# Cables and Snake Oil - Please read before you are fooled!



## akart

I thought this article was very interesting and does a good job explaining why expensive audio and power cables are for the illiterate customer:
  http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html
   
  Hope you like it. Happy reading!


----------



## endless402

nothing foolish about diffferent cables. copper vs copper plated silver vs silver all sound different
  same with copper vs gold vs rhodium connectors


----------



## JRG1990

Yea most cables are constructed differently from different materials, also you have to consider the quality of the connection from the wire to the connector, poor quality solder will add more resistance , where silver solder is alot less resistive even better are crimp plugs which have no extra resistance, also to consider is sheilded or unshielded depends if interference is a problem for you, but i don't think theres really any difference between the different types of shields.


----------



## Armaegis

Good read. I think this is the same guy from the AES audio myths workshop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ


----------



## kboe

Read and none to impressed.  Like all of the cable debates here, the anti guy seems a little ticked off for some reason and only says "science, science, science".  I "listen" to my gear and music, I don't "science" it.


----------



## Armaegis

The guy gets a fair bit of flak around him from what I've heard. Some of his other articles are ok, but others meh, and he's got one really "awkward" video on his site too...


----------



## Root2

.


----------



## akart

^ Good read, thanks!
   
  Unfortunately, although the first article describes that the electrical characteristics of different wire are different (no brainer), it does not present any information on whether this makes any audible difference.


----------



## endless402

wires sound different, it's subjective as to which is "better"


----------



## Root2

akart said:


> ^ Good read, thanks!
> 
> Unfortunately, although the first article describes that the electrical characteristics of different wire are different (no brainer), it does not present any information on whether this makes any audible difference.


 
  
  
 .


----------



## 9pintube

Quote:


endless402 said:


> wires sound different, it's subjective as to which is "better"


 
  Nicely Said!        But I'll add, If they want to use "LAMP CORD" for their speaker connections HAVE AT IT!!!!


----------



## El_Doug

sure, a 100 foot run of single-ended 18 gauge wire will prove fatal vs. a 5 foot run of 12 gauge balanced wire
   
  when it comes to what you previously alluded to, that there is a difference between silver, spc, copper, and the like.... prove it, and I'll buy you a new car
  
  Quote: 





endless402 said:


> wires sound different


----------



## kboe

Quote: 





9pintube said:


> Quote:
> Nicely Said!        But I'll add, If they want to use "LAMP CORD" for their speaker connections HAVE AT IT!!!!


 


  Thats whats seperates our two sides.  Cable believers have no need to convert or question the other side.  We're happy with our setups and generally have the mindset of "to each his own".  Cable Atheist however seem to have a compulsive need to "be right" and to educate us "easily tricked - placebo prone - marketing victims".


----------



## kboe

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> sure, a 100 foot run of single-ended 18 gauge wire will prove fatal vs. a 5 foot run of 12 gauge balanced wire
> 
> when it comes to what you previously alluded to, that there is a difference between silver, spc, copper, and the like.... prove it, and I'll buy you a new car


 

 Come over to Georgia and take a listen to my rig, then we can go get me a car.  And I prefer used and cheap to new and expensive so I'd be your best bet.


----------



## wild4sound

Somewhere in a dark cave, amongst a million hungry and dehydrated baby bats, a scarred infant intently listens . Amidst a million high pitched squeals it senses a change , the approaching rush of wings, millions of parent bats returning , finally .
   
  And there ,crystal clear and without a doubt , a shriek so emphatically familiar , the infant responds with its call, the bond is made amongst millions and there is ,   survival. 
   
  Someday we will understand how they tell apart  . Today we just know they do.
   
  If they do not , they die !
   
   
  Enjoy the music.


----------



## wild4sound

What ! 
   
  No counters ? 
  Say it is not so !


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





kboe said:


> Thats whats seperates our two sides.  Cable believers have no need to convert or question the other side.  We're happy with our setups and generally have the mindset of "to each his own".  Cable Atheist however seem to have a compulsive need to "be right" and to educate us "easily tricked - placebo prone - marketing victims".


 
   
  Or, perhaps, the person claiming that no audiable difference is making an argument while the person saying there is is, instead of engaging the argument, mocking both it at the poster himself.
   
  Perhaps that's what separates your two sides?
   
  Of course: were the cable-believers truly just happy and uninterested in convincing others; why would they post?
   
  The truth is that many exotic cables *do* sound different. They are designed to alter the electrical signal flowing through them in a way that will result in audio distortion on the other end. We see the same thing in the amp market with most tube amps, and basically all mixed tube-ss amps designed to drive tubes into distortion so as to create an altered sound.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





akart said:


> ^ Good read, thanks!
> 
> Unfortunately, although the first article describes that the electrical characteristics of different wire are different (no brainer), *it does not present any information on whether this makes any audible difference.*


 

 The missing link and where the big split exists between the pro and anti cable sides. The pro side say there is something inherent in the cable that makes a hifi sound different (better) with different (better) cables. The anti side say any difference (as better is clearly subjective and down to the individual) is in the mind and comes with senses other than hearing alone.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kboe said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 That is not true, just look at all of the advertising for cables here, other forums and in the hifi media. There is an industry out there where there is a huge need to convert and question the 'cable atheist' as you put it. I feel the need to follow the evidence and to participate in debates that have two sides to them!


----------



## MrGreen

Science shows that a functional cable makes no difference.
   
  Science also shows that placebo is real. There's no reason to hate on someone for enjoying placebo. They're actually noticing a difference - even if it isn't there.


----------



## Happy Camper

There are a lot of smart asses on both sides of the debate. If that were checked, we still won't come to an outcome other than current state. There are many in the world that think a radio is as good as all the gear we've amassed and are squabbling over. To them, we're all nuts.


----------



## googleborg

I guess i'm a cable atheist, as i've done my own experiments by_ making cables as bad as possible _and only heard a difference when using single thin strands of copper for interconnects (one per channel...no shield) these sounded thin, quite literally, but SQ went right back up when using a few strands.  I've totally debunked optical cables by shining them into the sockets from many inches away with no loss in SQ *at all*.  I've totally debunked digital cables by using a single 1m strand of 0.1mm *nichrome wire* in place of a quality canare/belden pro quality type with no change in SQ.  I've totally debunked power cables by using a quite nice one (some belden affair) then unplugging it mid song and my amp continued to play with no loss in SQ (uhm, until the caps ran dry).
   
  If running the worst possible conditions i can do seems to not affect SQ, how will an expensive cable make things sound better?  logic says it's won't, no science supports expensive cables, and the only people claiming expensive cables do work are either salesmen or middle aged lifestyle warriors who seem to practise in a form of audio homeopathy, neither exactly 'reliable'.
   
   
  The long and short of it is that cables are a _hugely profitable_ segment of the hifi market, a visual metaphor for sound quality whose aesthetics and composition help male consumers become more 'involved' in the audio chain - the esoteric metals and thick, braided covers lend their physicality to the observed sound itself as they loop between impenetrable black boxes.  Add in cable geometries, dielectrics, battery biasing, plug types, and godknows what else, and cables transcend from simply carrying a signal from one measly PCB trace to another into ways for the male mind to see that which cannot be seen.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Here is a handy guide on making money out of power cables


----------



## dxanex

"I am here to fix ein cable, that's why they send me, I am expert..."


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





dxanex said:


> "I am here to fix ein cable, that's why they send me, I am expert..."


 



  .


