit higher capacitance. And I like the self-constraining nature of the braid.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Fletcher Munson.




Huh? What has Fletcher-Munson have to do with it?

se


----------



## liamstrain

steve eddy said:


> Huh? What has Fletcher-Munson have to do with it?
> 
> se


 
  
 Only thing I can think is that he's suggesting people tune to the equal loudness curves... since our sensitivity to those frequencies is higher, they are reduced in volume, so as to even out the overall sonic signature. Which would account for why so many show a dip in that frequency range.


----------



## Steve Eddy

liamstrain said:


> Only thing I can think is that he's suggesting people tune to the equal loudness curves... since our sensitivity to those frequencies is higher, they are reduced in volume, so as to even out the overall sonic signature. Which would account for why so many show a dip in that frequency range.




But you don't want to "correct" for the equal loudness curves, except for something like a "loudness" button to help make the sound more even when played at lower levels. But you wouldn't want to "correct" for it overall. It's how we hear so listening through an inverse equal loudness filter would sound unnatural.

se


----------



## bigshot

Fletcher Munson only affects about the last three octaves of human hearing. As the frequencies and volume rises, Fletcher Munson becomes more important. -10dB or so splits the difference in the sensitive zone, and above 6kHz, a little boost is beneficial, especially for people 50 and over. If you can hit measured flat, try a slope down around 10kHz from 2kHz to 6kHz and a slope up to +10dB from 6kHz to 10kHz and +10 flatlined above. It's a compromise, a DSP that dynamically adjusted it would work better, but it is a good compromise. Try it. It allows you to play music at loud volumes without fatigue.


----------



## stv014

steve eddy said:


> But you don't want to "correct" for the equal loudness curves, except for something like a "loudness" button to help make the sound more even when played at lower levels. But you wouldn't want to "correct" for it overall. It's how we hear so listening through an inverse equal loudness filter would sound unnatural.


 
  
 More likely, it could be due to the way full size headphone enclosures (especially closed ones) tend to interact with the acoustics of the outer ear. Perhaps the fact that the ears are covered affects the ear canal resonance, which is normally a large peak centered at ~3 kHz.


----------



## stv014

bigshot said:


> Fletcher Munson only affects about the last three octaves of human hearing.


 
  
 Actually, equal loudness contours affect the low frequency range significantly. 1 dB of increase in sub-bass SPL results in roughly 2 dB higher perceived loudness in the 20-80 phons range.


----------



## liamstrain

steve eddy said:


> But you don't want to "correct" for the equal loudness curves, except for something like a "loudness" button to help make the sound more even when played at lower levels. But you wouldn't want to "correct" for it overall. It's how we hear so listening through an inverse equal loudness filter would sound unnatural.
> 
> se


 
  
 Definitely agree - I am just speculating what he might have meant.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Fletcher Munson only affects about the last three octaves of human hearing. As the frequencies and volume rises, Fletcher Munson becomes more important. -10dB or so splits the difference in the sensitive zone, and above 6kHz, a little boost is beneficial, especially for people 50 and over. If you can hit measured flat, try a slope down around 10kHz from 2kHz to 6kHz and a slope up to +10dB from 6kHz to 10kHz and +10 flatlined above. It's a compromise, a DSP that dynamically adjusted it would work better, but it is a good compromise. Try it. It allows you to play music at loud volumes without fatigue.




You'd only want to correct for Fletcher-Munson when listening at LOWER volumes. At normal listening levels, you want a flat playback. Because we become less sensitive at the frequency extremes as levels go down, adding a bit of bass and treble boost helps maintain the frequency balance we hear at louder levels.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

stv014 said:


> More likely, it could be due to the way full size headphone enclosures (especially closed ones) tend to interact with the acoustics of the outer ear. Perhaps the fact that the ears are covered affects the ear canal resonance, which is normally a large peak centered at ~3 kHz.




Agreed.

se


----------



## bigshot

It might be how my super tweeters work. I have a dip and rise in the 2kHz to 8kHz range in my response curve that looks an awful lot like a Fletcher Munson curve.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> It might be how my super tweeters work. I have a dip and rise in the 2kHz to 8kHz range in my response curve that looks an awful lot like a Fletcher Munson curve.




I'm sure it's just poor crossover design. 

se


----------



## bigshot

The level of the tweeter is adjustable on the back of the monitor. Might be that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> The level of the tweeter is adjustable on the back of the monitor. Might be that.




Might be. But I'm sure none of it has anything to do with Fletcher-Munson.

se


----------



## x838nwy

Actually, I've always been a bit curious about some older speakers that have like pictures of what appears to be fr curves on them and a knob for you to switch between each curve. Sometimes just knobs for what appears to be a tone control of sorts. You know, like old JBL's and such. Is this anything related to the equal-loudness or fletcher-muson curve?


----------



## bigshot

The knobs on the back are volume pots for the midrange and tweeter. They get you in the ballpark for EQing.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> silverears said:
> 
> 
> > Why do most headphones take a dip at 3k?
> ...


 
 Shouldn't it be boosted at that region since we are less sensitive to it according to the curve? And, the heavy treble region seems to rise and that rise.  The headphones should reverse the curve at average listening loudness level.  Looks like 3k with a band around the region should be boosted to compensate for our sensitivity.


----------



## SilverEars

Is it a coincidence that Knowles acoustic dampers for iems reflect the fletcher-munson curve?


----------



## liamstrain

edit - nevermind.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


> Shouldn't it be boosted at that region since we are less sensitive to it according to the curve? And, the heavy treble region seems to rise and that rise.  The headphones should reverse the curve at average listening loudness level.  Looks like 3k with a band around the region should be boosted to compensate for our sensitivity.


 

 Wouldn't the dips around 3kHz have something to do with dealing with the natural resonances of the headphone cups? Naturally, if there are resonances at that frequency when the headphones are in place, then you would want to reduce the energy at those frequencies.
  
 At 3kHz and assuming speed of sound is 330 m/s, the wavelength is 11 cm. That puts the 1/2 wavelength at 5.5 cm and the 1/4 wavelength at 2.75 cm (which would correspond to the first harmonics in open and closed headphones, respectively) 
  
 Those numbers sound like reasonable back of earcup-to-face lengths for circumaural headphones, don't they?
  
Here's a little java applet that illustrates acoustic resonance in various 1-D chambers of different boundary conditions. Unfortunately, it doesn't let one enter lengths less than 10 cm; however, by mathematical extension, you can see how the stated lengths above are accurate.
  
 Cheers


----------



## SilverEars

I found this, now to look for a headphone that look like this.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Is there a better one than this?  This one is kinda crappy.


----------



## SilverEars

Look at the 009, uncompensated in grey.  Ok, now I see why bigshot mentioned Oppo.


----------



## ab initio

silverears said:


>


 

 I don't think that inverse Fletcher-Munson curve would sound right.... That would make the frequencies we are already extra sensitve to overly exaggerated. At the same time, it would deemphasize the frequencies we can't hear well.
  
 Even your 009 curve takes a dip at 2--3 kHz relative to the surrounding frequencies. Also, the low end is much much flatter than any of those inverse curves.
  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

silverears said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > silverears said:
> ...


 

 that graph is showing 3khz as the frequency we hear the loudest, so it certainly isn't the reason why 3khz is boosted on headphones.


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> that graph is showing 3khz as the frequency we hear the loudest, so it certainly isn't the reason why 3khz is boosted on headphones.


 
 How we perceive loudness should have zero bearing on the frequency response of headphones, speakers, or any HiFi sound reproduction equipment. The frequency response should be flat, otherwise the sound will be very unbalanced.
  
Cheers


----------



## x838nwy

ab initio said:


> How we perceive loudness should have zero bearing on the frequency response of headphones, speakers, or any HiFi sound reproduction equipment. The frequency response should be flat, otherwise the sound will be very unbalanced.
> 
> Cheers


 
  
 Yeah, this is something that got me a little confused when I started thinking about it - I was mixing up perception curves with equalization. The way I see it - and I may be incorrect - is that you want the entire system, from mic to ear drums, to be exactly just a simple gain or attenuation and nothing else. The "perception" part is a transfer function that should act on the signal itself at the head. Any adjustment should be aimed at making the response of the system (including the room, etc.) as flat as possible, leaving the head to do whatever it does.... right?


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Yeah, this is something that got me a little confused when I started thinking about it - I was mixing up perception curves with equalization. The way I see it - and I may be incorrect -* is that you want the entire system, from mic to ear drums, to be exactly just a simple gain or attenuation and nothing else. The "perception" part is a transfer function that should act on the signal itself at the head. Any adjustment should be aimed at making the response of the system (including the room, etc.) as flat as possible, leaving the head to do whatever it does*.... right?


 
  
 Yup. That just about sums up what I want from my audio system.
  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

just like anything "artistic", some people will favor something that others would find weird, for no other reason than "feeling like it".
 but for the majority it still seems logical to seek a sound as close as possible to the real deal(on our side that stops at trying to hear the same thing the sound engineer heard while mixing), a sound that had traveled some distance in the air, and bounced where it could(room, body, ears).
 so perfectly neutral inside a headphone would not be what we want to hear. when it would be perfect for speakers.
 if you make my headphone sound(to me) like speakers well placed in a room of moderate size, I'll be the happiest guy in the world. with cables I guess we could make some with massive crosstalk, it would already give a more convincing direction ^_^.


----------



## bigshot

It's possible to think analytically about artistic things too. Some of the most logical and methodical people I know are artists. People just use art as an excuse for sloppy logic. Usually, those people aren't even artistic either, so they don't have much of anything going for them.


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> if you make my headphone sound(to me) like speakers well placed in a room of moderate size, I'll be the happiest guy in the world. with cables I guess we could make some with massive crosstalk, it would already give a more convincing direction ^_^.


 
  
 I'm pretty happy using the bauer stereophonic-to-binaural DSP in foobar and winamp. It's not exactly simulating speakers and room acoustics, but I feel like the soundstage becomes more natural and I don't get the headaches I sometimes get listening stereo recordings with poor stereo mixing.
  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

ab initio said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > if you make my headphone sound(to me) like speakers well placed in a room of moderate size, I'll be the happiest guy in the world. with cables I guess we could make some with massive crosstalk, it would already give a more convincing direction ^_^.
> ...


 

 that's what I use too now, I started with xnor's(give him back!!!) xfeed some years back and found a nice setting, but one day i've lost the settings and raged from having to "experiment" again and got lazy. I tried a few (one day I'll have to clean up foobar....hermagerd my component folder!!!! ) and found this one to be working fine for me. that +easyQ and it's all good. but still not really speaker like.
 and for portable gear there is crossfeed option on my leckerton amp that sounds sooooo much better than the surround dsp on my old sony dap.


----------



## ab initio

castleofargh said:


> that's what I use too now, I started with xnor's(give him back!!!) xfeed some years back and found a nice setting, but one day i've lost the settings and raged from having to "experiment" again and got lazy. I tried a few (one day I'll have to clean up foobar....hermagerd my component folder!!!! ) and found this one to be working fine for me. that +easyQ and it's all good. but still not really speaker like.
> and for portable gear there is crossfeed option on my leckerton amp that sounds sooooo much better than the surround dsp on my old sony dap.


 
  
 The only portable digital audio players I've every used have been my cellphones. The crossfeed on android is crap in my opinion, but it does sounds audiophile quality compared to the dolby headphone setting on one of my computer's realtek ALC892 (Yuck!). I'd be interested to hear some of the crossfeeds out there in various equipment, both hardware and software varieties.
  
 Cheers


----------



## liamstrain

Software wise, when running computer based audio (most of my headphone listening) - I've been very happy with the 112db Redline Monitor crossfeed plug-in. They offer a few formats, I use it via Audio Hijack pro to implement through whatever I'm listening too... unless I'm using Fidelia, where I just run the same plug-in directly. I am also a huge fan of 112db's parametric eq.


----------



## Lespectraal

I guess this means that my whole life is a lie. I bought some custom cables, interconnects and COAX cables for quite a sum of money. And it's true, there seems to be no change in sound. I don't have the means to do a DBT but reading up on the various peer reviewed articles and reading on threads upon the subject of electrical engineering, sound and psychoacoustics, it is pretty much dead on that cables do not alter the signal whatsoever.
  
 I don't necessarily need to prove that there is no difference, during my observations with my friends they always think that all my custom cables and accessories are all meant to sound balanced, because every time they use my interconnect they say it's balanced this, neutral that, flat that. All the comments I receive reflect my sound signature preference, not what the actual cables do.
  
 During one of our meet sessions my friends would try out each other stuff, where I had a cable out on the desk, and my friend instantly took it and tried it out himself. Now he's the type that loves a darker, bassier sound with a more gentle treble, and he himself is deep into the cabling business, buying interconnects of extreme prices. After trying out my cable he said that the cable was very balanced this and that, but the truth was that my cable was aimed at being bright somewhat, to combat my DAP's rather dark signature. That got me really thinking about this whole cable shenanigan.
  
 You see I have this guy who makes cables completely from scratch, and made by hand using workbench materials. So they have a rather industrial look to them, not the fancy finish and colorful designs you get with those boutique cables at hundreds or even thousand dollars in price. All this makes the cable look rather lackluster really. So you can't really tell if it is made of silver or whatnot.
  
 That was quite some time ago, now with all the information I've gained so far, I have seen the light at the edge of the tunnel. I've had it all I've seen it all, heard it all. It's just a true blue sky.


----------



## castleofargh

after I got my JH13 I bought some fancy lod, some whiplash SWAG cable, some silver dragon stuff. close to 1000$ in cable with no idea why I was getting all that, just following the FOTM like another happy sheep. so you're not alone, most of us learned the hard way. I broke them all in less than a year (hulk smash), and had to get another silver dragon because I couldn't find a cheap cable with the RSA plug :'( all that without noticing much, if any difference and nothing that I didn't seem to be able to do with an EQ(but the twag was really pretty, I have to give them that). and now I get those 50$ cables and I'm just as happy with the sound. somehow they are passive components, so not hearing a difference is in itself a good sign that it's doing well.


----------



## x838nwy

lespectraal said:


> I guess this means that my whole life is a lie. I bought some custom cables, interconnects and COAX cables for quite a sum of money. And it's true, there seems to be no change in sound. I don't have the means to do a DBT but reading up on the various peer reviewed articles and reading on threads upon the subject of electrical engineering, sound and psychoacoustics, it is pretty much dead on that cables do not alter the signal whatsoever.
> 
> I don't necessarily need to prove that there is no difference, during my observations with my friends they always think that all my custom cables and accessories are all meant to sound balanced, because every time they use my interconnect they say it's balanced this, neutral that, flat that. All the comments I receive reflect my sound signature preference, not what the actual cables do.
> 
> ...