----------



## Root2

googleborg said:


> I guess i'm a cable atheist, as i've done my own experiments by_ making cables as bad as possible _and only heard a difference when using single thin strands of copper for interconnects (one per channel...no shield) these sounded thin, quite literally, but SQ went right back up when using a few strands.  I've totally debunked optical cables by shining them into the sockets from many inches away with no loss in SQ *at all*.  I've totally debunked digital cables by using a single 1m strand of 0.1mm *nichrome wire* in place of a quality canare/belden pro quality type with no change in SQ.  I've totally debunked power cables by using a quite nice one (some belden affair) then unplugging it mid song and my amp continued to play with no loss in SQ (uhm, until the caps ran dry).
> 
> 
> If running the worst possible conditions i can do seems to not affect SQ, how will an expensive cable make things sound better?  logic says it's won't, no science supports expensive cables, and the only people claiming expensive cables do work are either salesmen or middle aged lifestyle warriors who seem to practise in a form of audio homeopathy, neither exactly 'reliable'.
> ...


----------



## Root2

9pintube said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> endless402 said:
> ...


----------



## limpidglitch

Sorry, Colin, but that blather came across as completely meaningless.


----------



## Root2

limpidglitch said:


> Sorry, Colin, but that blather came across as completely meaningless.


----------



## limpidglitch

That didn't help much.
   
  Are you the Colin Wonfor of Tellurium Q?


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





root2 said:


> Now I designed the cable with a very sceptical mind


 
   
  You designed a cable? That must have taken quite a bit of research? Is your degree in engineering or science? Did this in any way stem from work you did on thesis (such as Dr.Bose's thesis on non-linear systems)? What drew you to take a look at audio reproduction? Do you have any background in sound research, physiology, or psychology?
   
  I'm working from the assumption that you didn't put all the time and effort of developing a new wire on the assumption that you could do better without some basic understanding of what was going wrong in the first place?
   
  What factors did you find were most important in getting a useful signal to the transducer at the other end? Most engineers and physicists in the industry have pointed squarely at impedance in high power lines (such as speaker line); specifically the relationship of the resistance of the entire cable as a percentage of the resistance of the circuit (why speaker gauge needs to go up with lower ohm-ratings and longer lengths).
   
  We have about 150 year of some of the greatest minds in the world working on electrical cabling (throughout the communications and power distribution world). What did you discover that they had thusfar missed and how did you discover it?


----------



## Root2

.


----------



## dxanex

These threads always turn into a pissing match. It gets people nowhere. Who cares, if you have hundreds of dollars to shell out for cables and you think they sound different then godspeed.
   
  Man, seriously some debates should just be put to bed for good.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


root2 said:


> Dear Love Jerry or Tom,
> 
> 1) I have designed power supplies and audio for over 40 yrs
> 2) I  have 3 degrees in Chemistry, Electronic and Computer Science
> ...


 
  You may; but you didn't directly answer a single question I asked. (unless I was supposed to infer "Electronic and Computer Science" was a science degree; which they are not... though Chemestry is; so perhaps one question was answered (though surprisingly inspecifically))
   
  *Maybe* "designed audio" was meant to assert a background in sound research? I'm guessing not though.
  Quote: 





> I have a few patents some in electronic some not? oh and 2 in conductors and another waiting to be completed..
> I designed the biggest Single Ended Class A amp, and the quietest thyristor  SSR that needs no filter to pass EMC and RFI specs including MIL Spec
> 
> So and what have you done to allow you to be so sure a new concept or design as not been discovered by a unknown? And to discuss any idea I may have on this site or any other would be silly would it not.


 
  You are asking a question without prescedent. Specifically: I never said that no new concept or design had been discovered by an unknown. Given that fact: you seem to be attempting to side-track from the question asked. Perhaps you just feel offended and have a need to show off. Perhaps you don't have good answers to the questions asked and so the distraction is intentional. I can only guess.
   
  Did this in any way stem from work you did on thesis (such as Dr.Bose's thesis on non-linear systems)? What drew you to take a look at audio reproduction? Do you have any background in sound research, physiology, or psychology?
   
  What factors did you find were most important in getting a useful signal to the transducer at the other end? Most engineers and physicists in the industry have pointed squarely at impedance in high power lines (such as speaker line); specifically the relationship of the resistance of the entire cable as a percentage of the resistance of the circuit (why speaker gauge needs to go up with lower ohm-ratings and longer lengths).
   
  What did you discover that the rest of the world has thusfar missed and how did you discover it?


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> What did you discover that the rest of the world has thusfar missed and how did you discover it?


 


  Skin effect.


----------



## kboe

I think we have a upcoming Uncle Erik here.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> You designed a cable? That must have taken quite a bit of research? Is your degree in engineering or science? Did this in any way stem from work you did on thesis (such as Dr.Bose's thesis on non-linear systems)? What drew you to take a look at audio reproduction? Do you have any background in sound research, physiology, or psychology?
> 
> I'm working from the assumption that you didn't put all the time and effort of developing a new wire on the assumption that you could do better without some basic understanding of what was going wrong in the first place?
> 
> ...


----------



## buffalowings

Quote: 





kboe said:


> I think we have a upcoming Uncle Erik here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  LOL...hey, ur back


----------



## kboe

Moderators may have the power to ban, but thats easily beaten with my power of....  actually they just let me back.


----------



## buffalowings

Quote: 





kboe said:


> Moderators may have the power to ban, but thats easily beaten with my power of....  actually they just let me back.


 


  XDD...fight the power man...fight the power, I was going to make a petition for you, but i just sent in my application to have a custom title 'lord sennheiser"


----------



## kboe

Awwwww, that gives me warm fuzzies.
   
   
   
   
   
_Swats around furiously thinking, "I hate these things"_


----------



## JerryLove

I'm confused, but perhaps too new on the board to get the reference.
   
  To me, when we have a designer of cables, one with a long and varied history and who has stated to themselves be a skeptic, we have an opportunity for a robust definition of what alters (or lessens alteration) of waves in a cable. While a "I can hear better sound" listener may be stuck with an inability to quantify, or even give reasons for his experience: a thrice-degree'd designer with so much work under his belt should have no such problem.
   
  You might decide you like an Ohm Walsh more than a B&W 802, and layman can argue about why all day, but if we ask Walsh: he can sit and tell you *why* he likes it more. He can discuss what problems he found with existing designs (off-axis response and multi-cone source and crossover), and how he designed a solution (a single cone radiating 180-degrees on the horizontal) in great and specific detail. (For the record: I've been in a long, details, and heated debate on omni-polar vs. mono-polar rigs and sonic fidelity. While having not changed my mind on all points, I learned a lot)
   
  So what better an opportunity to ask probing questions? I don't understand how that is anything other than a chance for an increase in real knowledge. Why would the curious (or dubious) avoid them; and why would the knowldgeable do something other than answer.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> Sorry, Colin, but that blather came across as completely meaningless.


 
   
  Sorry about that comment. I just realized you were dyslectic.


----------



## kboe

I actually like what you bring up here Jerry.  This hobby is all about discovery, it's why some of us change our gear so often.  It's also why we listen to great varieties of music, and prefer all manner of things over many other things.  
   
  But at some point, when you've heard enough cables, and if you can consistently hear the differences and influences among them, when someone tells you your full of crap, or you can't really _hear_ a difference, you can only _think_ a difference, you've already discovered that part of the journey and need to "go" no further.  
   
  Think of it like a spouse or love.  You look, search, date and for some of you weirdos stalk, but eventually you learn a few tricks and manage to snag yourself someone you care about and who cares about you.  Once you get married, you "done" on that part of the journey, now its time to focus in and learn about the particular.  
   
  With cables, at least for me, its the same deal.  I've "dated" many offerings, found one I liked, "married" it, and am living happily ever after. So when someone comes up to me and says, "cables make no difference", or in my other analogy "_your wife "gets around",_ to late buddy, I already now my wife, and her name is Cardas!
   
  And if you "wife" is Mono Price, or Blue Jeans or Radio Shack, I don't care.  Just love her!
   
  And rather than just us all attacking newbies with "our" side of the argument, we should all be in agreement to tell them, "try it for yourself and tell us what YOU think"


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> Science shows that a functional cable makes no difference.
> 
> Science also shows that placebo is real. There's no reason to hate on someone for enjoying placebo. They're actually noticing a difference - even if it isn't there.


 


  What science?
   
  I can show you with an oscilloscope that cables have electrical differences.
   
  To my knowledge no one has taken the time to analyze binaural recording of different wires in a system in soundforge or the like...
   
  The problem with this argument is both sides have flawed evidence and no one has stepped forward to get evidence in either direction that has more conviction. 
   
  To that end it is a pointless argument, thus the believe whatever you want attitude.
   
  If you hear a difference great, get cables.  If you dont, then dont get better cables. 
   
  Dave


----------



## Br777

ive never compared cables in my life, and have no strong opinion on the matter.  I do find it interesting though that so many people argue science as the end all be all, and im not just referring to audio cables.
   
  in the grand scheme of explaining the endless marvels and wonder in this world.. science has barely scratched the surface, and has a very limited scope.  For any subject you pick its almost certain that science may have missed, or doesnt even know about any number of variables.
   
  my goodness how many times, even within the most prominent scientific fileds, has a rock solid "proven" theory been turned on its head and found to be much bigger and more complex than anyone could have ever imagined.
   
  i also always get a little skeptical when people argue hardcore science over good ol fashioned experience.  Nearly every person on this planet has easily had at least 1 experience that science cant explain.  Thats not to say that experience isnt just as easily skewed..  but anyway....
   
  im not interested in arguing with anyone about this.. just throwin it out there.  just because there is a chart, or even years of research doesnt make it true


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





kboe said:


> With cables, at least for me, its the same deal.  I've "dated" many offerings, found one I liked, "married" it, and am living happily ever after. So when someone comes up to me and says, "cables make no difference", or in my other analogy "_your wife "gets around",_ to late buddy, I already now my wife, and her name is Cardas!


 


  I have nothing much to say except I randomly did a google image search for cardas girl and got a rather unexpected result.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





kboe said:


> I actually like what you bring up here Jerry.  This hobby is all about discovery, it's why some of us change our gear so often.  It's also why we listen to great varieties of music, and prefer all manner of things over many other things.
> 
> But at some point, when you've heard enough cables, and if you can consistently hear the differences and influences among them, when someone tells you your full of crap, or you can't really _hear_ a difference, you can only _think_ a difference, you've already discovered that part of the journey and need to "go" no further.


 

 There are a lot of threads on cables here I simply don't touch. I'm not now and never have been out to find believers of difference and convert them to believers of non-difference (nor vice versa). There are, however, other threads that ask the question, or make objective claims and, being on a discussion board, I come to discuss.
   
  If start a thread if Cardas cables will make a difference, there's a good chance I'll post in it.
  If you start a thread saying you love Carda cables, you'll likely not see me there.
   
  On this thread we have someone saying more than "X" cables are better. He's saying he has a lot of experience on the design side and designed better cables. That's always going to make me hunt for more information. I'm not out to prove him wrong (though I freely admit I believe he is), and so am not trying to "win"... but I am going to ask probing questions to try to understand the basis of his position.
   
  Sometimes it turns out I was wrong all along. Sometimes it turns out there's just a difference in precepts. Sometimes it turns out the other poster was wrong. It's all good.
   
  And whether I'm disposed to believe or nor believe: I guarentee you I'd be picking the brain of most highly skilled designers talking about something I don't fully understand.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


br777 said:


> ive never compared cables in my life, and have no strong opinion on the matter.  I do find it interesting though that so many people argue science as the end all be all, and im not just referring to audio cables.
> 
> in the grand scheme of explaining the endless marvels and wonder in this world.. science has barely scratched the surface, and has a very limited scope.  For any subject you pick its almost certain that science may have missed, or doesnt even know about any number of variables.


 
  For me it's very interesting how often people start using a word like "science" inappropriately,
   
  Quote: 





> my goodness how many times, even within the most prominent scientific fileds, has a rock solid "proven" theory been turned on its head and found to be much bigger and more complex than anyone could have ever imagined.


 
  Never that we are aware of. There are no theories in science which are beyond human imagination. That would require some non-human to invent them.
   
  Quote: 





> i also always get a little skeptical when people argue hardcore science over good ol fashioned experience.  Nearly every person on this planet has easily had at least 1 experience that science cant explain.  Thats not to say that experience isnt just as easily skewed..  but anyway....


 
  But science *is* experience, and experience *is* science. Your understanding of the word is odd.
   
  Look at your "science can't explain" statement: as though that's what science does. A scientific theory is a model which makes falsifiable predictions about reality which are accurate.
   
  There seems to be a disturbing trend to use "science", "logic", and "reason" as nigh-derogatory.


----------



## disastermouse

> Look at your "science can't explain" statement: as though that's what science does. A scientific theory is a model which makes falsifiable predictions about reality which are accurate.
> 
> There seems to be a disturbing trend to use "science", "logic", and "reason" as nigh-derogatory.


 


  Science works for what it does - but it doesn't access everything.  Science doesn't tell us anything without some pretty un-scientific processes to decode the data.  All value statements are un-scientific, for instance.  That's sorta huge - because values are what drive scientific experimentation.  They don't effect the data, but they DO provide the motivation for what we look at and how we look at it - as well as how we interpret it.
   
  This is irrelevant as applies to Headphonia, though.


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  For fun I would like to play devils advocate from an interview I had with George Cardas to answer your questions in a manner that I find appropriate as I would like to see what comes next as these are rational questions.
   
  So allow me to answer for Mr. Cardas:
  His degree is in chemistry, he has worked in the cable industry for 28 years and before that worked in various positions both in the design and production (engineering) aspects of transmission lines for telephone companies. He took a look into audio reproduction as he is an audiophile. He has a background in research from his chemistry degree and his posts at the phone company. I  can not comment on his thesis or how much of his design was trial and error or research based.
   
  He found issues in the dielectric storing energy as current passed and releasing it out of phase with the current. He also wanted to eliminate the vibration of the conductors as current passed. I would say that he had a goal going into the cable design. 
   
  As above his major factors were matching the dielectric to the velocity of propagation of the conduction to eliminate the storing and releasing of energy out of phase. He also found a geometry for the conductors that eliminated the resonance as the current passed. Another breakthrough was to eliminate soldering of the connectors, instead he found a way to crimp forge them, about 10,000 psi of pressure. He also found that the copper purity played a role due to what he termed eddy currents. Though this is my own input, it makes sense that impurities would change the signal as the valence and conduction bands of the molecular orbitals of the crystal would be disrupted. He did not mention much about impedance during our interview.
   
  He discovered that drawing and annealing copper in a hydrogen filled environment (termed oxygen reducing) provided eddy-free copper. He discovered and patented the geometry that eliminated resonance of the conductors as well as the process of matching the dielectric to the velocity of propagation of the wire. Though I did not ask directly, I would assume he would say that perhaps not all of those minds were looking at audio fidelity applications.
   
  I answered to the best of my ability from my interview with him, but I feel I answered your questions appropriately. 
   
  edit, here are some of the images he sent to show the differences in eddy containing and eddy-free copper:
  Quickly drawn with visible eddies
\
   
  Some slowly drawn or extruded coppers. I believe the one on the right is the own from his foundry in the oxygen reducing atmosphere. 

   
  Dave


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *myinitialsaredac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> He found issues in the dielectric storing energy as current passed and releasing it out of phase with the current. He also wanted to eliminate the vibration of the conductors as current passed. I would say that he had a goal going into the cable design.
> 
> As above his major factors were matching the dielectric to the velocity of propagation of the conduction to eliminate the storing and releasing of energy out of phase


 
   
  I apologize in advance for the hatchet job on the quote, but there are a lot of individual points.
  