 
  
 When you say you don't have the means to do a DBT, why not do a simple swap between what you have and basic monoprice-type cables? That's not the most scientific of tests but surely that's possible, right?
  
 When you say "custom cables", I assume you mean those made by this guy you mention at the bottom of your post, right? If that's the case, it's gonna be difficult to sell them, but have you spoken to the guy who made these cables for you? Would be good to have his take on things. As with anything, going for a custom made solution is always risky in terms of re-sale value even when you're buying from a well-known brand so I assume you and he have a pretty good relationship to begin with, right? If that's the case, may be he can find someone who'll be willing to take them off your hands, may be?
  
 **EDIT**
 Jesus, I just looked at your profile. It seems you have a few items from a particular chain of headphone stores that seem to have spread around South East Asia. Honestly, they do a good job as retailers for ciem's and headphones in general but their own brand of amps, specially the smaller ones are simply useless. I'm sorry if I come across as a snob or whatever, but really, your iPod or just about any other reasonable DAP in the market have better amplifiers built in to them than a lot of what these boys are pushing. Plus, some of the LOD's they're selling are just stupid, period. There are amazing products out there, just steer clear of this lot otherwise you'll just end up thinking there cannot possibly be any amp that make a difference to what you're hearing.


----------



## Lespectraal

x838nwy said:


> When you say you don't have the means to do a DBT, why not do a simple swap between what you have and basic monoprice-type cables? That's not the most scientific of tests but surely that's possible, right?
> 
> When you say "custom cables", I assume you mean those made by this guy you mention at the bottom of your post, right? If that's the case, it's gonna be difficult to sell them, but have you spoken to the guy who made these cables for you? Would be good to have his take on things. As with anything, going for a custom made solution is always risky in terms of re-sale value even when you're buying from a well-known brand so I assume you and he have a pretty good relationship to begin with, right? If that's the case, may be he can find someone who'll be willing to take them off your hands, may be?
> 
> ...


 

 I've swapped cables back and forth by myself, and heard no difference, but without using the rigorous DBT methods. Yeah you can say that I was biased not to hear a difference, but back then when I was into the damn interconnect craze I seriously thought I heard a difference. Oh well. I'll do a DBT when I have the time and capabilities to do so, I've got other pressing matters to deal with in my life.

 Don't worry, I've already dealt with the cables. Now I'll just stick to Monoprice or just use stock cables. I've learned, that's important. Can you imagine the money I would have blown for cables alone if I hadn't realized this? Spending some thousands of dollars on a piece of cable when I could just buy a headphone instead? Now I can pretty much afford the other stuff that do improve sound. What a way to go!

 Fortunately that was my old equipment, I didn't bother the update my equipment and whatnot to reflect what I do have, maybe some other day? Those amps and DACs you've mentioned were mostly from special promotional purchases for a discount anyways. Some I got free along with my headphone purchases. Just as with cables, I've learned a lot about digital audio as well lurking around this site, I know what to look for in DACs now, so don't worry.


----------



## x838nwy

Oh look:

http://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/HFN_USB%20Cable%20GT%20July.pdf?utm_campaign=Nordost+Review+Emails&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=13840468&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_affWu2iivGTAOqcRrcH9Ql0j-9uovoUChHtaT2dNQhlGzhmyrpFpg6-fVOI5EVMsP5fJX_qqYvArtUp0AgdjugF0c2w&_hsmi=13840468


----------



## castleofargh

x838nwy said:


> Oh look:
> 
> http://nordost.com/images/review-images/review-pdf/HFN_USB%20Cable%20GT%20July.pdf?utm_campaign=Nordost+Review+Emails&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=13840468&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_affWu2iivGTAOqcRrcH9Ql0j-9uovoUChHtaT2dNQhlGzhmyrpFpg6-fVOI5EVMsP5fJX_qqYvArtUp0AgdjugF0c2w&_hsmi=13840468


 
  they skillfully avoid giving too many details about how the experiments were conducted:
 was the guy changing the cable visible during the listening?
 how many people?
 how many swapping of cables? or was it a one time run for each and guess whatever you want?
 were the subjects allowed to speak to each other before giving the final judgment? was it a collective judgement?
 and when there was a problem with consistency between 2 groups, how come we don't see a trace of doubt in the results? oh let me guess they all did perfect and came up with the exact same ******** 100% of the time...
  
 ahem well let's not waste time on trivial stuff, instead let's write 5 lines of poetic nonsense from people on LSD, about how bass now tastes like the warmth of the yellow danube because of a ******* USB cable.
 great sense of priorities here.


----------



## bigshot

There is one actual fact that can be gleaned from that review... Now we know which one of their sponsors pays the most in advertising fees and which one pays the least!


----------



## Roly1650

castleofargh said:


> they skillfully avoid giving too many details about how the experiments were conducted:
> was the guy changing the cable visible during the listening?
> how many people?
> how many swapping of cables? or was it a one time run for each and guess whatever you want?
> ...



Yes, frustrating for sure. But the aim of the hi-Fi press is to obscure and confuse on behalf of their advertisers, not provide worthwhile information and very successful they are at it to.


----------



## esldude

They show the eye pattern for USB, and talk about the lower or higher jitter evident on the transition edges.  However, unlike SPDIF where edges are used to recover timing, USB only reads the middle 20% of the eye.  And it only reads it for bits, for data, and no timing is implied.  The timing only comes in once the DAC clocks that data out.  Which is of course where it could change the analog output which we have no evidence of in these goofy "tests".


----------



## nick_charles

castleofargh said:


> they skillfully avoid giving too many details about how the experiments were conducted:
> was the guy changing the cable visible during the listening?
> how many people?
> how many swapping of cables? or was it a one time run for each and guess whatever you want?
> ...


 
  
  
 I'm sure that the testing was single blind and was proctored strictly , it is just that it is all wrong. All that the tests showed was that reviewers reported hearing differences in USB cables, the tests did not indicate in any way whether this was true. Assuming that the listeners knew that the cables were changed between sessions they are primed to hear differences. Had the testers occasionally thrown in a few A followed by A sequences then we might tell if they even heard the same thing when it was presented twice. At no point were the listeners explicitly asked if they could hear the difference between two cables in a direct test i.e same/different (The infamous kettle lead experiment shows us that people can easily hear differences between the same things !) or this is A this is B. Of the 10 cables tested 5 gained recommendations but there appeared no correlation between the technical performance of the cable (the ability to carry packets of data with no timing errors) and the subjective reviews - the best technically speaking cable scored only 75% even less than a cable that had borderline USB 2.0 performance and not much better than a cable that did not even meet the USB 2.0 standard - _how incompetent a designer do you have to be to manage that feat !_
  
 I agree that they could have provided more details such as order of cables presented how many reviewers listened at each session and so on...but even so overall these tests are of zero value !


----------



## castleofargh

oh I didn't even mention the "technical explanations" part because there is no relation with what they talked about and supposedly used as rating results.
 and yes we don't know if they switched each time the sound stopped, but that would have obviously triggered false positive so seeing how they seem to love pretending to have it all under control, I bet they just listened all song with one cable, stopped, placed the next one... in one pass without any trick or re-use of one cable. so people could run wild without any danger of making a fool of themselves.
  
 about the rise delay, well if it's good enough not to get errors then it's only a matter of when the values 1 and 0 are triggered right? for all asynchronous DACs it doesn't matter at all as it will be stored and reclocked. and for the rest, if the delay is constant it also doesn't matter so I don't really see the point of this measurement. is there something important I don't understand?


----------



## dvw

castleofargh said:


> about the rise delay, well if it's good enough not to get errors then it's only a matter of when the values 1 and 0 are triggered right? for all asynchronous DACs it doesn't matter at all as it will be stored and reclocked. and for the rest, if the delay is constant it also doesn't matter so I don't really see the point of this measurement. is there something important I don't understand?


 
  
 I don't think too many people get this. The concept of different clock domain was ignored over and over again.
  
 Personally, I think this is just a shoot out/review and can not be taken seriously. If it is for technical review, they should at minimum include a generic USB cable.


----------



## ab initio

As far as the measurements are concerned, all those cables transmit the data equally correctly. The variations discussed in the article are a direct measurement of the uncertainty in the auditioners'  abilities to hear. The flowery prose describing the exact same sound from all of those cables is among the most absurd BS I've ever seen.
  
 Cheers


----------



## ab initio

dvw said:


> Personally, I think this is just a shoot out/review and can not be taken seriously. If it is for technical review, they should at minimum include a generic USB cable.


 
  
 The did have a 10 buck cable in the mix. It actually has the best electrical characteristics of ALL the cables, yet somehow doesn't receive the top marks.... hmmmm....


----------



## x838nwy

Possibly the best tweak. Ever. Simply awesome response to a question of how it works.

THIS IS A MUST SEE:

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/tweaks-machina-dynamica-clever-little-watch-wearable-technology-2014-08-29-accessories-22042-mosby-va


----------



## ab initio

x838nwy said:


> Possibly the best tweak. Ever. Simply awesome response to a question of how it works.
> 
> THIS IS A MUST SEE:
> 
> http://app.audiogon.com/listings/tweaks-machina-dynamica-clever-little-watch-wearable-technology-2014-08-29-accessories-22042-mosby-va


 

 Yup, sounds legit! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Cheers


----------



## castleofargh

one time to rule them all. suck it einstein I've got a watch!!!!


----------



## Head Injury

x838nwy said:


> Possibly the best tweak. Ever. Simply awesome response to a question of how it works.
> 
> THIS IS A MUST SEE:
> 
> http://app.audiogon.com/listings/tweaks-machina-dynamica-clever-little-watch-wearable-technology-2014-08-29-accessories-22042-mosby-va


 
 Sound improves proportional to the number of watches in the room? SOLD!


----------



## castleofargh

head injury said:


> x838nwy said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly the best tweak. Ever. Simply awesome response to a question of how it works.
> ...


 

 that's an obvious marketing lie. if one watch liberates us from jitter and other system clocks, it would also get rid of the influence of other watches. the only way to ensure a good result is to get them in odd numbers and to to put them in the path of our speakers to make a time railgun flowing straight to us.


----------



## bigshot

Analog watches make the sound warmer than digital watches. Roman numeral faces on watches are better for classical music than numbers.


----------



## MusicFiMan

Hi Friends,
 what do you think if these cables below.
 i want to upgrade my momentum and I don't want to pay too much on a cable that won't make much difference at the end.
  
  
  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pure-Solid-Silver-Sennheiser-Momentum-HD598-upgrade-cable-by-Lavricables-/181398504188?pt=UK_Computing_Sound_Vision_Audio_Cables_Adapters&hash=item2a3c3182fc
  
  
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Silver-Plated-Audio-upgrade-Cable-Sennheiser-Momentum-Headphone-Earphone-/281224828374?pt=US_MP3_Player_Cables_Adapters&var=&hash=item871a8434f5


----------



## Head Injury

musicfiman said:


> Hi Friends,
> what do you think if these cables below.
> i want to upgrade my momentum and I don't want to pay too much on a cable that won't make much difference at the end.


 
 Then don't buy new cables.
  
 They look nice though. Are the nice looks and bragging rights worth $42-52 for you? Because they won't sound any better.


----------



## bigshot

musicfiman said:


> Hi Friends,
> what do you think if these cables below.
> i want to upgrade my momentum and I don't want to pay too much on a cable that won't make much difference at the end.


 
  
 I got a replacement cable for my Sennheiser HD590 from Sennheiser for $8.


----------



## MusicFiMan

bigshot said:


> I got a replacement cable for my Sennheiser HD590 from Sennheiser for $8.


 
 Hi
 be happy to get a link


----------



## blades

castleofargh said:


> that's an obvious marketing lie. if one watch liberates us from jitter and other system clocks, it would also get rid of the influence of other watches. the only way to ensure a good result is to get them in odd numbers and to to put them in the path of our speakers to make a time railgun flowing straight to us.


 
  
 Since jitter is a timing error then I suppose some would think a time keeping device would matter.  This guy must chuckle every time he gets an order.


----------



## bigshot

musicfiman said:


> Hi
> be happy to get a link


 
  
 I sent an email through the Sennheiser website.


----------



## x838nwy

http://www.puremix.net/blog/are-all-audio-cables-the-same.html
  
 Any thought? I haven't listened to the samples yet, but seems the author says they're clearly different???


----------



## Head Injury

x838nwy said:


> http://www.puremix.net/blog/are-all-audio-cables-the-same.html
> 
> Any thought? I haven't listened to the samples yet, but seems the author says they're clearly different???


 
 Just asking "Do you hear a difference?" is meaningless, especially right after you ask "They really _do_ sound different, don't they?" Just about anyone will hear a difference after that.
  
 What's much more important is if you're able to correctly choose which sample is which in an ABX test, which will _demonstrate_ you can hear a difference. Luckily, the author offers WAV downloads, so download Foobar, an ABX plugin, and go wild!
  
 I'll be taking a look through the files in Audacity for kicks, but I won't be listening to them. I'm too busy listening to _music! _






 
  
 That is, I'll be looking through them if the file downloads without error.


----------



## Strangelove424

DiffMaker... http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm Record your own analog audio signal out with one cable or interconnect, then another cable or interconnect, process through DiffMaker, and listen to the difference yourself. My bet is you'll be hearing dead silence. And if I'm wrong, then I wonder why the cable companies don't post sound samples differences themselves. Hm.


----------



## esldude

Oops double post.


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> http://www.puremix.net/blog/are-all-audio-cables-the-same.html
> 
> Any thought? I haven't listened to the samples yet, but seems the author says they're clearly different???


 
 Just dropped into a DAW.  Inverted one against another.  Heard nothing.  The Mogami is about 10 db worse than the others.  But the others null out down around the -90 db level in general.  If you amp the residual by 75 db you hear a faint version of the song in some noise.  It doesn't sound like the response is up tilted so likely a small level difference of less than a hundredth of a db.  Could have posted the residuals and FFT's showing mostly nothing etc. etc.  Have done that so many times and it doesn't convince those not wishing to be convinced.  So I didn't bother.