  "Out of phase" with what?
   
  Quote: 





> He also found a geometry for the conductors that eliminated the resonance as the current passed.


 
   
  Given that circuit resonance's effects depends on whether the inductor and capacitor are in parallel or serial, I'm not sure how to apply this to a wire alone. Is he discussing a resonance that drops impedance or one which drops current? Do you have some measurements of this occuring within ranges appropriate to audio?
   
  Quote: 





> Another breakthrough was to eliminate soldering of the connectors, instead he found a way to crimp forge them, about 10,000 psi of pressure. He also found that the copper purity played a role due to what he termed eddy currents. Though this is my own input, it makes sense that impurities would change the signal as the valence and conduction bands of the molecular orbitals of the crystal would be disrupted. He did not mention much about impedance during our interview.


 
   
  Solder forms a chemical bond and seems to work very well. I'm not sure what an eddy current is, but since it's not something that appears as a problem in even the most sensitive of connectors (say, the multi-lane signals in a parallel-bus high-bandwidth interface like a PCI connecter), I'm having trouble imagining what the effect on an audio waveform might be.
   
  What affect did these "eddy currents" have on electrical waves used in audio?
   
  Quote: 





> He discovered that drawing and annealing copper in a hydrogen filled environment (termed oxygen reducing) provided eddy-free copper. He discovered and patented the geometry that eliminated resonance of the conductors as well as the process of matching the dielectric to the velocity of propagation of the wire. Though I did not ask directly, I would assume he would say that perhaps not all of those minds were looking at audio fidelity applications.


 
   
  Wait. So we are discussing surface deformaties? What was the measured effect of these deformations on the electrical waveform?


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





kboe said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 non-existent cars are even cheaper so he could go with anyone if he were to do a proper test. 
   
  But I'm quite confident this is what he was alluding to in the first place


----------



## Vkamicht

It would take all of 20 minutes for anyone with a decent soundcard to record various cable types and systematically/mathematically compare them to prove that they are all capable of getting the same signal to the destination. If I had the cables I would even do each one 5 times to ensure that any differences aren't being caused by other anomalies... although 1 minute or so of white noise should be enough, yeah?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There have been some very interesting points from Colin Wonfor and about Cardas about cable making. However, a point that Uncle Erik has repeatedly made is how come different ways of making cables, some of which are contradictory (silver vs copper for example) always end up with a better cable? If the actual cable made a difference, then surely over the years with thousands of audiophiles listening intently to these cables, a consistency would have appeared such as braided copper cable sounds the best.


----------



## beachgeek

I think the real question is "Can we really hear the difference?" 
  Between the best cable, solder, etc... against the worst, we probably can.
  But against good & very good? I cannot, but that does not mean no one else can.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





beachgeek said:


> I think the real question is "Can we really hear the difference?"
> Between the best cable, solder, etc... against the worst, we probably can.
> But against good & very good? I cannot, but that does not mean no one else can.


 

 "Can we really hear a difference" is indeed the issue. All we have at the moment are cable makers who make different cables and claim that they sound different, but no link between the two. What we have is equivalent to 'I worship the sun, the sun rises in the morning, so therefore my worshiping of the sun makes it rise in the morning'. I say it is wrong to suggest that "we probably can" hear the difference between the best and worst cables and that just because "I cannot... that does not mean no one else can" as that lets the sun worshipers into the argument.


----------



## Root2

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There have been some very interesting points from Colin Wonfor and about Cardas about cable making. However, a point that Uncle Erik has repeatedly made is how come different ways of making cables, some of which are contradictory (silver vs copper for example) always end up with a better cable? If the actual cable made a difference, then surely over the years with thousands of audiophiles listening intently to these cables, a consistency would have appeared such as braided copper cable sounds the best.


 


  But then we would all buy a common system like Naim, or Krell it the effect the cable has on the overall system, and personal taste., and pocket money, surely.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I am all for cable purchases made on image, appearance and cost, indeed it is for those reasons that cables 'sound' different.
   
  What I have been looking for is evidence that there is an inherent, consistent audible difference between different cables that backs up the claims that cables sound different, let alone better. But I cannot find any any.
   
  That leaves cable makers and the pro-cable side spouting bad science and we have far too much bad science as it is.


----------



## Root2

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I am all for cable purchases made on image, appearance and cost, indeed it is for those reasons that cables 'sound' different.
> 
> What I have been looking for is evidence that there is an inherent, consistent audible difference between different cables that backs up the claims that cables sound different, let alone better. But I cannot find any any.
> 
> That leaves cable makers and the pro-cable side spouting bad science and we have far too much bad science as it is.


 

 Agreed, but what ever you show people still think it a con, there problem. Have you checked out Max Townsend on Youtube it has some nice vids oh and just for the record I have suffered with dylexier (word blindness since childhood) so please forgive errors this site will not allow auto corrections. And it is a pain but sometimes very funny. Yes try Youtube lots of different pionts of views.
  Colin


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I replied in bold for ease of reading.
   
  Dave


----------



## sokolov91

None of this technical talk matters because until someone accurately blind tests a cable, and which kind etc, it can be viewed as non audible - and thus a non issue.
   
  The logic is extremely easy to grasp... You cannot logically disagree with it. You can however not like the notion that what you are hearing is all in your head though.
   
  One either hears a change, or does not. Volume matched, quick A/Bing is the most logical and scientifically sound method of testing, not to mention it gives the subject the highest theoretical chance of hearing a change. If no change is heard, or if statistically their detection is worthless... well then so is the concept cables effect audio for human ears. You hear with your ears, and nothing else. So why do people get so mad when their ability is scrutinized and asked to be tested? Oh, is it maybe because it hurts their pooowww widdle ego and they fail each time?
   
  No detection through a controlled test with no cues other than sound = you can't actually hear it IE it is placebo. End of story.
   
  It is a joke that this stuff is huge debate in audio. A huge Fing joke. Read the available data, do testing yourself with the help of a friend, wife ETC... and see the truth for yourself.


----------



## sokolov91

The worst part too is people get stuck in Low-Fi/Mid-fi wasting their cash on cables, fuses, etc etc when they could actually be buying useful stuff because they are convinced their ears are so sensitive they can hear that which does not (or almost without doubt) exist.
   
  Funny how people my parents age or older (50), with worse gear than myself can "hear" these changes but of course refuse to do any real testing... but they do hear it and if you don't well your ears are tin... but done remove their eyes because that is not fair and waaaaaaaaaaaaah causes stress. A tad ironic one might think, and highly amusing.
   
  Oh well. My system is as good as it is because I sold off all that cable junk and was honest with myself, and I couldn't be happier. I wouldn't have been able to afford something as high end as what I have had I been frittering my cash away all this time on the useless.
   
  I suggest others learn from me and do the same. Be honest, sell your cables, and get stuff that is ACTUALLY good  like amps, headphones, and sources.


----------



## kboe

Thats not insulting at all.


----------



## Kees

Quote: 





sokolov91 said:


> None of this technical talk matters because until someone accurately blind tests a cable, and which kind etc, it can be viewed as non audible - and thus a non issue.
> 
> The logic is extremely easy to grasp... You cannot logically disagree with it. You can however not like the notion that what you are hearing is all in your head though.
> 
> ...


 
  If you frase that as: "As long as people that can hear a difference are not jumping through my DBT hoop I won't believe they can actually hear a difference" I will agree with you, but the way you frase it you are implying you are the owner of True Knowledge and telling the world how things are.
  A friend of mine always says: "If you want to know something for sure, ask a 20 year old". He's right.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *myinitialsaredac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> *Out of phase with the original input. To explain further, the dielectric stores energy as a current passes, the problem is that if the dielectric does not re-release the energy at the same point in the waveform that it absorbed it, the energy will be released from the dielectric at a point that isn't where it was in the original current. *


 
  AC doesn't pass through a dielectric. ; only the polarities of the plates are changed every half cycle. If a.c. does pass, it is called dielectric breakdown. However, the dielectric does not respond well with an a.c.; its resistance to the "flow of current" decreases with increase in the frequency of a.c.
   
  But absolute phase is irrelevant. The recoding was done days to years ago and so phase is gone. Only relative phase matters. This is pretty important when a waveform is split up (such as with a crossover), where phase inversions can cause cancelation, or where large phase shifts of part of the signal may cause the sound to break up; but phase shifts of an entire waveform would make no difference at all.
   
  Is there a difference on the outbound waveform? Can I see it on an osciliscope?
   
  Quote: 





> *He literally is discussing the wire (conductor) vibrating when current moves through it. He put up this nifty little video to help illustrate:*
> *http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=49&pagestring=Current+Through+A+Cable+(video)*


 
  That's not what I see. What I see is an electromagnet. If running current through a wire didn't make movement, then voicecoils wouldn't work. I don't see anything in the experiment that ties into speaker wire's ability to transmit an electromagnetic wave accurately. Can you tie this back into sound?
   
  Quote: 





> *Is solder forming a chemical bond, i.e. is it forming molecular orbitals with whatever it is applied to? I don't actually know the answer to that question but I would say that I think it is more like forging alloys in a sense where there are discreet sections of different materials that form a circuit due to contact rather than forming a new compound. *


 
   
  Regardless: though there is a measurable effect of any connection (just like there's a measurable difference between a 2' cable and a 3' cable); there is nothing indicating any impact on the waveform remotely withing the threshold for sound.
   
  Quote: 





> *Eddies are impurities or imperfections in the crystal structure. Per the eddy currents, you can take a look here and let me know what you think:*
> *http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=42&pagestring=Low+Eddy+Copper*


 
   
  Even in his actual description (on thermal conductivity) he indicates that there is only a difference when "the free electron supply dried up and conductivity was phonetic (vibrations directly through the contiguous crystalline structure)."
   
  I don't doubt that different forging processes result in different physical properties. What I'm looking for are pertinent electrical properties.
   
  Quote: 





> *It makes sense that impurities would change the MOs as I discussed previously. The effect thereby would have to be discussed in terms of how electricity actually passes. Essentially the energy in the current is absorbed by the electrons in the conductance band, the electron rises to the valence band, and then rereleases the energy as it falls into the conductance band. Yes there are multiple bands of different energy levels but that is too much for now. The energy that is rereleased is absorbed by the copper atoms/molecular structure conductance band MO that then repeats the process and the signal passes. Impurities in this crystal structure would alter the MOs thereby altering the way the current is transferred. *


 
   
  Ok, but to what effect? If, for example, we are simply slowing propigation, or changing impedance; then you've simply got the "copper vs silver" issue, where the threshold for distortion changes (you can use a slightly lower gauge of silver to get the same fidelity as a slightly higher gauge of copper).
   
  Quote: 





> *I may be wrong but wouldn't PCI connectors be digital logic (i.e. 1s and 0s) that are error correcting? I think they also go into a buffer and are clocked out but truth be told I am not a computer expert. *


 
   
  Parallel buses are in danger of failure because of electrons not arriving together. Even in the event that error correction is added; the performance hit would be tremendous. The reason that traces are so precise on high-speed circuits, why distances are so low, and why PCI moved to serial (PCI-E) is because of the very low tolerance for error.
   
  Quote: 





> *Answered above to the first question. To the second question I actually have not been provided measurements and am working just off of a chemical explanation of the impact of impurities on the MOs. Though I personally think the superconductor applications are nifty
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I do love me some superconductors (though the first non-super-conductor in the chain might blow because they look like shorts), and I have no trouble believing that there are applications where the difference in the copper wires being discussed matter. Thusfar I don't see an indication that audio is one of those applications.


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  As before, I answered in bold.
   
  Dave


----------



## JerryLove

If I've not mentioned it: thanks for taking the time to answer.
  
  Quote: 





myinitialsaredac said:


> *Ah, I did some more reading and reread my interview with him, its not necessarily a passing of the current more of a current "lag" that results from the differing impedance of the dielectric. It seems that as current passes it does interact with the surroundings and could probably be explained by looking at the intermolecular dipoles and hysteresis. The magnitude could probably be solved with some nasty flux integrals if you took the time to map a vector field. You are correct in saying that it is only relative phase though I find that to be slightly ambiguous and I hope I clarified enough in the above statements to explain why. I do not know the difference on the outbound waveform, though I would assume if it is a problem it would be visible on a sensitive enough oscilloscope in a quiet enough environment. *


 
   
  But a lag which affected the entire waveform would have no impact on sound. Is there any alteration of the waveform itself, or just a delay?
   
  Quote: 





> *If running a current through a wire causes movement, why would it be different in interconnects? Sorry but I don't understand the question.*


 
  I suppose my point was that it's not vibration. In the case of AC current running through a speaker cable: you just don't get that kind of interaction. Even though the power is much higher than the lantern battery he is using: notice that speaker cables don't bounce around. Power lines don't either.
   
  Interconnects are actually lower in power than the battery. You generally don't loop them, they are farther apart. They are thicker. They have shielding (as they are prone to RF interference).
   
  Quote: 





> *To this, I can not comment as I have not conducted any experiments to test it, nor have I seen any "good" experiments (any actually) that show this. I have conducted an experiment that showed electrical differences though not restricted in the audio band, as I didn't specifically test in the audio band at that time. *


 
   
  There are certainly measurable electrical differences between any two pieces of metal. Impedance, as a simple example, will be different.
   
  If a wire's impedance exceeds about 5% of the speakers minimum impedance then we do indeed risk audio distortion. This (and not melting your wires) is why there's a minimum correct gauge of wire for a given speaker / wire length.
   
  There are also going to be amplitude losses, which means a reduction in cone travel and so volume. Again, these can be quantified and we can put a limit on them. Even then though, the actual sound is not changed except for volume... and by the time we are discussing runs long enough for that to matter, we have some other real issues to deal with (when we are discussing 1000'+ speaker cable runs there are more factors than normal runs).
   
  Quote: 





> *The effect of impurities would vary on their physical properties. Oxygen for example is a terrible conductor, if you had oxygen impurities certain volumes in your cable may not even transfer electricity; albeit small. To what effect that has I actually can not comment, as I have not conducted or seen any studies that demonstrate or test for this. *


 
  I agree that oxidized copper presents a different conductance than non-oxidized. The wave does, however, just flow around it.
   
  Quote: 





> *Seems like you are implying length of cable can provide a difference in the transfer of electricity? Thanks for the info though, I don't know much about the bus design but it makes sense.*


 
   
  There's no doubt that trace length has an effect. In the case of a parallel bus, the issue is simply one of travel time. Electric waves propigate through copper at just below the speed of light. Many pieces of computer hardware operate in such small time slices that very little differences in lengths (and therefor travel time) can cause failure.
   
   Quote:


> *The only differences I would say would be if the impurities cause differences to audio waveforms (explainable by MOs) and/or if the resonance of the cable itself affected the energy (imparted its own mechanical energy into electrical energy and caused its own sound), and/or if the dielectric lagging had an effect on the waveform. *
> *To my knowledge none of the phenomena have really been tested for. I would venture to say that it would be a difficult experiment to conduct, and for the debate of whether or not cables make a difference there are far easier experiments to conduct that could lend decent conviction either way. *


 
   
  Agreed. Experimentation of the results trumps the analysis of the expected outcome. That said: a cable designer not simply trying things at random must have a theory as to *why* to design the way he designs. The proof my be in the results, but one cannot design from "well, they should sound good" because that's not helpful in choosing specifications.