----------



## x838nwy

esldude said:


> Just dropped into a DAW.  Inverted one against another.  Heard nothing.  The Mogami is about 10 db worse than the others.  But the others null out down around the -90 db level in general.  If you amp the residual by 75 db you hear a faint version of the song in some noise.  It doesn't sound like the response is up tilted so likely a small level difference of less than a hundredth of a db.  Could have posted the residuals and FFT's showing mostly nothing etc. etc.  Have done that so many times and it doesn't convince those not wishing to be convinced.  So I didn't bother.


 
  
 Am I correct to assume that they didn't match the signal levels on the files? Man, that's a bit lazy… and honestly, if software to compare files like these are widely available (to many others it seems) then it's just plain $hitt of them not to test their own claims. They appear to be a site with guides to recording and all that jazz, you'd think they'd be able to do even more than this to ratify their own imagination….


----------



## esldude

x838nwy said:


> Am I correct to assume that they didn't match the signal levels on the files? Man, that's a bit lazy… and honestly, if software to compare files like these are widely available (to many others it seems) then it's just plain $hitt of them not to test their own claims. They appear to be a site with guides to recording and all that jazz, you'd think they'd be able to do even more than this to ratify their own imagination….


 

 Now hold on.  I said less than a hundredth of a db.  Actually looking again it is more like less than a thousandth of a db.  That is a tiny amount.  In fact having done this kind of thing myself.  You can record a song.  Record the same song 5 minutes later on the same equipment and cable and get about this much difference.  Theoretically there would be nothing left other than the thermal noise floor.  But equipment gain drifts a tiny amount (remember a 1/1000th of a db I mentioned) and you usually get a tiny difference.  Amplify that hugely with digital software (remember I said I boosted it 75 db) and you hear the music faintly amongst the noise.  So their procedure was carried out properly.  The article saying it sounds clearly different is where I would quibble.   That and they should have included a wav file where they subtracted one from the other so you could hear the difference, and only the difference for yourself.  
  
 Easy to do for yourself. Download the wav files.  Open both in Audacity or similar.  Invert one.  Mix and Render the two files.  Listen to what is left (there won't be anything to hear).
  
 Looking at this logically, if a given nulling procedure repeated  with no changes gives a non-zero result then it puts a limit to how exact your comparison can be.  In the case of cables like in this article I get the same kind and level of residual when repeating the test as when repeating it with a cable change.  That tells me the residuals are from other sources and that the contribution of the cable is well below the other parameters in the test rig.  In other words, don't worry about the cables.


----------



## Strangelove424

Very interesting. There's no reason the audiophile magazines can't run these tests themselves. Ridiculous that they've avoided this so much. I didn't realize there were actual files available to download. Will run it through DiffMaker a little later today and see what it spits out.


----------



## OddE

strangelove424 said:


> Very interesting. There's no reason the audiophile magazines can't run these tests themselves. Ridiculous that they've avoided this so much.


 
  
 -There is one good reason they can't, and that reason is advertising. Avoiding tests like the one described here is simply sound (pun intended) business sense.


----------



## Uncle AL

Certainly differences in subjective opinion would also make analysis difficult.


----------



## liamstrain

uncle al said:


> Certainly differences in subjective opinion would also make analysis difficult.


 
  
 There is no subjectivity involved in such an analysis. They would, however, be left in the position of having to explain why they claim to hear differences when none exists. Awkward. 
  
 Avoiding doing such a test (and claiming that machines are incapable of doing such an analysis - or other drek to discredit objective measures) - allows them to continue to milk/bilk their target audience with a mostly clear conscience. 
  
 (hint - we're not their target audience)


----------



## Strangelove424

liamstrain said:


> There is no subjectivity involved in such an analysis. They would, however, be left in the position of having to explain why they claim to hear differences when none exists. Awkward.
> 
> Avoiding doing such a test (and claiming that machines are incapable of doing such an analysis - or other drek to discredit objective measures) - allows them to continue to milk/bilk their target audience with a mostly clear conscience.
> 
> (hint - we're not their target audience)


 
  
 I look at some of those magazines like a Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue now. The ads only have value in context of a serious magazine. I see their editors doubling down in the comments section of their websites, refusing to budge from their perceptions nor willing to use the testing equipment readily available to them to confirm or deny them. They have doubled down so much, that now everything is on the table for them. And for silly boutique ads selling cables? Very awkward indeed.


----------



## Uncle AL

Exactly. My point is that you can't quantify difference, therefore it's not possible to demonstrate or prove any difference. Having upgraded HD650 cable, noted improvement. Others may not.


----------



## Head Injury

uncle al said:


> Exactly. My point is that you can't quantify difference, therefore it's not possible to demonstrate or prove any difference.


 
 Yes you can. esldude just did. The difference is about 1/1000th of a decibel.
  


uncle al said:


> Having upgraded HD650 cable, noted improvement. Others may not.


 
 Right, but I can all but guarantee that difference was not real, just expectation bias or one of the other hundreds of crazy things our brains like to do to reality.


----------



## liamstrain

uncle al said:


> Exactly. My point is that you can't quantify difference, therefore it's not possible to demonstrate or prove any difference. Having upgraded HD650 cable, noted improvement. Others may not.




You absolutely can. The "character" of a difference may be subjective, but you can absolutely show when one does and does not exist, and to what magnitude. 

Edit. I should clarify. You can not 100% prove there is no difference. You can not prove the negative. BUT - you can show many times over that no difference was demonstrated under different methodologies and test equipment. Anyone who wishes to claim they can hear one when we could not measure one, must then prove they are more sensitive than our recording equipment and can discern differences smaller than 1/1000th of a decible. Something which would be fairly easy to test and demonstrate. As it is, scientific uncertainty is not enough of a reason to claim the results are invalid, and no uncontrolled subjective listening test overturns objective evidences on its own.


----------



## Strangelove424

The source files were in 88.2khz, so I had to up sample to 96khz. These are the differences, downloadable from Google Drive. 
  
 There's slight noise shared between all files, possibly created in processing. They all sound exactly the same though.   
  
 Edit 9/25/2014 - File Locations and exported formats changed, see post #1054
  
 New links:
  
 Source vs Gotham: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgY3YzbHZJNU5RQnc/view?usp=sharing
  
 Source vs Mogami: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgSUR3VjFQX1NZTk0/view?usp=sharing
  
 Source vs Vovox:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgT0tKOElWaWdDTVU/view?usp=sharing
  
 Source vs Sommer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgTHNnUUh3MXFOeFE/view?usp=sharing
  
 Gotham vs Sommer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgMXZ3WFphZ3pEZUU/view?usp=sharing
  
 Mogami vs Gotham:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgUVVlT3FPaUFmM2M/view?usp=sharing
  
 Mogami vs Vovox:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgSm5TbkFmTFJ1Mnc/view?usp=sharing
  
 Vovox vs Sommer:     https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgd2RFandNRlQ2RUU/view?usp=sharing


----------



## castleofargh

uncle al said:


> Having upgraded HD650 cable, noted improvement. Others may not.


 

 we tend to inhabit a section where believing isn't proof of reality. with the hd650 you would need to go for an "upgrade" cable that really mess things up a lot before you could actually hear anything. and that is factual measurable repeatable reality.
 the process of changing cable and placing the hd650 back on your head can already change the signature by no less than a few DB. http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD650.pdf
 look at the FR lines. in gray are the measurements Tyll did while adjusting the hd650 on the dummy head to get the best seal/position. as you can see +/-5DB on both ends of the frequencies aren't at all impossible.
  
   just listening to music, then changing to another cable I prepared, with the sides of the plugs very obvious and a switch to avoid having to unplug both cables from the amp, it took me close to 25s with my own hd650. how well can you remember the sonic signature after 25second? yeah right!
  even if you actually heard a difference and didn't just imagine it, then you have zero credible way to ascertain the differences were from the cable and not from the way you placed the headphone. (maybe one cable is heavy and the hd650 goes 0.3mm lower on your ears? or you simply couldn't consistently put the headphone back at the same place?  but as long as the possibility exists, you shouldn't pretend that you know it comes from the cable. it's simple logic when solving a problem.
  
 the way you did it looks like this: there are 3 people in a room, you decided that the mustache one is the criminal, notice a knife on the table and claim "ahah I knew it was the mustache guy!".
 you wouldn't do that on a criminal case, plz don't do it for a cable. don't just pick a culprit at random when you have no way to dismiss the other hypothesis.
  
 now open minded me tries to justify sound difference:
 let's say one cable is an ok cable, with the right average specs for an headphone cable(99% of headphone cables). if the other one is super long with something like 10 more ohm compared to the first one. that would make the bass go up close to 0.1DB at 80hz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because of the hd650 impedance response. now let's pretend that the high frequencies gets rolled off by the length of the cable or some weird choice of diameter or not enough insulation, trying to impact inductance/capacitance(the most impressive way to modify this would be to use a design that is wrong for headphone cables, as default cables are usually already made for a given purpose, so clearly not an upgrade). then because I'm in a good mood and I know for having handled one, that ludicrous audio cables do exist, I grant 0.1DB roll off somewhere close to bat frequencies.
 creating in that messed up scenario, a 0.2DB tilt from bass to high frequencies. (trying to do the opposite and improve the cable specs would be a lot harder as the margin would have to be much smaller, and so would be the audio changes).
 first you should seriously consider the fact that the default hd650 cable is probably the better one of them. secondly, how confident are you that you would be able to spot 0.2DB spread over the entire spectrum, when you can get at the same time up to 5DB difference from placing the headphone back on your head, and with a 30s lapse between the 2 music samples?
 oh and I forgot the best for the end, close to 0.3DB in volume level difference from the 10ohm difference in the cable. meaning that overall loudness difference will be bigger than the actual sound differences.
  
   you can keep pretending that your superior ears can track what we can't, but now I've explained how extravagant it makes you look to simply consider that option.


----------



## esldude

strangelove424 said:


> The source files were in 88.2khz, so I had to up sample to 96khz. These are the differences, downloadable from Google Drive.
> 
> Source vs. Mogami: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6GfCo1MWrJgOThwZjFCclh5RFE&authuser=0
> Source vs. Vovox:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6GfCo1MWrJgaGpvMU1YandmZ28&authuser=0
> ...


 

 Just curious which software you used to convert to 96 khz.  Some software will do this with no audible issues some will leave a bit of residue.


----------



## Uncle AL

BRAVO!! castleofargh. Excellent points--


----------



## x838nwy

uncle al said:


> BRAVO!! castleofargh. Excellent points--


 
  
 He's wrong, though. It's Colonel Mustard, in the library, with a lead pipe.


----------



## Uncle AL

Indeed!!


----------



## Strangelove424

esldude said:


> Just curious which software you used to convert to 96 khz.  Some software will do this with no audible issues some will leave a bit of residue.


 
 I used Audacity on PC, changed project rate and just exported. I might try down sampling to 44.1 to see if it introduces any noise, but the results are only supposed to measure differences, of which there are none, so its conclusive enough for me already.
  
 Have you guys been able to download it? I tried to download it on a PC that wasn't signed into Google Drive and get this message: "Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time. Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. Please try accessing the file again later. If the file you are trying to access is particularly large or is shared with many people, it may take up to 24 hours to be able to view or download the file. If you still can't access a file after 24 hours, contact your domain administrator." 
  
 Not sure why it is doing this, since the files are all within limit. Hrmphh.


----------



## Uncle AL

Yeah, I had the same problem.. guess I'll try bit later--


----------



## stv014

strangelove424 said:


> I used Audacity on PC, changed project rate and just exported. I might try down sampling to 44.1 to see if it introduces any noise, but the results are only supposed to measure differences, of which there are none, so its conclusive enough for me already.


 
  
 I cannot download the files because of an error, but exporting to stereo 16-bit PCM may be buggy in Audacity, and have a relatively high noise floor (~-80 dB) due to broken noise shaped dithering.


----------



## esldude

I could not access the files either.  As for resampling and such, if you have Audacity 2.03 or newer and have conversion set to Best Quality with some dither in preferences it uses Sox for resampling.  Sox is a very good quality converter.  Any artifacts are low enough not to worry.  You also don't need to downconvert to 16 bit unless Google drive requires it.


----------



## Strangelove424

Will keep those settings in mind for Audacity, but I'm moving the files to my Mac and converting sample rate in Soundbooth, then bringing it back to DiffMaker on PC. I was not aware Audacity could have these issues, I guess it's good to find out now than on something more serious. I might also have to trim the clips to get them small enough to work on Google drive, I think the file sizes might present a problem.


----------



## esldude

strangelove424 said:


> Will keep those settings in mind for Audacity, but I'm moving the files to my Mac and converting sample rate in Soundbooth, then bringing it back to DiffMaker on PC. I was not aware Audacity could have these issues, I guess it's good to find out now than on something more serious. I might also have to trim the clips to get them small enough to work on Google drive, I think the file sizes might present a problem.


 

 Actually it isn't an issue with Audacity.  It just has multiple options.  Sox is right up near Izotope for conversion quality.  I don't know what Soundbooth uses for conversion.  Chances are it isn't as good.  You can look at results here or I could supply some.   http://src.infinitewave.ca/


----------



## Strangelove424

Still have some noise even after processing in Soundbooth or changing Audacity settings, but it's a very low amount and is again shared between all the difference files.  
  
 Google Drive still won't let me share files but I found this thread and it might be a widespread bug:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/drive/fDUsgleQoEg  I get more and more fed up with Google everyday. Hopefully they'll fix the bug soon.


----------



## Strangelove424

Google Drive is back online. Files have been re-uploaded at same bit depth as original (24 bit) but downconverted from 88.2khz to 44.1 to allow for processing in Diff Maker. Feel free to have a listen:

 Source vs Gotham: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgY3YzbHZJNU5RQnc/view?usp=sharing
  
 Source vs Mogami: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgSUR3VjFQX1NZTk0/view?usp=sharing
  
 Source vs Vovox:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgT0tKOElWaWdDTVU/view?usp=sharing
  
 Source vs Sommer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgTHNnUUh3MXFOeFE/view?usp=sharing
  
 Gotham vs Sommer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgMXZ3WFphZ3pEZUU/view?usp=sharing
  
 Mogami vs Gotham:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgUVVlT3FPaUFmM2M/view?usp=sharing
  
 Mogami vs Vovox:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgSm5TbkFmTFJ1Mnc/view?usp=sharing
  
 Vovox vs Sommer:     https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GfCo1MWrJgd2RFandNRlQ2RUU/view?usp=sharing


----------



## esldude

Okay Strangelove 424 I can get and download your files now.  Other than the first fraction of a second, they are like the ones I differenced.  I guess your SRC shifts some of what it converts a tiny amount.
  
 In any case, been thinking on it more and can tell you why you  hear remnants of the music if you amp it up by 50 db or more.  When you normalize files that are identical other than some noise, the noise causes the normalizing process to get the signal portion lower in the noisier file.  What this means when you difference them is instead of getting only noise and none of the original signal, you get some noise and a very low level residual of the original signal which if amped enough you hear. 
  
 These cables apparently vary just a little bit in noise level or some other conditions creating the noise did.  The Mogami has the most by about 5 db.  The noise levels are down around -100 db it appears.  The total residual signal is somewhere in the -90s db level.  Which isn't enough you can hear that difference.  It appears the posted wav files were normalized at -.1 db.  The better way to do this for null testing is to match the peak levels of the loudest part of the signal.  If done perfectly no original signal will remain in the null only the noise.  Or only the difference caused by other factors.


----------



## Strangelove424

esldude said:


> Okay Strangelove 424 I can get and download your files now.  Other than the first fraction of a second, they are like the ones I differenced.  I guess your SRC shifts some of what it converts a tiny amount.


 
 Yeah, ignore that, just a quirk of DiffMaker
  
  


esldude said:


> In any case, been thinking on it more and can tell you why you  hear remnants of the music if you amp it up by 50 db or more.  When you normalize files that are identical other than some noise, the noise causes the normalizing process to get the signal portion lower in the noisier file.  What this means when you difference them is instead of getting only noise and none of the original signal, you get some noise and a very low level residual of the original signal which if amped enough you hear.
> 
> These cables apparently vary just a little bit in noise level or some other conditions creating the noise did.  The Mogami has the most by about 5 db.  The noise levels are down around -100 db it appears.  The total residual signal is somewhere in the -90s db level.  Which isn't enough you can hear that difference.  It appears the posted wav files were normalized at -.1 db.  The better way to do this for null testing is to match the peak levels of the loudest part of the signal.  If done perfectly no original signal will remain in the null only the noise.  Or only the difference caused by other factors.


 
  
 Okay, that explains the residual noise/distortion in all the samples then. It was impossible for me to hear at normal listening levels, but yes I did amp it up quite a bit to try to listen in on noise. Even then, it was difficult.  With -90 to -100db being below the audible limit for noise (I believe that is -70db) a 10db difference is impossible to detect. Neither does that take into account ambient noise floor. The birds, airplanes, and street traffic are doing more harm to the noise floor than any reasonably well made wire could.


----------



## limpidglitch

esldude said:


> Okay Strangelove 424 I can get and download your files now.  Other than the first fraction of a second, they are like the ones I differenced.  I guess your SRC shifts some of what it converts a tiny amount.
> 
> In any case, been thinking on it more and can tell you why you  hear remnants of the music if you amp it up by 50 db or more.  When you normalize files that are identical other than some noise, the noise causes the normalizing process to get the signal portion lower in the noisier file.  What this means when you difference them is instead of getting only noise and none of the original signal, you get some noise and a very low level residual of the original signal which if amped enough you hear.
> 
> These cables apparently vary just a little bit in noise level or some other conditions creating the noise did.  The Mogami has the most by about 5 db.  The noise levels are down around -100 db it appears.  The total residual signal is somewhere in the -90s db level.  Which isn't enough you can hear that difference.  It appears the posted wav files were normalized at -.1 db.  The better way to do this for null testing is to match the peak levels of the loudest part of the signal.  If done perfectly no original signal will remain in the null only the noise.  Or only the difference caused by other factors.


 
  
 What would have been nice was to have a proper control, or several runs done with each cable.
 Then all you'd need to do to throw away your null hypothesis would be to show that the difference between sample groups is significantly larger than within the groups.
 Basic ANOVA, innit


----------



## esldude

limpidglitch said:


> What would have been nice was to have a proper control, or several runs done with each cable.
> Then all you'd need to do to throw away your null hypothesis would be to show that the difference between sample groups is significantly larger than within the groups.
> Basic ANOVA, innit


 

 Yes, even doing each one just twice would have told us much.  What you describe is what I have seen only without throwing out the null hypothesis.  You can do 5 runs of the same cable and get small differences.  The differences are the same doing 5 runs with 5 different cables.  In other words, the differences are from something other than the cable.


----------



## blades

viralrazor said:


> Well, debate has been going on for a while, do "audiophile" cable upgrades actually work, with a stronger debate going on for actual analogue signals.
> 
> I've just got a short post and a interesting question to share:
> 
> Assuming that changing cables changes sound signature and that its true, why do we never see people talking about how their sound quality from their headphones/speakers took a turn for the worse when they changed out from stock cables to "audiophile" cables. Would transmitting a slightly with ever so slightly less interference improve subjective sound quality at all? If the sound signature is changed, surely there must be some people who are disappointed with this change in sound. And yet we never see this when someone changes from a stock cable to a custom cable.


 
  
 The reason is quite simple. Spending money on "better" cables creates an expectation that biases hearing.  Wire is wire unless the manufacturer attaches some sort of filter to the cable.  The sonic signatures are in the hearing bias not the cables.  Here is a very brief explanation.


----------



## Uncle AL

blades said:


> The reason is quite simple. Spending money on "better" cables creates an expectation that biases hearing.  Wire is wire unless the manufacturer attaches some sort of filter to the cable.  The sonic signatures are in the hearing bias not the cables.  Here is a very brief explanation.




This makes sense, and obviously, the more expensive the cables, the greater the sound improvement, or so one might expect.


----------



## iamikaruk

Interesting topic.
 Well, a recent blind test in Guangzhou show that regarding the analog cable, 1 out of 15 successfully pass all the test.


----------



## Uncle AL

iamikaruk said:


> Interesting topic.
> Well, a recent blind test in Guangzhou show that regarding the analog cable, 1 out of 15 successfully pass all the test.



Do you have any data or details from that test?


----------



## iamikaruk

uncle al said:


> Do you have any data or details from that test?


 
 I do not attend the meeting so I do not know the details.
 The organizer had post a thread and it was said more than 10 people joined the blind test. The result is one scored 6/6 and >4 testers scored 4/6. I don't know why the organizer use >4
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Uncle AL

iamikaruk said:


> I do not attend the meeting so I do not know the details.
> The organizer had post a thread and it was said more than 10 people joined the blind test. The result is one scored 6/6 and >4 testers scored 4/6. I don't know why the organizer use >4:confused_face(1): .



Perhaps this was an expression of potential error? I am not familiar with how these tests are scored, so not sure if I can equate results to real world expectations. Many in this thread have cited other "scientific" tests showing there is no measurable difference. Regardless, I am happy with my HD650s and ZY Hifi cables. Not too expensive. And it seems to honor my HD650s with a bit more opulent cable.


----------



## mikeaj

iamikaruk said:


> I do not attend the meeting so I do not know the details.
> The organizer had post a thread and it was said more than 10 people joined the blind test. The result is one scored 6/6 and >4 testers scored 4/6. I don't know why the organizer use >4
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 1/15 people got 6/6? That's... well... if 15 people are guessing by flipping a coin, there's a 21% chance that at last one person scores 6/6. Greater than 4 with 4/6 is pretty likely too. That doesn't by itself say very much.


----------



## iamikaruk

uncle al said:


> Perhaps this was an expression of potential error? I am not familiar with how these tests are scored, so not sure if I can equate results to real world expectations. Many in this thread have cited other "scientific" tests showing there is no measurable difference. Regardless, I am happy with my HD650s and ZY Hifi cables. Not too expensive. And it seems to honor my HD650s with a bit more opulent cable.


 
 Well, I do not know more details from the thread. If I can I'll try to translate the original post from Chinese to English, but my English is quite poor.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Someone claimed that he did hear difference but made a wrong decision judging from the sound signature.
 It's quite ironic and dramatic that a lot of the as-claimed golden ears were confused by one cable, which is no more than 2 dollars.


----------



## SilverEars

I'd like to know if cables are boosted in capacitance or inductance to create slight audibility.  Anybody know?


----------



## iamikaruk

mikeaj said:


> 1/15 people got 6/6? That's... well... if 15 people are guessing by flipping a coin, there's a 21% chance that at last one person scores 6/6. Greater than 4 with 4/6 is pretty likely too. That doesn't by itself say very much.


 




 Considering the strained and intense atmosphere of the open blind test, it would be possibly biased. So I think the result itself is still reasonable.
 IMHO, it's probable that some well-trained ears can hear the difference between analog cables. But I would question if someone can pass the blind test of digital cables.


----------



## SilverEars

iamikaruk said:


> Considering the strained and intense atmosphere of the open blind test, it would be possibly biased. So I think the result itself is still reasonable.
> IMHO,* it's probable that some well-trained ears can hear the difference between analog cables.* But I would question if someone can pass the blind test of digital cables.


 
 This depends on if the cable's characteristic is significant enough relative to the the headphone's characteristic.  For high impedance phones, changes cannot be significant enough to be differentiated audibly.  IEMs of low impedance are more likely because of their impedance value relative to a cable that can have comparable value.  If the IEM has resonance peaks or changes in magnitude to frequencies a cable with significant enough impedance can cause enough changes in the FR to be audible.  Even for flat impedance phones, significant enough reactance in the cable(this can happen if it was purposely done, but cables will only be resistive) can change the FR.
  
 What headphones were used and cables of what values would be informative.  
  
 How can a blind test have bias?


----------



## castleofargh

iamikaruk said:


> Interesting topic.
> Well, a recent blind test in Guangzhou show that regarding the analog cable, 1 out of 15 successfully pass all the test.


 
 and what was the consensus about that one guy?
 ultra luck, haxorzzzz, or superman?


----------



## iamikaruk

silverears said:


> I'd like to know if cables are boosted in capacitance or inductance to create slight audibility.  Anybody know?


 
 I read a thread talking about Canare cable long long time ago.
 Here's the frequency response of their GS-6 product (100m long cable)


----------



## SilverEars

iamikaruk said:


> I read a thread talking about Canare cable long long time ago.
> Here's the frequency response of their GS-6 product (100m long cable)


 
 In the audible frequency range, it's perfectly flat.  Headphones cables are are tiny fraction of that and signal we hear are only in the audible range.  As you can see, it's flat or we say resisitive in the audible range.


----------



## iamikaruk

silverears said:


> This depends on if the cable's characteristic is significant enough relative to the the headphone's characteristic.  For high impedance phones, changes cannot be significant enough to be differentiated audibly.  IEMs of low impedance are more likely because of their impedance value relative to a cable that can have comparable value.  If the IEM has resonance peaks or changes in magnitude to frequencies a cable with significant enough impedance can cause enough changes in the FR to be audible.  Even for flat impedance phones, significant enough reactance in the cable(this can happen if it was purposely done, but cables will only be resistive) can change the FR.
> 
> What headphones were used and cables of what values would be informative.
> 
> How can a blind test have bias?


 
 Headphones were HE6, HE560, STAX 4-series and Sony R010. No information except for the cheap 2 dollars cable was given in that thread.
  
 As far as I understand, the blind test may be biased:
 1) The source/amplifier/headphone could be completely new to the tester. The better the tester knows about and is used to the system, the more reasonable is the blind test.
 2) Gender differences. From the viewpoint of evolution, female is more sensitive to high frequency than male. There was a blind test of 320kbps MP3 vs. WAV that day and the winner is an OLD lady.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 3) Mental strain. "I have to hear differences because I have boasted to my friends that I am a golden ear!!!"


----------



## SilverEars

But you are testing out the audible difference of the cables blindly.  As long as the listener doesn't know which of the cable is being used during the test, the listener should be least affected by any stimulus that can affect his decisions.  It shouldn't be a question of how familiar the listener is with a gear or the hearing.  You are testing to see if a person can detect difference of the cable.  Those headphones should not be affected by minor cable impedance.


----------



## Uncle AL

iamikaruk said:


> Headphones were HE6, HE560, STAX 4-series and Sony R010. No information except for the cheap 2 dollars cable was given in that thread.
> 
> As far as I understand, the blind test may be biased:
> 1) The source/amplifier/headphone could be completely new to the tester. The better the tester knows about and is used to the system, the more reasonable is the blind test.
> ...




Thank you, iamikaruk, for this. I compliment your English, it is actually quite good. Many in this thread are quantifying differences by measurable dB changes, and that is a fair manner of analysis. I would love to see data from other countries where they have conducted similar tests to see if there are differences. If results showing no difference are repeatable, then those conclusions should be the same, regardless where the tests were conducted.


----------



## iamikaruk

silverears said:


> But you are testing out the audible difference of the cables blindly.  As long as the listener doesn't know which of the cable is being used during the test, the listener should be least affected by any stimulus that can affect his decisions.  It shouldn't be a question of how familiar the listener is with a gear or the hearing.  You are testing to see if a person can detect difference of the cable.  Those headphones should not be affected by minor cable impedance.


 
 I think there are still debates on the working of blind test, as human's hearing is kind of short-term memory and is hard to quantified. The background noise during the open blind test will also be an issue.
 In my opinion, a quiet, comfortable environment and a set of gears the testers are familiar with will be good for blind test.


----------



## iamikaruk

uncle al said:


> Thank you, iamikaruk, for this. I compliment your English, it is actually quite good. Many in this thread are quantifying differences by measurable dB changes, and that is a fair manner of analysis. I would love to see data from other countries where they have conducted similar tests to see if there are differences. If results showing no difference are repeatable, then those conclusions should be the same, regardless where the tests were conducted.


 
 As a scientist, I am always wondering how can people hears audible differences above 20kHz. This makes no sense and I just got replied: your system is not that expensive/analytic, blahblahblah...
 This reminds me another interesting thread I have read. A moderator of a hi-fi forum uploaded two wave files extracted from an early production CD and a middle production CD by the same performer. He asked other guys listen to these two files and tried to prove that there are sound differences between the early production and the middle production given the place of production. The results were astonishing as most of the answers, or descriptions prefer the early production. However, one "spoiler" showed up and compare these two files bit-by-bit. He found that these two files are bit-perfectly the same except for very small time offset. So I am confused if the cable myth is also this kind of group hypnosis.


----------



## Uncle AL

iamikaruk said:


> As a scientist, I am always wondering how can people hears audible differences above 20kHz. This makes no sense and I just got replied: your system is not that expensive/analytic, blahblahblah...
> This reminds me another interesting thread I have read. A moderator of a hi-fi forum uploaded two wave files extracted from an early production CD and a middle production CD by the same performer. He asked other guys listen to these two files and tried to prove that there are sound differences between the early production and the middle production given the place of production. The results were astonishing as most of the answers, or descriptions prefer the early production. However, one "spoiler" showed up and compare these two files bit-by-bit. He found that these two files are bit-perfectly the same except for very small time offset. So I am confused if the cable myth is also this kind of group hypnosis.