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> If I've not mentioned it: thanks for taking the time to answer.
> 
> *You're welcome, thanks for the questions, they are a good source for furthering an understanding. *
> 
> ...


 
   
  Dave


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





kees said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 right, and old farts that are stuck in their ways are any better than a perhaps ignorant 20 year old? Didn't think so.  (just teasing so please don't "blow a fuse" "
   
   
  The point is that there is no way to verify that the people actually are  hearing these changes.... I can post anything I want here... anything...well almost.
   
  So, if I told you I had an entire Mark Levingston set up at 20 years and have a Phd in astrophysics as well as 3 smoking hot wives... you might ask me for a photo if you didn't believe me... right? Now if I actually did have such things, producing a photo with evidence, certificates and documents would do nothing than give me a sense of satisfaction as you "read em and wept"... but if I didn't actually have it, I might say you can't prove that I do not... which you can't really... So I do not show you any photos, and call you names for not believing me... yet somehow you are the ignorant one... catch my drift?
   
  Calling someone ignorant because they don't believe improbably rantings of crazed hobbyists is dumb. I am not ignorant, but I am highly skeptical.
   
  Now, stating you can hear differences, then refusing to do DBT, and stating DBT is for people with tin ears and science freaks ETC is a an ad hominem tactic and does not actually change the fact you have yet to prove anything you say is something other than complete conjecture. DBT is not a flawed way of measuring. In fact it is near perfect. If no detection is made, humans need not worry about cables... which so far is very much the case.
   
  If you really can here these differences, you should be open to DBT and pass them with great accuracy... now if you can't actually hear them... I can see why you are so opposed to it and it causes you distress and anger... I mean... HOW DARE I question anyone and ask for some proof to their  outlandish claims... how ignorant to seek understanding and proof...
   
  You are right, I will not believe anyone until they have passed a controlled experiment because then it is the facts that speak, not some crazy audiophile. I can tell you I hear the difference between a dusty system and a clean one. one cable or another, one house or another, one power cable or another, a fuse... the list goes on and gets increasingly ludicrous... but until someone sits down and proves it, you might as well be blow hot air out your... well you get the picture.
   
  I am not ignorant, I just don't believe things for no reason.
   
   
  People thinking they can hear cables pleases their ego, and gives them a reason to waste money... having that taken from them is indeed a blow but one that needs to be served. Imagine what the average head-fier could afford were it not wasted on cables and the likes? I am a perfect example of having a stellar system at a young age because it was well placed in things that matter.
   
  I have nothing to lose because my dignity is not at stake... can't say the same for others.
   
  No I am not the owner of absolute knowledge and I am offering nothing other than my logic with regards to the situation. This has nothing to do with me as a person. I openly state I cannot detect cables whilst blind and am only trying to help the head-fiers that are not past the "cable event horizon".
   
  If I sound at all pompous it is merely because I am trying to make a strong argument. nothing is meant as personal towards anyone including myself.


----------



## akart

@sokolov91:
   
  I completely agree with you. I am very new (almost nothing compared to some others here) to the audiophile world, and I have yet to get my first amp and headphones. However, what I do have is both an analog engineering doctorate (for example, I know fully what terms like "negative feedback" and the other high flying terms being bandied around here mean - and by some posters who have no clue of what such things mean) and an extensive background in electromagnetics.There is so much  misinformation out there on the Internet, and people are happy throwing away cash on utter nonsense.
   
  Please don't get me wrong - cables _do_ make a difference - but only at RF frequencies - not audio frequencies. For all others, there is absolutely no engineering evidence to believe that it changes any audio or ultrasonic frequencies at all. In fact, distortion to all harmonics is so low, that it is almost impossible to measure with the most advanced oscilloscopes sitting in my laboratory right now. Lamp wire is a good example of a great audio/speaker cable.
   
  As for the people who like expensive cables - please continue to buy them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am sure the cable dudes are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to us "audiophiles".


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





akart said:


> @sokolov91:
> 
> I completely agree with you. I am very new (almost nothing compared to some others here) to the audiophile world, and I have yet to get my first amp and headphones. However, what I do have is both an analog engineering doctorate (for example, I know fully what terms like "negative feedback" and the other high flying terms being bandied around here mean - and by some posters who have no clue of what such things mean) and an extensive background in electromagnetics.There is so much  misinformation out there on the Internet, and people are happy throwing away cash on utter nonsense.
> 
> ...


 


  Funny thing is, despite your apparent doctorate, people will say you don't "listen to the music" or you "don't hear the soul"... basically they will invent any number of terms and situations in which you are somehow suffering from not having "high end cables". It is sad and pathetic really in some cases, but usually it is just genuine mistakes on most people. Most of the members I respect here the most believe in cables, but I do not blame them for it. The ones I do blame are the ones who go around perpetuating BS and causing other people to waste their money as they have.
   
  As far as I am concerned, all talk of cables should be banned on head-fi, and not DBT. Too bad cable distributors can give so much cash to head-fi due to their dumb high profit margins... makes it very hard for the staff to make a stand due to financial reasons.
   
  It is a damned shame you see so many new head-fiers wanting to "get the most" out of that 300$ amp with a 250$ cable... if only they had bought a 550$ amp instead where their money is actually being used... even if with increasingly diminishing returns.
   
  But alas it is a free country and people are free to believe in whatever wizardry they want and exercise that right to its fullest.


----------



## myinitialsaredac

@akart
   
  You mention overwhelming evidence towards the contrary, could you provide some for me?  I have not been able to find any that lends significant conviction in either direction. 
   
  @sokolov91
   
  I see you like DBT from some of your previous posts. Would you mind listing some of the DBTs that have been well conducted that you seem to be basing your view on so that I can read through and gain a better understanding of your view.
   
   
  Dave


----------



## Prog Rock Man

There are a load of blind tests here
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
   
  For me, the overwhelming evidence is the lack of any sort of connection between cable construction and sound.
   
  1 - blind testing shows no link
   
  2 - actual construction eg silver vs copper shows no link
   
  3 - any apparent link is a weak one and is based on finding differences in cables such as eddy currants and then suggesting that they cause sound differences. Other reasons such as placebo are ignored in reaching such conclusions.


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> There are a load of blind tests here
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
> 
> ...


 

 Answered in bold above.
   
  Dave


----------



## Armaegis

Or one could prescribe to the free-electron theory for metals rather than deal with orbitals (and metals don't really have "molecules" per se, unless you're counting grain structures but those are a bit larger in scale than molecules).
   
  *shrug*


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





sokolov91 said:


> As far as I am concerned, all talk of cables should be banned on head-fi, and not DBT. Too bad cable distributors can give so much cash to head-fi due to their dumb high profit margins... makes it very hard for the staff to make a stand due to financial reasons.


 

 Even if I ignore the fact that there are real issues to consider (keeping cable resistance <5% of speaker resistance), and the fact that not talking will not help those coming in with questions: I believe there's also a genuine discussion of aesthitcs and ergonomics to have.
   
  In headphones in particular; cable will be conspicuious. Having a cable that attaches securely, doesn't tangle easily, isn't too heavy, doesn't tend to physically degrade... I think three's a lot that could be discussed.
   
  How they sound just isn't part of it.


----------



## Kees

My ignore list is rapidly growing lately....


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





kees said:


> My ignore list is rapidly growing lately....


 


  ignoring people who disagree with you is a great way to keep happy, but a heard way to learn anything.
   
  might you contribute something other than calling people names for not agreeing with you? Have you ever proved you can hear differences between cables? I would love to see that proof... if you have it of course.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 this is true... but people write a mere sentence about ergonomics and can write entire novels on the supposed change in sound.
   