I am an engineer, and understand your thoughts. Even though I deal with science on a regular basis and understanding the analytical arguments, I tend to be more subjective in my opinion of headphones, amps, and even cables. But if I stop to analyze intricate differences, I am missing the point of simply enjoying the music.


----------



## bigshot

The best thing is to focus on science until you get everything calibrated properly, then kick back and listen to music and don't give the equipment another thought until it burns out and you need to replace it.


----------



## castleofargh

iamikaruk said:


> uncle al said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, iamikaruk, for this. I compliment your English, it is actually quite good. Many in this thread are quantifying differences by measurable dB changes, and that is a fair manner of analysis. I would love to see data from other countries where they have conducted similar tests to see if there are differences. If results showing no difference are repeatable, then those conclusions should be the same, regardless where the tests were conducted.
> ...


 
 it's simple:
 -my audiologist told me I can't hear past 16khz. then I go claim that I heard jitter at 35khz from that cheap cable.
 -some dude told me about his job where that one cable screwed up his radio signal. I'll go repeat that some cables roll off high frequencies, and forget about the part clearly stating it was outside audio range. *forgetaboutit!!!!*
 you can change steel's sturdiness with cryo freezing. shut up and take my money!!! I need to cryo freeze all my copper and silver cables now!!!! it will improve sound, because sturdiness and sound are linked.  and it will work because silver and copper... well it's like steel you know, metal! I'm a genius!
  
 when it comes to cables, rational need not apply.
 that's all there is to it. forged aboud it.


----------



## iamikaruk

castleofargh said:


> it's simple:
> -my audiologist told me I can't hear past 16khz. then I go claim that I heard jitter at 35khz from that cheap cable.
> -some dude told me about his job where that one cable screwed up his radio signal. I'll go repeat that some cables roll off high frequencies, and forget about the part clearly stating it was outside audio range. *forgetaboutit!!!!*
> you can change steel's sturdiness with cryo freezing. shut up and take my money!!! I need to cryo freeze all my copper and silver cables now!!!! it will improve sound, because sturdiness and sound are linked.  and it will work because silver and copper... well it's like steel you know, metal! I'm a genius!
> ...


 
 "_I can not hear it but I can feel it._"
 I would suggest a brain scan experiment to test if we can feel the sound above 20 kHz. Evil scientist 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 I think I am off-topic.


----------



## bigshot

The tests have already been done. The answer is no.


----------



## OddE

iamikaruk said:


> As a scientist, I am always wondering how can people hears audible differences above 20kHz. This makes no sense and I just got replied: your system is not that expensive/analytic, blahblahblah...


 
  
 -As I like to say when people claim that my system is not that expensive (it is, according to the missus) or analytic, and that is why I claim not to have the ears of a bat - chances are my system performs better than theirs, and that is why I cannot hear anything.
  
 Short version - if content >20kHz makes for audible differences (Well, audible to a human being, to be precise), what you are hearing is not >20kHz; what you are hearing is intermodulation products of contents >20kHz; this would stem from non-linear behaviour in your system.
  
 Then I tend to get the 'Fuhgeddaboudit, stupid ****** is never going to get it, anyway.'-look.


----------



## iamikaruk

bigshot said:


> The tests have already been done. The answer is no.


 
 You mean the brain scan? Can you give me a reference? It sounds very interesting I'd like to know more details


----------



## bigshot

Try googling "perception of super audible frequencies".


----------



## limpidglitch

iamikaruk said:


> You mean the brain scan? Can you give me a reference? It sounds very interesting I'd like to know more details


 
  


> In this study, to investigate the relationship between the hypersonic effect and HFC frequencies, we divided an HFC (above 16 kHz) of recorded gamelan music into 12 band components and applied them to subjects along with an audible component (below 16 kHz) to observe changes in the alpha2 frequency component (10–13 Hz) of spontaneous EEGs measured from centro-parieto-occipital regions (Alpha-2 EEG), which we previously reported as an index of the hypersonic effect.


 
  
PLoS ONE


----------



## iamikaruk

limpidglitch said:


> PLoS ONE


 
 Thanks for the reference. It will take some time for me to read the whole paper.


----------



## esldude

limpidglitch said:


> PLoS ONE


 

 Hypersonic effect. 
  
 Okay, so just looking at this paper, sounds between 16khz and 32 khz have a negative effect on Alpha EEG levels.  Above 32 khz with peaks around 80 khz the effect is positive.  So we need to maybe use 192 khz rates with a bandpass dip between 16-32 khz.  Or maybe just use MP3 and have a separate supertweeter to throw out continuous 80 khz sound.  Maybe the recordings of the gamelan as used in this research.  Or the old DSD approach with the bandpass dip as it throws out considerable ultrasonic noise above 50 khz itself.


----------



## limpidglitch

iamikaruk said:


> Thanks for the reference. It will take some time for me to read the whole paper.


 
  
 Don't forget to look through the references. ~13 years worth of similar research 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  


esldude said:


> Hypersonic effect.
> 
> Okay, so just looking at this paper, sounds between 16khz and 32 khz have a negative effect on Alpha EEG levels.  Above 32 khz with peaks around 80 khz the effect is positive.  So we need to maybe use 192 khz rates with a bandpass dip between 16-32 khz.  Or maybe just use MP3 and have a separate supertweeter to throw out continuous 80 khz sound.  Maybe the recordings of the gamelan as used in this research.  Or the old DSD approach with the bandpass dip as it throws out considerable ultrasonic noise above 50 khz itself.


 
  
 As chance would have it, the researchers _did_ use a DSD recorder.


----------



## iamikaruk

limpidglitch said:


> Don't forget to look through the references. ~13 years worth of similar research
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I am a scientist, but neither working in the audio engineering society nor neural science. So reading papers worth 13 years research is difficult for me. Yet I am very interested in the fields where science meets art.


----------



## Roly1650

esldude said:


> Hypersonic effect.
> 
> Okay, so just looking at this paper, sounds between 16khz and 32 khz have a negative effect on Alpha EEG levels.  Above 32 khz with peaks around 80 khz the effect is positive.  So we need to maybe use 192 khz rates with a bandpass dip between 16-32 khz.  Or maybe just use MP3 and have a separate supertweeter to throw out continuous 80 khz sound.  Maybe the recordings of the gamelan as used in this research.  Or the old DSD approach with the bandpass dip as it throws out considerable ultrasonic noise above 50 khz itself.



Worth noting that the hypersonic effect doesn't work through headphones, to quote: "The hypersonic effect is induced only when HFCs are presented to the listener's entire body surface but not when presented exclusively to the listener's ear".

So pretty much no recording format satisfies all the criteria, for good reproduction of the gamelan, without even considering hardware issues. Thats a shame because it was high on my bucket list.


----------



## sonitus mirus

To what degree does the hypersonic effect contribute to the enjoyment of music?  They may as well study how the impact of humidity, pressure, and temperature impacts our overall enjoyment of music.


----------



## bigshot

I'm seeing google ads in the sidebar for noise devouring cables and power strip noise traps.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I need to sell contact cleaner marketed with a special formula that promises to make solder points more transparent while greatly increasing the sound stage and creating a fuller sound while smoothing out the frequency response.  If I'm really nice to everyone and bring a pretty woman along with me to a CanJam, I'd probably do ok for myself.


----------



## liamstrain

At least contact cleaner serves a purpose. :/


----------



## Dark_wizzie

ab initio said:


> How we perceive loudness should have zero bearing on the frequency response of headphones, speakers, or any HiFi sound reproduction equipment. The frequency response should be flat, otherwise the sound will be very unbalanced.


 


x838nwy said:


> Yeah, this is something that got me a little confused when I started thinking about it - I was mixing up perception curves with equalization. The way I see it - and I may be incorrect - is that you want the entire system, from mic to ear drums, to be exactly just a simple gain or attenuation and nothing else. The "perception" part is a transfer function that should act on the signal itself at the head. Any adjustment should be aimed at making the response of the system (including the room, etc.) as flat as possible, leaving the head to do whatever it does.... right?


 


ab initio said:


> Yup. That just about sums up what I want from my audio system.


 
 Flat as in the FR should be a flat line? I don't quite understand x838nwy's explaination for why sound should be neutral when our ears are not as sensitive at different frequencies.


----------



## bigshot

liamstrain said:


> At least contact cleaner serves a purpose. :/


 

 Can I sell my spit?


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Can I sell my spit?


 

 Only if you market it properly. 
  
 One tact to take would be calling it all organic natural contact cleaner. 
  
 Another would be to collect spit after taking shots of vodka.  Then you promote it as an alcohol base using a biological carrier matrix with unique properties.   Obviously this enhanced version will cost more.
  
 You could call it genetically engineered contact cleaner which is the opposite end of all organic though both claims are true.  Maybe you could have two versions with different names and do both.


----------



## castleofargh

made from our high tech mouth engineered sound enzymes, it improves music right at the DNA level of sound.
   I'd call it ZymeD. and here's the add:
 -wow that sound system sounds so great! is it new?
 -no it's ZymeD!


----------



## bigshot

SpiT improves PraT!


----------



## Strangelove424

Someone should start a fictional products thread. It would be fun.


----------



## GrindingThud

http://www.coconut-audio.com


----------



## Strangelove424

Are those real people on the highest customer list?


----------



## Dark_wizzie

castleofargh said:


> made from our high tech mouth engineered sound enzymes, it improves music right at the DNA level of sound.
> I'd call it ZymeD. and here's the add:
> -wow that sound system sounds so great! is it new?
> -no it's ZymeD!


 
 Eww.


----------



## esldude

dark_wizzie said:


> Eww.


 

 So what is Eww an acronym for?  Ecological Wet Wipes or Electronic Wonder Wipes or Extremely Wonderful Wipes or maybe Extraordinary Wire Washer?
  
  


 It is okay, only kidding.  Yeah, Eww is about my reaction initially to Bigshot's last post too.


----------



## bigshot

If you've got spit, a pocket knife and a roll of electrical tape, you have everything you need.


----------



## Strangelove424

dark_wizzie said:


> Eww.


 
 Yeah, the enzyme spit comment kind of gave me the willies too.


----------



## castleofargh

but it's a green product. zero impact on the environment.
  
  
 my mouse is dying now, the USB connection is going from losing it to telling me it isn't recognized. seems to be the cable (ohhh irony).  using the touchpad untill I get a new one is gonna be a blast


----------



## OddE

strangelove424 said:


> Someone should start a fictional products thread. It would be fun.


 
  
 -While it would be fun, it would also (probably) serve as inspiration for some unscrupulous boutique high-end snake-oil pusher...
  
 Weeks after someone posts a new idea, it shows up in the 'coming soon!' section of the website of some company with a buzzword-laden name...
  
 10-15 years ago, when I was in university doing an electrical engineering degree (I majored in RF design; did some signal processing on the side), some friends and I at the local ham radio club used to play a game - we'd sit at a bar, enjoying ourselves, trying to think up outlandish hi-fi gadgets and high-flying theories of operation (which, invariably, were rather -ahem- loosely based on the laws of physics paired with wilful misinterpretation of same.)
  
 Problem was, when we googled the ideas, more often than not, it turned out they were already commercially available products...


----------



## bfreedma

strangelove424 said:


> Are those real people on the highest customer list?


 

 Doubtful - the customer on the front page "Cheez" shares a name with a poster on this and other forums who frequently touts cables and the "differences" they make.


----------



## Uncle AL

odde said:


> -While it would be fun, it would also (probably) serve as inspiration for some unscrupulous boutique high-end snake-oil pusher...
> 
> Weeks after someone posts a new idea, it shows up in the 'coming soon!' section of the website of some company with a buzzword-laden name...
> 
> ...



Wow-- With your interest / background in engineering, and just a bit more forethought beyond current technical offerings, you guys could likely have filed patents on your ideas.


----------



## Strangelove424

odde said:


> -While it would be fun, it would also (probably) serve as inspiration for some unscrupulous boutique high-end snake-oil pusher...
> 
> Weeks after someone posts a new idea, it shows up in the 'coming soon!' section of the website of some company with a buzzword-laden name...
> 
> ...


 
  
 Hah, good point, I wouldn't want us to become product designers for con men.


----------



## OddE

uncle al said:


> Wow-- With your interest / background in engineering, and just a bit more forethought beyond current technical offerings, you guys could likely have filed patents on your ideas.


 
  
 -It is my firm belief that Dante missed the tenth circle of hell - which is where patent trolls and telemarketers reside.
  
 That said, it would be fun to deny licencing of any of our ideas which had not as of yet turned into a product, thus keeping them off the market - or, perhaps, on the basis that a fool and his money, etc - demand extortionate licensing fees. ('What, it's not like you won't be able to recoup this once you start shipping...')
  
 I am still very pleased with one product I did actually build, just for kicks - to this day probably the most accurate-sounding DAC with valves in it.
  
 I built a DAC around a pair of PCM1704 chips just to prove it was doable by a determined amateur (Whose labour costs were nada and equipment expenses same-same, and with just about unlimited access to very, very smart people with lots of experience in digital design), the icing on the cake being a couple of valves (tubes to those of you from the colonies) prominently displayed on top of the chassis.
  
 Too bad the 12AX7s were just wired to heat the filaments for the decorative glow; the real output buffer was and is a couple of low-noise op-amps.


----------



## Uncle AL

odde said:


> -It is my firm belief that Dante missed the tenth circle of hell - which is where patent trolls and telemarketers reside.
> 
> That said, it would be fun to deny licencing of any of our ideas which had not as of yet turned into a product, thus keeping them off the market - or, perhaps, on the basis that a fool and his money, etc - demand extortionate licensing fees. ('What, it's not like you won't be able to recoup this once you start shipping...')
> 
> ...



Congratulations on your DAC accomplishment. The joy is in stretching the limits to test new ideas.
In the interest of full disclosure, I hold three patents, although not in respect to Dante's patent trolls.. Protection was necessary, because it cost $144K in research and ideas must be protected to have marketable value to major corporations. Crazy world and flawed system, to be sure. Ideally, would be great to have technological advancements shared freely, but alas, there wouldn't be incentive for someone to invest 10 years in development...


----------



## OddE

uncle al said:


> Congratulations on your DAC accomplishment. The joy is in stretching the limits to test new ideas.
> In the interest of full disclosure, I hold three patents, although not in respect to Dante's patent trolls.. Protection was necessary, because it cost $144K in research and ideas must be protected to have marketable value to major corporations. Crazy world and flawed system, to be sure. Ideally, would be great to have technological advancements shared freely, but alas, there wouldn't be incentive for someone to invest 10 years in development...


 
  
 -Patent law (when implemented and enforced sensibly) is a force of good; don't get me wrong (Matter of fact, my employer has got a pending one with, amongst others, my name on it. )
  
 My thought (Not very clearly formulated!) was that any patent in the voodoo audio field would be of dubious merit, as it doesn't bring anything innovative but marketing to - ahem - the market. Hence, any attempt to enforce a voodoo audio patent would, in my book, be trolling...


----------



## Uncle AL

odde said:


> -Patent law (when implemented and enforced sensibly) is a force of good; don't get me wrong (Matter of fact, my employer has got a pending one with, amongst others, my name on it. )
> 
> My thought (Not very clearly formulated!) was that any patent in the voodoo audio field would be of dubious merit, as it doesn't bring anything innovative but marketing to - ahem - the market. Hence, any attempt to enforce a voodoo audio patent would, in my book, be trolling...



+1 OddE.. well put--


----------



## Roly1650

odde said:


> -Patent law (when implemented and enforced sensibly) is a force of good; don't get me wrong (Matter of fact, my employer has got a pending one with, amongst others, my name on it. )
> 
> My thought (Not very clearly formulated!) was that any patent in the voodoo audio field would be of dubious merit, as it doesn't bring anything innovative but marketing to - ahem - the market. Hence, any attempt to enforce a voodoo audio patent would, in my book, be trolling...



As a fellow holder of a good number of patents in my name, I agree with what you've said. However, it didn't stop Monster Cable from suing anybody in sight when they felt like it, the enforceability of your patents is directly related to the depth of your pockets.


----------



## Uncle AL

roly1650 said:


> As a fellow holder of a good number of patents in my name, I agree with what you've said. However, it didn't stop Monster Cable from suing anybody in sight when they felt like it, the enforceability of your patents is directly related to the depth of your pockets.



It's interesting, but patents only provide a right to defend the technology you've patented, but it's up to patent holder to file suit for infringement (often $500K USD, up). If patent holder cannot afford to bring action, they diminish patent or can lose rights. Big pocket corporations can, therefore walk all over smaller patent holders.


----------



## castleofargh

you can have a lot of fun looking at what apple and samsung get patents for and how they fight over who "invented" the rounded rectangle... something nobody ever thought about before them obviously.
 or amazon getting a patent for white background for packshot(taking pictures of objects in a studio with a uniform background). those are a few of thousands of ludicrous patents that shouldn't exist at all.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Not to mention that the patent office is little more than a rubber stamp these days. Kimber Kable managed to secure a patent on a four lead braided cable design that was previously patented in 1960. But in spite of the prior art, he could have sued anyone making cables of the same design (like many of those making aftermarket headphone cables) and made their lives miserable in the courts. Fortunately Ray took it well when I showed him the 1960 patent and to my knowledge has not tried to enforce it. 

se


----------



## Uncle AL

steve eddy said:


> Not to mention that the patent office is little more than a rubber stamp these days. Kimber Kable managed to secure a patent on a four lead braided cable design that was previously patented in 1960. But in spite of the prior art, he could have sued anyone making cables of the same design (like many of those making aftermarket headphone cables) and made their lives miserable in the courts. Fortunately Ray took it well when I showed him the 1960 patent and to my knowledge has not tried to enforce it.
> 
> se


 
 Steve Eddy, Just to clarify, the USPTO (patent office) does not "rubber stamp" patent applications.  My first patent took 5 1/2 years, and the second one 5 years. The term for patent review is "Prosecution", and during the time a patent is pending, the examiner argues why a patent should not be granted.  Let me assure you they are TOUGH, and fire off several challenges per year before finally granting the patent.  This causes claims, often times, to be diminished in their scope.  Are corporations given priority?  I asked my patent attorney this question and he initially stated no, but after my research he tended to agree it may be less difficult for them, with their patents often being approved within 3 to 3 1/2 years.  Additionally, not all patent examiners are created equal, and some are easier than others.  If for any reason, a patent is approved easilly, competing corporations could request "re-examination", so if a patent was granted easy path (rubber stamped), it could result in claims being disallowed later.
 The above should not be construed as legal opinion.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 blah.. blah.. blah


----------



## Head Injury

Late reply, but for good reason.
  
 Quote:


grindingthud said:


> http://www.coconut-audio.com


 


> The more power cables I add, I get better sound. Not only is the sound better but all the qualities from each cable are not lost or wasted! They all add up in the musical sound stage. That is amazing. It sounds like Unreal 1.0 Ultra, Christmas Power, Unreal Natural, White Night power cables all had sex with each other. I was also surprised that how my White Night power cables on the speakers are not holding back! They continue to provide better sound as I add more cables and even better cables! This shows proof that your cables have great synergy and they don't cancel each other out. What this means to viewers / other customers? They don't need to discard or return old cables. Just add new ones somewhere else in your system!


----------



## Steve Eddy

uncle al said:


> Steve Eddy, Just to clarify, the USPTO (patent office) does not "rubber stamp" patent applications.  My first patent took 5 1/2 years, and the second one 5 years. The term for patent review is "Prosecution", and during the time a patent is pending, the examiner argues why a patent should not be granted.  Let me assure you they are TOUGH, and fire off several challenges per year before finally granting the patent.




If it's so "TOUGH," then could you please explain how, for example, John Bedini was able to secure more than one patent for his CD "clarifier" which simply spins a CD in a static magnetic field, claiming in the patent itself that doing so not only rearranges the data on the CD, but also results in data compression on the CD? Such claims wouldn't pass the giggle test even with most laypersons. 

As well, please explain why the same John Bedini was able to secure a patent on a perpetual motion/over unity device in spite of the patent office stating outright that patents are not granted for such devices.

That doesn't even satisfy my definition of "tough" let alone "TOUGH."

se


----------



## bigshot

Hey! You started talking about perpetual motion machines and an ad for one showed up in the sidebar of the forum!


----------



## proton007

steve eddy said:


> If it's so "TOUGH," then could you please explain how, for example, John Bedini was able to secure more than one patent for his CD "clarifier" which simply spins a CD in a static magnetic field, claiming in the patent itself that doing so not only rearranges the data on the CD, but also results in data compression on the CD? Such claims wouldn't pass the giggle test even with most laypersons.
> 
> As well, please explain why the same John Bedini was able to secure a patent on a perpetual motion/over unity device in spite of the patent office stating outright that patents are not granted for such devices.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Steve,
 as far as I know, filing an application for a patent does not require any physical demonstration or proof that the device actually works. Further, the phrasing of the document, as done by patent lawyers, renders the patent barely comprehensible.
 Also, when saying getting a patent is 'tough' it's just that the idea itself may not be entirely original, however loony it may be.
  
 I believe the reason is that a patent grants the patent holder the right to prevent others from producing and selling the device without some sort of legal arrangement, and not the right to be the monopoly.
 For most 'nutcase' patents, it's mostly a question of bragging rights, nothing more.


----------



## Uncle AL

steve eddy said:


> If it's so "TOUGH," then could you please explain how, for example, John Bedini was able to secure more than one patent for his CD "clarifier" which simply spins a CD in a static magnetic field, claiming in the patent itself that doing so not only rearranges the data on the CD, but also results in data compression on the CD? Such claims wouldn't pass the giggle test even with most laypersons.
> 
> As well, please explain why the same John Bedini was able to secure a patent on a perpetual motion/over unity device in spite of the patent office stating outright that patents are not granted for such devices.
> 
> ...



Is it appropriate to affront entirety of patents, including those who have worked hard to achieve them? Is the system perfect? No. I readily admit this, and hence the challenge I issued to my attorney that corporations may be given an easier path to obtaining patents. Your generalization, however, diminishes efforts by those who are neither corporate, nor patent trolls, who toiled years to achieve their patents. On your specific complaint, I searched the official USPTO web search, as well as www.freepatentsonline.com and found 9 issued patents listed for John Bedini. I did not see issued patents specifically referencing in their titles, "CD "clarifier", or "perpetual motion", but did locate patents, US 6,545,444 (April 8, 2003) and US 5,487,057 (January 23, 1996). Patent ***057 lists means of applying magnetic field to a medium, such as CD, etc.. The 19 granted Claims (which is what is actually patented) fail to mention rearranging data or compressing data. In patent ***444 (monopole motor) there is no mention in claims to a perpetual motion machine. If Bedini is claiming some right that is not supported by patent claims, then he should be challenged on that front, but the patent office should not be blamed or devalued if they did not issue unsupported claims. If there are other patents the U.S. Patent Office failed to note in their records, please let me know.

I am a skeptic at heart, but seek supporting facts to any challenge to conventional thought. If the patent system has flaws, which it does, I would never assume or assert a generalization that the entirety of a system, and it's inventors, are fraudulent or somehow unjust.


----------



## coletrain104

maybe this is the wrong place to ask, but I'm looking to get a balanced cable, but I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that cables will make a large and appreciable difference. Therefore, I'm looking for a 4-pin XLR to dual 3-pin XLR. It doesn't need to be braided or OCC or anything like that, just looking for such a cable that won't break the bank and let me take advantage of my amp's balanced out. For some reason, I can't find any of these on the web. Is anyone aware on the best deal on one of these cables, even if it is braided and 'boutique'? If this is the wrong place to ask, please let me know


----------



## Noobzilla

I bought some cheap $14 cable for my D600 from ebay. Didn't know cables would make a difference. I lose some details overall and depth on the bass. Triple checked to make sure the ends are hooked properly to my Explorer 2 and headphones. What a waste =/


----------



## Steve Eddy

noobzilla said:


> I bought some cheap $14 cable for my D600 from ebay. Didn't know cables would make a difference. I lose some details overall and depth on the bass. Triple checked to make sure the ends are hooked properly to my Explorer 2 and headphones. What a waste =/




This is the Sound Science forum. This post belongs in one of the DBT-Free Zone forums.

se


----------



## bigshot

The seller of that cable has a 99.9% approval rating. I guess it's that last .1% that makes all the difference (winky here)


----------



## cjl

noobzilla said:


> I bought some cheap $14 cable for my D600 from ebay. Didn't know cables would make a difference. I lose some details overall and depth on the bass. Triple checked to make sure the ends are hooked properly to my Explorer 2 and headphones. What a waste =/


 
 You could check the resistance with a multimeter if you really think there's a difference - it's just possible that if the connections internally are flaky or really high resistance, that it could make a difference. If the cable isn't defective though, it's almost definitely just a placebo. Unless the cable is actually defective, your headphones sound exactly like they did before.


----------



## DiscoProJoe

I know "cross-posting" may be frowned upon on these forums, but I posted some stuff on a different topic thread (in the headphones forum) and figured it belongs a lot better here in the Sound Science forum instead.
  
 The topic veered off into the realm of headphone cables, and whether or not they make any noticeable difference in the sound. Here's what I wrote:
  
We're talking mere _milliwatts_ of power, here, and not hundreds (or thousands) of watts -- as would be the case with large stereo systems. Even my beloved Cayin C5 portable amp "only" puts about about 900 mW (i.e., 0.9 W) of typical max power (or 450 mW + 450 mW max) at 32 ohms.
  
For a cable to make any audible difference in the sound with this amount of power, my guess is that...
  
1. The cable would have to be at least 200 feet long (if it has the thickness of a standard headphone cable).
  
2. The wires would have to be about 0.1 mm thick or smaller (if the cable is 4 feet long).
  
3. The wires would have to be _seriously_ kinked. (If they're just slightly or even moderately kinked, this probably _wouldn't_ make any audible difference. Electricity does _not_ behave the same as fluids or mechanical tension.)
  
4. The wires would have to be seriously corroded.
  
5. The wires would have to be made of material other than copper or silver (besides the gold plating at the tips, of course).
  
Anyway, when I see cables advertised for $500, my thought is always, "Are you running 100,000 watts to your headphones, or something? Damn, you must be deaf!"  





  
But recently I encountered a comment on YouTube that summed it up a million times better. The comment said, "For $500 that cable had better give blow jobs."  




  
I just realized something else: if a 300-ohm pair of headphones and a 32-ohm pair are each being driven with the same amount of power, then the amount of *current* running through the 300-ohm pair's *cable* will be *1/3rd as much current* as the amount of current that's running through the 32-ohm pair's cable! (The 300-ohm pair will also have _3 times as much voltage across its amplifier channels_, compared to the 32-ohm pair's amplifier.)
  
If you remember from physics class, P = IV, P = I2R, and P = V2 / R.
  
Most of the enthusiasts who spend hundreds of dollars on cables are also probably using 300-ohm headphones as well, which means that their cables *only have to bear 1/3rd as much current* as a cable that's running a standard pair of headphones!  



  




  
I also mentioned stereo systems. A 32-ohm pair of headphones will have _1/2 as much current running through its cable_ as a pair of 8-ohm speakers would while being driven with the same amount of power, and these 32-ohm headphones will have about _1/3rd as much current_ in its cable compared to a pair of 4-ohm speakers pushed with same power.
  
At the same power, a 300-ohm pair would be using _1/6th as much current_ as an 8-ohm pair, and about _1/9th as much current_ as a 4-ohm pair.
  
So not only are we talking mere milliwatts of power, here, but we're also talking *mere fractions of current in the wires if driven at the same power as stereo systems!*
  
So there you go, ladies and gentlemen. Class dismissed!


----------



## DiscoProJoe

Here's one comparison between the amount of power, voltage, and current (in speakers vs. headphones).
  
 Let's compare a simple (but powerful) 2-channel home stereo system cranked way up at 200 watts (100W + 100W) with a pair of 8-ohm speakers, and the listener is sitting 1 meter in front of them.
  
 Let's also compare a headphone amplifier driving a pair of 32-ohm headphones, cranked way up at 200 milliwatts (100mW + 100mW).
  
 To the listener, the loudness level may not be exactly the same (with differences in driver sensitivity, etc., etc., etc.), but let's assume it sounds just as loud.
  
 From physics class, we had P = IV, P = I2R, and P = V2 / R. So therefore, *I = sqrt (P / R), and V = sqrt (PR).*
  
 We know the speakers are being driven with 1000 times the power as the headphones. And the speakers have 1/4th the impedance as the headphones.
  