  I am all for talking about cables if it is ergonomics and looks. Recently I just striped my LCD-2 cable of all the black stuff and wool on the inside. makes it much lighter and easier to handle... and GASP, the sound hasn't changed any an d I will suggest people with weight issues do the same.
   
  but when people write novellas on things that do not exist, we have an issue..


----------



## Kees

And growing...


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





kees said:


> And growing...


 


  LOL maybe try staying out of these parts of the forum? Or make your own Kees forum and ban anyone who disagrees with you?


----------



## Kees

Oh, and when I ask for scientific proof of the statement that the differences measured in cables have no audible consequences, it always stays awfully quiet....


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





kees said:


> Oh, and when I ask for scientific proof of the statement that the differences measured in cables have no audible consequences, it always stays awfully quiet....


 

 Prog Rock Man provided you with some?
   
  I could go dig up some stuff from Ebscohost... but whats the point?
   
  No one on "either side" is going to change their mind regardless of how much proof there is.
   
  Simple DBT is a great way to show people first hand what is going on... this way they do not have to rely on other people, which is understandable right? I wouldn't want someone else's poor ears to have mine labled as crazy...
   
  There are great sources other than google and I will try and dig some stuff up I used for a paper in college.


----------



## sokolov91

interesting reads for those interested:
   
  http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
   
  http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better


----------



## buffalowings

Quote: 





sokolov91 said:


> interesting reads for those interested:
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/article_17606_7-high-tech-products-their-cheap-ass-ingredients.html
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better


 

 i am offering 100,000000 for james randi's head..as soon as somebody proves those cables are indeed better


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





buffalowings said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 hahaha hey if it happens I would HATE to be him... but it would seem it will never happen and his message is loud and clear.


----------



## InnerSpace

Seriously, what's the inside baseball on Randi?  Is he hanging tough, or has he disappeared?


----------



## beachgeek

From past experience, many years ago, wires and ground planes that are not pure copper do have inductance & capacitance.  The ground plane on the space shuttles main engine controllers (MEC)  has aluminum to protect from extreme heat conditions.   When an inductive valve opened up the current stopped at the valve and put > 30K on the ground plane which brought all 3 main engine controllers down.  Due to the capacitance & inductance in the ground plane, the MECs ground plane was > 15Kv to reference ground.
   
  Also cables can act as wave guides at high frequencies which can cause reflections, especially with an impedance mismatch.  Audio signals are considered low frequencies and should not exhibit reflections under normal operating conditions. (There are extreme examples someone can come up, I'm sure)


----------



## dxanex

I don't know why I still lurk this thread...oh wait, yes I do...it helps me fall asleep at night!


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





myinitialsaredac said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Hi Dave
   
  1 - what was wrong with that test? I do not understand the relevance of not having heard different cables before and preconceptions to that test. If a cable is audibly different, it will sound different no matter who listens to it and what conceptions they have, if the difference is outwith the listener and is in the cable.
   
  2 - there was no intended implication that eddy is made up. The question is indeed are such and all of the other claims about cable construction audible? So far there is no link between construction and audible difference. But there is a very good explanation when placebo is introduced.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kees said:


> Oh, and when I ask for scientific proof of the statement that the differences measured in cables have no audible consequences, it always stays awfully quiet....


 

 No it does not
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
   
  Twenty seven of the 28 test referred to are blind tests, there are no cable tests which result in a pass. Since a large scale test would be very difficult to do, a meta study of lots of smaller tests is the only other way to see which way the evidence leads us.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  You are wasting your breath... I already told him you posted a link to "proof".


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Yes sokolov91, but you appear to be on his banned list so Kees may not have picked that up. I expect that proof to be criticised but with no detail as to exactly why (typical reaction when I link to it) and then ignored. Meanwhile there will be no proof forthcoming as to how cable construction and audible differences are linked will be shown. All that would take is a study of reviews of cables and a correlation shown between cable type and sound type, but i can say now with full confidence after having read many a cable review thread, people experience so many different sounds with difference cables that there is no consistency. So therefore, the difference is sound cannot be in the cable, as it is the same throughout, the difference must be in the listener, who varies significantly. Add to that blind testing and the solid explanation of placebo, buyer self justification etc as to how the difference can be in the listener and the sceptics have significantly more evidence than the cable believer.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Yes sokolov91, but you appear to be on his banned list so Kees may not have picked that up. I expect that proof to be criticised but with no detail as to exactly why (typical reaction when I link to it) and then ignored. Meanwhile there will be no proof forthcoming as to how cable construction and audible differences are linked will be shown. All that would take is a study of reviews of cables and a correlation shown between cable type and sound type, but i can say now with full confidence after having read many a cable review thread, people experience so many different sounds with difference cables that there is no consistency. So therefore, the difference is sound cannot be in the cable, as it is the same throughout, the difference must be in the listener, who varies significantly. Add to that blind testing and the solid explanation of placebo, buyer self justification etc as to how the difference can be in the listener and the sceptics have significantly more evidence than the cable believer.


 

 The logic is simple, and you are absolutely correct... people hear cable differently. If they made a change it would be documented and for example silver would always change a sound a certain way and so would copper, and certain geometries would also always change a sound a certain way... reading reviews of cables is a joke and is just poetic rambling... crazy how cables always fix everything, but never take anything away.
   
  The logic is simple, but people make it complicated because they don't want to hear things like "you ears are not sensitive enough" or "you are just experiencing placebo effect" etc etc.
   
  The craziest thing is it is in people *BEST INTEREST* for cables to be formally, and completely debunked... so much money saved... but they like being lost in their lala wonderland and I can't blame them. I do blame them when they get others to waste money as they have.
   
  How can you trust peoples reviews, and judgments, when they are a slave to their own mind IE placebo effect? Hard to take people seriously when they can't take something as fundamental as "listening" seriously. DBT should be embraced and a large scale study should be done... but the money lies in cables and far to many peoples toes would be stepped for head-fi to sponsor such a test.
   
  I know I have been down this path before... so eager to submit something of value, so in awe of my new headphones... you can write a novel... a few weeks later you realize it is just the romance and high expectation and all to few of it is founded in reality. That is why I haven't bothered to write a review on the LCD-2, or the HD 800, or my DAC and amp for that matter.. I want to give it along time, when the initial romance has worn off, and my ability to produce quality reviews is at its finest. A year a go I would have waited a few days and gone crazy. It was fun, but it was not helping anyone in any way, although it certainly was fun. I certainly enjoyed head-fi a lot more back then but I was just lost in lalaland because I though that was the only way.
   
  I am so happy I put all that behind me, sold all my cables and placebo junk, and bout myself a true hi-fi system. It angers me when I see people stuck in mid-fi purgatory because they put their faith in so called "experienced" peoples view and spend tons on cables and fuses. It is ridiculous and should be stopped, everyone, except the sellers of snake oil, would be a winner.
   
  Head-fi is supposed to be home to headphone hobbyist that help one another out. Not a place where older members unknowingly trick newbies into wasting their hard earned cash because they did so themselves. It is a damn shame.
   
  Enjoying ones beliefs is fine, and silently enjoying placebo should be welcomed, but when it takes its toll on others, it should be stopped. I laugh every time I hear people say "x headphone was unbearable (what a drama queen eh?) but with y cable it is finally to my liking" -as if they were some sort of sultan... you know with ears only 500$ cables can please. Give me a break.
   
  One day head-fi , and all of audio will move forward... but it sure doesn't seem to be any time soon.
   
  I can understand people being upset, shocked and humiliated when they fail tests, or even at the thought of doing so... but we are all big boys and girls here... shouldn't be so hard to have logical conversations.
   