 So,... I = sqrt (1000 / .25)  --------->  I *≈ 63 times the current.* And,... V = sqrt (1000 · .25)  --------->  V *≈ 16 times the voltage.*
  
 So the pair of *32-ohm headphones* has roughly *1/63rd the amount of current* running through its cable, and about *1/16th the voltage* across each of its amplifier channels, compared to the speakers at the same loudness level.
  
 Now, let's compare a pair of *300-ohm* headphones running at 200 milliwatts, versus the 8-ohm speakers at 200 watts.
  
 We know the speakers are being driven with 1000 times the power as the headphones. And the speakers have (1)/(37.5)th the impedance as the headphones.
  
 So,... I = sqrt (1000 / .0267)  --------->  I *≈ 194 times the current.* And,... V = sqrt (1000 · .0267)  --------->  V *≈ 5.2 times the voltage.*
  
 So the pair of *300-ohm headphones* has roughly *1/194th the amount of current* running through its cable, and about *1/5th the voltage* across each of its amplifier channels, compared to the 8-ohm speakers at the same loudness level.
  
 Finally, what if we use a pair of *4-ohm speakers* in a car stereo running at 200 watts, instead?
  
 If we do the math, these have roughly 89 times the current, and about 11 times the voltage of the 32-ohm headphones. These 4-ohm speakers also have approximately 274 times the current and nearly 3.7 times the voltage of the 300-ohm cans.
  
 Now,..I forgot,..._how much money_ do some people spend on headphone cables, again?


----------



## mikoss

As an electrician, I don't understand why you're so hung up on current draw. The cables impedance is what changes the sound presentation and frequency response. This really doesn't have much to do with how much current is passing through it, and a lot more to do with the amount of inductance and capacitance is inherent in it's construction. 

I like to think of it as a tone capacitor in an electric guitar... We're talking nano or pico ferads of capacitance possibly changing the overall tone. 

I don't think people are concerned with the resistance of their cables as it is fairly negligible. Doing straight up power calculations is somewhat flawed though... The drivers impedance also changes throughout the frequency response. The power factor of most dynamic cans doesn't seem to be a constant value, so the current draw isn't exactly the same as a purely resistive component. 

Just my opinion  good discussion on cables either way.


----------



## arnyk

mikoss said:


> As an electrician, I don't understand why you're so hung up on current draw. The cables impedance is what changes the sound presentation and frequency response. This really doesn't have much to do with how much current is passing through it, and a lot more to do with the amount of inductance and capacitance is inherent in it's construction.
> 
> I like to think of it as a tone capacitor in an electric guitar... We're talking nano or pico ferads of capacitance possibly changing the overall tone.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Cable characteristic impedance is of little importance to audio because the cable lengths are so short compared to the wavelengths involved which are like miles.
  
 Cable capacitance can matter a lot to guitar pickups because their source impedance is so high, but that is generally irrelevant to audio because the source impedance of just about all audio gear is orders of magnitude lower. We're talking hundreds of thousands a millions of ohms source impedance for the guitar pickup versus hundreds of ohms for the audio gear.


----------



## mikoss

I don't bother exploring different cables myself, but changing the impedance of your drivers will change their response. Whether it is audible or not, I guess it depends on the listener. 

I suspect very small changes are indeed audible, since the art of matching drivers is of utmost importance to manufacturers. Have you seen the video of the HD-800 coils being constructed? If they are physically not in a "perfect" circle they're rejected... Yet the drivers still need to be matched based on how their FR graphs turns out... Adding even 1pF of capacitance between drivers will skew the power factor and in turn the response. I'm not arguing, this is purely the nature of electrical components. It's entirely possible for cables to have much different impedances... So I guess you can either believe it affects the sound or believe it has no effect. I haven't messed around with cables enough to have an opinion, but driver matching is entirely about impedances and power factors being as close to the same as possible.


----------



## arnyk

mikoss said:


> I don't bother exploring different cables myself, but changing the impedance of your drivers will change their response. Whether it is audible or not, I guess it depends on the listener.
> 
> I suspect very small changes are indeed audible, since the art of matching drivers is of utmost importance to manufacturers. Have you seen the video of the HD-800 coils being constructed? If they are physically not in a "perfect" circle they're rejected... Yet the drivers still need to be matched based on how their FR graphs turns out... Adding even 1pF of capacitance between drivers will skew the power factor and in turn the response. I'm not arguing, this is purely the nature of electrical components. It's entirely possible for cables to have much different impedances... So I guess you can either believe it affects the sound or believe it has no effect. I haven't messed around with cables enough to have an opinion, but driver matching is entirely about impedances and power factors being as close to the same as possible.


 
  
 I've never seen a case where the 4 ohm and 8 ohm versions of a given speaker driver design measured really close. 
  
 But that is irrelevant to cables.


----------



## OddE

mikoss said:


> It's entirely possible for cables to have much different impedances... So I guess you can either believe it affects the sound or believe it has no effect.


 
  
 -Talking of cable impedance at audio frequencies is not really relevant; unless your cable runs are (literally!) thousands of feet long, it simply doesn't make any difference.
  
 Now, cable capacitance, on the other hand, may have an effect for some exotic gear (electrostatic headphones, I am looking at you!) - but again, impedance is largely irrelevant at baseband audio.
  
 (Impedance only really matters when a cable acts as a transmission line; it doesn't until the length of the cable is a significant fraction of the wavelength of the signal propagating through it - say, 10% of the signal wavelength is a common rule of thumb. At audio, that translates into some 1.5km of cable for a 20kHz bandwidth signal (not accounting for the velocity factor of the cable - but that would cause the cable to have to be even longer for transmission-line properties to matter...))


----------



## Joe Bloggs

odde said:


> mikoss said:
> 
> 
> > It's entirely possible for cables to have much different impedances... So I guess you can either believe it affects the sound or believe it has no effect.
> ...




I think you're mixing up the reasons why impedance is considered important in audio vs the reasons in transmission lines in radio applications...  

Cable impedance in the form of resistance is considered relevant simply because they eat up power to the speakers / headphones, and do so in an interactive way with the speakers / headphones' impedance response, becoming a variable voltage divider and affecting the final frequency response.


----------



## arnyk

joe bloggs said:


> I think you're mixing up the reasons why impedance is considered important in audio vs the reasons in transmission lines in radio applications...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I think now we have a different confusion - was he talking about cable series impedance or cable characteristic impedance?
  
 Two of us picked characteristic impedance and you picked series impedance, and to tell the truth we are all right.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

arnyk said:


> I think now we have a different confusion - was he talking about cable series impedance or cable characteristic impedance?
> 
> Two of us picked characteristic impedance and you picked series impedance, and to tell the truth we are all right.




I think most who just know their audio are like me who just had to look up characteristic impedance and transmission lines a few minutes ago, so my bet would be on my interpretation


----------



## mikoss

I don't think the length of the cable necessarily matters, so long as the impedance is the same. If the cable has a Z of 0.1 ohms, whether it is 1' long or 100' long, the overall effect on the driver circuit is the same... it's going to see the same RLC/Z between both cables. The length can affect the Z, but I was just commenting on the overall Z, regardless of length.
  
 My point is this... two cables can have two inherently different electrical properties. I think we can all agree on that.
  
 The only thing that I could see possibly affecting the driver response and therefore the presentation would be those different electrical properties... and I'm singling out the C because it's the most likely culprit... it will affect the current/voltage phase angle and the overall power factor. I'm not talking about resistance at all, and I think the resistance is a complete red herring, as I completely agree that the magnitude of current in our audio cables is small enough that the gauge of the wire really doesn't matter (to a point, obviously).


----------



## OddE

joe bloggs said:


> I think you're mixing up the reasons why impedance is considered important in audio vs the reasons in transmission lines in radio applications...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 -So do I, come to think of it. (Off to check typical speaker cable parameters and do some math to see just how much it affects the equation. (Bah, whenever I think of a cable, it is something which is to propagate a signal at a frequency of at least several MHz, often a few GHz. Makes it all too easy to discount anything at baseband as 'DC. Who cares.' 
  


arnyk said:


> I think now we have a different confusion - was he talking about cable series impedance or cable characteristic impedance?
> 
> Two of us picked characteristic impedance and you picked series impedance, and to tell the truth we are all right.


 
  
 -Or both wrong, for not verifying what he meant before jumping to conclusions.  (My wife chuckles from the sideline here that 'You know you married a weirdo when he brings out pen and paper on a Sunday evening to do some math - just for the heck of it...')


----------



## Steve Eddy

mikoss said:


> The only thing that I could see possibly affecting the driver response and therefore the presentation would be those different electrical properties... and I'm singling out the C because it's the most likely culprit... it will affect the current/voltage phase angle and the overall power factor. I'm not talking about resistance at all, and I think the resistance is a complete red herring, as I completely agree that the magnitude of current in our audio cables is small enough that the gauge of the wire really doesn't matter (to a point, obviously).




For high impedance loads, capacitance is the one you have to look out for. For low impedance loads, it's inductance.

Oh, and if a cable had a Z of 0.1 ohms, it would effectively be a short circuit and I wouldn't want to plug it into anything. A cable's impedance is not the same as its series resistance.

se


----------



## arnyk

mikoss said:


> I don't think the length of the cable necessarily matters, so long as the impedance is the same.
> If the cable has a Z of 0.1 ohms, whether it is 1' long or 100' long, the overall effect on the driver circuit is the same... it's going to see the same RLC/Z between both cables. The length can affect the Z, but I was just commenting on the overall Z, regardless of length.
> 
> My point is this... two cables can have two inherently different electrical properties. I think we can all agree on that.
> ...


 
  
 Since analog interconnects and speaker cables are not generally impedance matched, matching impedances is irrelevant.
  
 As an aside, cable length in impedance matched systems does matter, it causes greater losses.
  
 It seems like you are instead talking about series impedance and that involves L, R, and C but only R seems to be specified.  
 As soon as you talk about series impedance, then we need all of the components of that impedance, not just R. We often just talk about R, but then the best word describe what we are talking about is Resistance, not Impedance.
  
 A mere difference among cables has to be large before it makes an audible difference. 
  
 Usually the capacitance of speaker cables is low enough to ignore over the audio band. There are some high capacitance speaker cables but their use should  be specified if we are going to talk about it because it is not the usual case.
  
 When high capacitance cable, the most audible effects if they exist usually relates to their impact on the amplifier, not the speaker.
  
 In general, the series inductance of a speaker cable is more likely to  lead to audible differences than any series capacitance, depending on the speaker itself.


----------



## mikoss

steve eddy said:


> Oh, and if a cable had a Z of 0.1 ohms, it would effectively be a short circuit and I wouldn't want to plug it into anything. A cable's impedance is not the same as its series resistance.
> 
> se




A short circuit from your amp to the drivers would probably be the absolute best case scenario. This is what a super conductor is trying to achieve.


----------



## arnyk

mikoss said:


> A short circuit from your amp to the drivers would probably be the absolute best case scenario. This is what a super conductor is trying to achieve.


 
  
 Its a lot of trouble and it is unnecessary. The speaker designer simply puts the resistance of the speaker cable into his design. This has been done many times and it just works.
  
 The problem is keeping the speaker cable the same. If the speaker is permanently installed, then that is pretty easy. There was a pro audio speaker system that was designed that way, that used a standard off-the shelf XLR cable for speaker cables. It worked out fine, and I know of nobody who was tempted to use anything but the right cables.


----------



## Don Hills

mikoss said:


> ...
> ... Adding even 1pF of capacitance between drivers will skew the power factor and in turn the response. ...


 
  
 You're several orders of magnitude off. As in, the capacitance would have to be much greater to make a measurable, let alone an audible, difference to the driver response. If you disagree, could you start by describing just where in the circuit the 1pF of difference is measured?


----------



## Steve Eddy

mikoss said:


> A short circuit from your amp to the drivers would probably be the absolute best case scenario. This is what a super conductor is trying to achieve.




But Z is determined across the positive and ground at one end of the cable. You should use the term resistance, R instead.

se


----------



## mikoss

Z is total impedance = total opposition to current flow. This is much more applicable to cables as the current is by all means nearly constantly changing.


----------



## Speedskater

There is cable end-to-end impedance (mostly resistance)
  
 And there is cable, transmission line :: Radio Frequency Characteristic Impedance.
  
 We seem to be co-mingling the two terms.


----------



## castleofargh

now that's fun. in my head it was resistance=DC
 and  impedance=AC where more stuff come into play because of the current changing.
 now I need to google that stuff because you've all put a doubt in my mind ^_^. that's science!!!! forget your misconceptions!!!


----------



## dprimary

Your audio cable has to be over a mile long before you have to start worrying about transmission line issues. Unless you are talking about audio in a stadium, airport, disneyland, or the phone company you are unlikely to ever run into it.


----------



## Baxide

dprimary said:


> Your audio cable has to be over a mile long before you have to start worrying about transmission line issues. Unless you are talking about audio in a stadium, airport, disneyland, or the phone company you are unlikely to ever run into it.


 

 have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.


----------



## StanD

dprimary said:


> Your audio cable has to be over a mile long before you have to start worrying about transmission line issues. Unless you are talking about audio in a stadium, airport, disneyland, or the phone company you are unlikely to ever run into it.


 
  
  


baxide said:


> have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.


 
 Don't confuse the affect of capacitance and inductance of a 1 meter audio cable with transmission lines. That would have to do with standing waves and impedance matching terminations as well as the wavelength. The wavelength of audio is incredibly long and not in scope with this topic. The 80 meter ham band it just under 4 MHz so you can just imagine how long the wavlength of audio must be. One doesn't need an academic paper, any beginner EE text book on this matter covers all of this, you can Google plenty of info on this.
 The capacitance of a cable is more likely to cause issues with the load on the output of an amp, however, one needs to have a pretty junky cable to have that much capacitance.. The inductance of an audio cable is far too low to cause audio issues, after all this is a cable, not a coil with a magnetic core.


----------



## Baxide

stand said:


> The capacitance of a cable is more likely to cause issues with the load on the output of an amp, however, one needs to have a pretty junky cable to have that much capacitance.. The inductance of an audio cable is far too low to cause audio issues, after all this is a cable, not a coil with a magnetic core.


 
 Every time I read remarks like that, I have to smile. If only what you claim was true. But real life experiments conducted through the ages by many folks has produced a different outcome than you would have expected. Some of these multi strand cables with certain types of  insulation act as a significant capacitor. In RF coax cable they use teflon and airspacing to reduce these effects at RF. But at audio frequency it just gets accepted as irrelevant by many cable designers.


----------



## arnyk

baxide said:


> have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.


 
  
 I don't think my Fields and Waves Textbook from 1966 is still in print. 
  
 You are changing the subject. Of course audio cables have capacitance and inductance but that was not the topic. The topic is when a cable starts behaving like a transmission line.
  
 The usual rule of thumb is a cable has to be at least 1/4 wave long at the highest frequency of interest, which is 20 KHz for audio cables, but you can pick a higher frequency as it won't really matter.
  
 The speed of propagation of electrical signals in cables is at least 0.6 the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second. Divide the speed of propagation by the frequency. There's your wavelength.
  
 When a cable is too short to be properly analyzed as a transmission line, then the issues you raised can at least possibly be issues.
  
 But, for regular audio gear (other than phono moving magnet phono cartridges) the capacitance and inductance of interconnects is too low to matter, and ditto for speaker cables attached to ordinary speakers.


----------



## StanD

baxide said:


> Every time I read remarks like that, I have to smile. If only what you claim was true. But real life experiments conducted through the ages by many folks has produced a different outcome than you would have expected. Some of these multi strand cables with certain types of  insulation act as a significant capacitor. In RF coax cable they use teflon and airspacing to reduce these effects at RF. But at audio frequency it just gets accepted as irrelevant by many cable designers.


 
 I haven't ever measured any significant capacitance in any of my cables and I don't purchase expensive cables. Do not onfuse the needs of RF vs. audio. So give us an example of such an audio cable that can be purchased?


----------



## nick_charles

baxide said:


> have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.


 
  
 The "box" in the MIT cables really stops the cables fitting in with the normal definition of a cable...


----------



## arnyk

baxide said:


> have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.


 
  
  
  
 You can find many relevant documents on the web. Google & Wikipedia are your friends. People haven't written scientific papers about this topic for maybe 100 years - it is a settled issue and thus it is just textbook fodder.
  
 The assertion that "Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band." is _*utterly false*_ if we are talking about regular audio cables, even those in large HT systems.
  
 For example, most audio gear drives interconnects with line drivers that provide a source impedance of 75 ohms. Most audio cable has a capacitance of 20-30 pF a foot. A 20 foot audio cable therefore provides a load capacitance that maxes out at 600 pF, The frequency for a 3 dB loss and 45 degree phase shift is 4 MHZ, so the losses and phase shift in the audio band running up to 20 KHz or 100 Khz are negligible.


----------



## mikoss

arnyk said:


> ...
> You are changing the subject. Of course audio cables have capacitance and inductance but that was not the topic. The topic is when a cable starts behaving like a transmission line.



This was actually never the topic I was trying to bring up with this debate. Somebody else misinterpreted what I mentioned and included this. I agree 100% that distance is a huge factor wrt transmission line issues.


----------



## kimosabe

uncle erik said:


> MaciekN, you are making a false assumption.
> 
> You are assuming that inexpensive wire has sound qualities different from expensive ones.
> 
> ...


 
 Cables are like nutritional supplement beverages and defense attorneys - never ask a question if you risk an adverse answer.
 Let us remember that Monster began selling snake-oil cables and is now a multi-national conglomerate of epic proportions.
 In fact, they manufacture Beats (regardless of what we may think of them, proving that Uncle Erik's Theorem of Snake Oil is quite apropos.


----------



## Steve Eddy

baxide said:


> have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.




No, it doesn't.

EDIT: Damn, didn't realize that was such an old post.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

kimosabe said:


> Cables are like nutritional supplement beverages and defense attorneys - never ask a question if you risk an adverse answer.
> Let us remember that Monster began selling snake-oil cables and is now a multi-national conglomerate of epic proportions.
> In fact, they manufacture Beats (regardless of what we may think of them, proving that Uncle Erik's Theorem of Snake Oil is quite apropos.




No, they don't. Dr. Dre and his partner wrangled Beats from Monster some years ago and sold it all to Apple for $3 billion earlier this year. I can't tell you how happy this made me, knowing that Noel Lee won't get a penny of that. 

I was at Starbucks the other day. Three people in there were wearing headphones. Not one of them were a Monster product. They were all Beats. 

Reminds me of a "letter" from Google to Yahoo I saw some years back.

"Dear Yahoo.

We've never heard anyone say "Gee, I don't know, Bob. Let's Yahoo it."

Just sayin'. 

Sincerely,

Google."

se


----------



## arnyk

baxide said:


> have you got a link to some sort of academic paper on your suggestion that we can have a read of? Capacitance and inductance on a 1 meter length of cable can create quite a big shift in frequency within the audio band. The MIT cables with the "adjustment box" exploit that principle in order to change the sound of the audio signal going through their cable.


 
  
 Since all you have to back up your assertions seems to be your say-so, my evidence need be no better than that.
  
 However, you seem to be so badly mislead, here's a life line: http://www.isu.edu.tw/upload/52/35/files/dept_35_lv_2_4168.pdf


----------



## StanD

arnyk said:


> Since all you have to back up your assertions seems to be your say-so, my evidence need be no better than that.
> 
> However, you seem to be so badly mislead, here's a life line: http://www.isu.edu.tw/upload/52/35/files/dept_35_lv_2_4168.pdf


 
  
 Even though this is rudimentary EE, most audiophiles will not understand how to apply this knowledge. In the case of cable lovers and believers of anecdotal information, nothing will help.


----------



## kimosabe

steve eddy said:


> No, they don't. Dr. Dre and his partner wrangled Beats from Monster some years ago and sold it all to Apple for $3 billion earlier this year. I can't tell you how happy this made me, knowing that Noel Lee won't get a penny of that.
> 
> I was at Starbucks the other day. Three people in there were wearing headphones. Not one of them were a Monster product. They were all Beats.
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, funny letter from Google.
  
 I may be a bit more complicated..
  
 According to Crunchbase, Monster still manufactures these headphones;
 "Monster engineered and brought the Beats® headphones to market, and has since become the world's leading manufacturer of high-performance headphones. - See more at: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/monster-cable-products-inc#x
  
 Is it not possible that the *manufacture* is in the same factory(s)? under license from Dr. Dre et. al by Monster Cables (wherever in the world that is being done - they can assemble just the left headband hinge in the US and it can be marked Made in USA) ? This SOP, where product is made by company A, whose name never appears anywhere on product, website or legal declarations is commonly known as White Labeling, as I realize you are probably aware.
  
 Is it possible that Dr. Dre --> Apple was a transfer of the business end of contract transfers [including guaranteed Cost of Goods Sold from Monster for X years], marketing, labeling and whatever sizzle Apple wishes wherein Dr. Dr et. al. relinquish said rights for the extra-value price of a mere $3B? 
   
 Would be interesting to confirm all this conjecture from the inside.
  
 Just sayin':
  
 I think the three Beats headphones you saw were still, and always were manufactured - but not _necessarily _marketed, branded or priced - by Monster Cables, Inc.
 That being perhaps the case, rumors of Noel Lee's demise or even loss of _any _income from the brand may be  a bit premature. Advertising don't come cheap, but it is squarely in the Apple wheelhouse. 
  
 PS: let us agree to strike the phrase, "high performance" from the quote within the quote!
 PPS: get ready to a whole lot more of sheeple wearing Beats in the not too distant future, IMHO


----------



## Steve Eddy

Give this a read.

http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world

se


----------



## dvw

kimosabe said:


> According to Crunchbase, Monster still manufactures these headphones;
> "Monster engineered and brought the Beats® headphones to market, and has since become the world's leading manufacturer of high-performance headphones. - See more at: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/monster-cable-products-inc#x
> 
> Is it not possible that the *manufacture* is in the same factory(s)? under license from Dr. Dre et. al by Monster Cables (wherever in the world that is being done - they can assemble just the left headband hinge in the US and it can be marked Made in USA) ? This SOP, where product is made by company A, whose name never appears anywhere on product, website or legal declarations is commonly known as White Labeling, as I realize you are probably aware.
> ...


 
  
 Monster does not own the actual factory that manufacture Beats. It is owned by a third party OEM/ODM which also manufactures many other brands including some of the very highly touted headphones. Monster headphones and Beats are manufactured in the same factory though.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dvw said:


> Monster does not own the actual factory that manufacture Beats. It is owned by a third party OEM/ODM which also manufactures many other brands including some of the very highly touted headphones. Monster headphones and Beats are manufactured in the same factory though.




From my read of the Gizmodo article, Dre an Iovine went with a different OEM/ODM than Monster was using.

se


----------



## dvw

Not true. I know the owner of the factory and I visited the factory just 6 months ago. I have seen both the products in production. The factory also happened to be the only Apple approved factory in headphones. So I don't think any sourcing will change in the near future.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dvw said:


> Not true. I know the owner of the factory and I visited the factory just 6 months ago. I have seen both the products in production. The factory also happened to be the only Apple approved factory in headphones. So I don't think any sourcing will change in the near future.




What factory exactly? Gizmodo says beats are being made by HTC of Taiwan. Is that true or not?

se


----------



## arnyk

stand said:


> Even though this is rudimentary EE, most audiophiles will not understand how to apply this knowledge. In the case of cable lovers and believers of anecdotal information, nothing will help.


 
  
  
 I strongly suspect that is exactly true, both the inability to  understand EE 200 level classes about fields, waves, and signals; and the fact that even if they could, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
  
 There's plenty of evidence that the lead engineers at the magic cable companies can't understand this material, either.


----------



## arnyk

baxide said:


> Every time I read remarks like that, I have to smile. If only what you claim was true. But real life experiments conducted through the ages by many folks has produced a different outcome than you would have expected. Some of these multi strand cables with certain types of  insulation act as a significant capacitor. In RF coax cable they use teflon and airspacing to reduce these effects at RF. But at audio frequency it just gets accepted as irrelevant by many cable designers.


 
  
  
 The reason why so many well-educated cable designers accept that multiple stranding, cable capacitance and inductance are irrelevant in home audio cables is because real life experiments conducted over the ages by many folks confirms the theoretical conclusion that they are irrelevant. Theory predicts that they may be relevant at RF frequencies and for cables that are miles long, and real life experiments affirm that as well.
  
 Please provide a reference to even one example of what you claim.


----------



## dvw

steve eddy said:


> What factory exactly? Gizmodo says beats are being made by HTC of Taiwan. Is that true or not?
> 
> se


 
 I can  only tell you the factory name in a PM. Factories does not like outsider to disclose their client list. This factory is a fully integrated headphone manufacturer and has been in business for over twenty years. They have three locations in China manufacturing  all components including drivers and cable. HTC was only an investor and they have no facility for headphones manufacturing. Monster was the lead in manufacturing and design and was the direct contact since Beats has no resource. Beats took over later. I don't know exactly the detail transaction only approximately. This factory manufactured almost most of the high end phones reviewed here on head-fi. This is why sometimes it is funny when people compared manufacturing quality between different phones as if they're from two factories when they came from the same factory.


----------



## Steve Eddy

dvw said:


> I can  only tell you the factory name in a PM. Factories does not like outsider to disclose their client list.




Then I wonder how they get their clients. Must have a secret handshake or something. 




> This factory is a fully integrated headphone manufacturer and has been in business for over twenty years. They have three locations in China manufacturing  all components including drivers and cable. HTC was only an investor and they have no facility for headphones manufacturing. Monster was the lead in manufacturing and design and was the direct contact since Beats has no resource. Beats took over later. I don't know exactly the detail transaction only approximately. This factory manufactured almost most of the high end phones reviewed here on head-fi. This is why sometimes it is funny when people compared manufacturing quality between different phones as if they're from two factories when they came from the same factory.




Ah, ok.

Thanks!

se


----------



## sonitus mirus

My Google-fu found this easy enough.
  
 http://www.kainorway-tech.com/about-us/


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> My Google-fu found this easy enough.
> 
> http://www.kainorway-tech.com/about-us/


 
 Don't be so quick, they seem to be selling stuff. They have listed $5-10 Million in revenue, hardly what I'd expect from an outfit that manufactures for so many other bigtime companies.


----------



## Steve Eddy

sonitus mirus said:


> My Google-fu found this easy enough.
> 
> http://www.kainorway-tech.com/about-us/




Founded in 2006. That's not quite 20 years ago. 

se


----------



## sonitus mirus

stand said:


> Don't be so quick, they seem to be selling stuff. They have listed $5-10 Million in revenue, hardly what I'd expect from an outfit that manufactures for so many other bigtime companies.


 
  
 It seems that they are a counterfeiter.  The press release for this manufacturing firm has a link to a website (http://www.fivestar-creative.com) that was shut down by a US federal court order for selling products bearing counterfeit trademarks.
  
 http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/brands-and-products-at-manufactured-by-hk-rui-qi-development-co-405411.htm
  
 Anyone can purchase a 1000 fake units and resell them on Ebay or even Amazon, as long as they can cover their tracks.  Scary.


----------



## StanD

sonitus mirus said:


> It seems that they are a counterfeiter.  The press release for this manufacturing firm has a link to a website (http://www.fivestar-creative.com) that was shut down by a US federal court order for selling products bearing counterfeit trademarks.
> 
> http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/brands-and-products-at-manufactured-by-hk-rui-qi-development-co-405411.htm
> 
> Anyone can purchase a 1000 fake units and resell them on Ebay or even Amazon, as long as they can cover their tracks.  Scary.


 
 We all know that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."


----------



## Toom

stand said:


> We all know that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't."




That's not the saying.


----------



## arnyk

toom said:


> That's not the saying.


 
  
 Agreed.  The common saying is: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is! (too good to be true)."
  
 It could have the same meaning, either way.
  
  
http://www.colorado.edu/news/features/if-it-sounds-too-good-be-true-it-probably
  
http://www.scag.gov/if-it-sounds-too-good-to-be-true-it-probably-is


----------



## Toom

It's like when people (mostly Americans) say "I could care less." 

Has the opposite meaning.


----------



## StanD

toom said:


> That's not the saying.


 
 OK, so you know what I meant. Isn't _good_ or is _too good to be true_.


----------



## kimosabe

steve eddy said:


> From my read of the Gizmodo article, Dre an Iovine went with a different OEM/ODM than Monster was using.
> 
> se


 

Firstly, I stand corrected, Steve Eddy - and thanks for the sensational link
Secondly, kudos to Sam Biddle for elucidating this fascinating tale from, seemingly, the very people that had exhibited such extremely poor judgement. While most people I know would have said, "no comment" he gets a whole lot more.
Finally, with regard to the article, there are no doubt some embellishments and possible intentional misleads - one of which could be the bit about who makes the fabulous Beats. Believe whomever you will, I find the dvw post intriguing.
  
 Thanks for the discussion and Happy Independence Day!


----------