   
  /end rant


----------



## JRG1990

Head-fi isn't that bad for people recommending rip off £1000 cables, if you think head-fi is bad you should look at the whathifi forums and there reviews this is from a usb cable review 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





,
   Quote:


> Wireworld Ultraviolet 5 USB
> The gains in low-end body and punch, midrange spaciousness and detail, and high-end smoothness alone are significant.
> And, when you take into account the additional scale, superior timing and altogether more vivid presentation, the Ultraviolet 5/2 becomes a compulsory audition, if not an automatic purchase.


 
   
  You should take your ranting over there.


----------



## InnerSpace

Or check out the Peter Belt Red-X-Pen - a fifty cent marker specially "treated" by Belt and resold at a staggering markup.  If you write "(Your name) >OK" on the CD case with the pen, then the CD will sound better.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jrg1990 said:


> Head-fi isn't that bad for people recommending rip off £1000 cables, if you think head-fi is bad you should look at the whathifi forums and there reviews this is from a usb cable review
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  With the exception of Hydrogenaudio, where posting has to be accompanied by proof, all Hifi forums and magazines get carried away with cable reviews and recommendations. There are a number of posters on the What Hifi forum who debunk and criticise cable myths.
   
  On the matter of reviews and recommendations for cables, they are very subjective and vary from person to person and system to system (taking a system as a whole to include room acoustics). That subjectivity in itself is evidence that reported differences and particularly improvements in sound are coming from the listener and not the cable itself.
   
  In objective terms resistance and inductance are known to affect cables. That means cables tend to have a maximum length before they start to fail and there are different specs for certain applications such as 75ohms for digital coax and the use of attenuators to give better volume control. They are measurable and repeatable differences which importantly do create audible effects. But those effects are limited to there is a signal or there is not or it is louder or it is not. They do not involve differences in terms of sound quality.
   
  Such measurable and repeatable differences are there when it comes to the likes of eddy currents, skin effect, silver/copper, braided, solid core etc but and the but that no cable believer can yet show, there is no link to cable difference in terms of sound quality. Instead they insinuate that a measurable difference causes an audible difference, because then can hear a differences whilst they ignore other potential causes such as placebo.


----------



## pataburd

I concede, somewhat, to either side of this argument.  Frankly, I find 1 meter cables priced at over $10K absurd, pandering to the elitist niche market.  It's like rich people deciding that a toilet seat adorned with yellow ribbon is "art", simply because they can afford to hang such rubbish up in a gallery and call it so.  
   
  On the other hand, I have found affordable cables (like Bill LeGall's "Millersound"/JPS clone) that blew away high-priced esoteric types (like some of the megabuck PAD cables) in comparable applications.  
   
  Also, I think certain design aspects, like UP-OCC fabrication and cryogenic treatments have scientific merit translatable into audible differences.  : )


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





pataburd said:


> I concede, somewhat, to either side of this argument.  Frankly, I find 1 meter cables priced at over $10K absurd, pandering to the elitist niche market.  It's like rich people deciding that a toilet seat adorned with yellow ribbon is "art", simply because they can afford to hang such rubbish up in a gallery and call it so.
> 
> On the other hand, I have found affordable cables (like Bill LeGall's "Millersound"/JPS clone) that blew away high-priced esoteric types (like some of the megabuck PAD cables) in comparable applications.


 
   
  Well, now.  Don't blame rich people for creating the art market.  They follow, enthusiasts lead, just like in hifi.  And paradoxically I believe the cable market is sustained by (comparatively) poor people.  They're desperate to upgrade, but can't afford the $5,000 amp they want, so they console themselves with a $500 cable.  Their passion and energy is deflected by economics into fruitless avenues, instead of fruitful ones.  You can see it all over this site.
   
  And, with sincere respect, to say that one cable "blew away" another cable is the kind of exaggeration that creates the heat in this ongoing argument.  To give you (or anyone) the benefit of the doubt, perhaps after long evaluation you kinda sorta maybe thought there was a difference.  But the blowing away, the night and day, the jaws dropping, the wife coming in from the other room, the amazed looks exchanged ... it's all nonsense, and it doesn't help.


----------



## JRG1990

With reviewers like whathifi, when reviewing a cable i don't think that can be honest and say it sounds like every other cable they would be out of job and no one would read there reviews anymore. I did notice a difference with coax cables in both my music system and tv, the standard cables were awful, the freebie 1 i used to connect my m-audio audiophile usb to my edifer s730 sounded mellow, the freebie 1 on my tele took alot of detail away from the sound and it also sounded muddy and mellow, 1 was a 3c-2v spec 1 was a RG59/u spec i don't even think they had a copper core.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Sokolov91, 
   
  These are all commendable concerns and hopefully will make a difference with some of the newbies on Head-Fi, and those who are new to the hi-fi hobby.   
   
  Re cables sounding similar, e.g. Ag versus Cu, I always had the impression (not my personal experience) from the numerous reviews I've read over the years that silver exhibited a "bright" edgy sound and copper imparted more of a "warmish" character or darker hue to the sound (using subjective language). Of course these are generalizations or stereotypes, but it's interesting to me that there has been an "apparent" shift in perception with the introduction of some of the hyper-pure types of silver and copper. There seems to be a trend, that silver and copper are merging in sonic character. And on some of the ultra high-end stuff, it doesn't seem to matter what the material is (e.g. JPS Labs, an advertiser on Head-Fi). 
   
  My personal experience with cables is that some improve sound quality and some don't. There have been several that went back to the vendor. Not all the most expensive cables I have heard met my expectations, and the set I have now are some of the most reasonably priced that I've come across--especially considering the materials--yet bested some of my kilo-buck valued cables (am I moving in the right direction?) I always work from the premise that if I can't return it, it can't be a part of my system. A 30-day return/trial policy and/or a local dealer (fewer and fewer it seems) is always a good idea. 
   
  Re the placebo effect, it's of some interest to me that the the opposite argument is also true, that if you believe there is no difference in cables, that too would be the outcome of any casual cable listening experience--i.e. you wouldn't hear a difference due to placebo. I know that several folks on Head-Fi have approached cables as "believers" and through personal experience,  and research, ended up non-believers. Other's started out believing cables CANNOT (NO WAY, IMPOSSIBLE) make a difference, but ended up believers. Some of us in the CANNOT (NO WAY, IMPOSSIBLE) camp, even with an engineering background--like me--ended up a believer.   
   
  There seems to be a rallying cry, a social justice imperative, a vociferous argument to formalize the non-believers position as non-negotiable, settled science. It "seems" that non-believers want Head-Fi to make a statement in support of that position. However, Head-Fi is in a precarious position since funding and support of Head-Fi is partially the result of companies that sell cables, including ALO, Kimber, Moon Audio, Whiplash Audio,  CryoParts, and TTVJ to name a few. Some are funding sponsors, participate in forums, and ultimately market their products on Head-Fi to make a profit.
   
  Your message (and other's) about "...it is in people *BEST INTEREST* for cables to be formally, and completely debunked..." is heard loud and clear on the forums. However, it comes across as a value judgement (i.e. good, bad, evil), versus a value criticism (generally accepted as "truth"). For example, I believe that in the grand scheme of things, source, pre-/amp, and speakers (headphones) make the largest differences in a music system. These are fundamental.* We should focus changes on basic system improvements, on fundamental, core components when dealing with sound science. That is a value criticism and is "true" and is generally undeniable and accepted by everyone.
   
  (*NOTE: Although, some Head-Fi'ers believe that amps and DACs when level-matched all sound the same too. So, where do we draw the line with marketing hyperbole? Only with cables? What about amplifiers? DACs? Preamps? Who makes that judgement? Maybe we should just all subscribe to "The Audio Critic"--one of my faves--and be done? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
   
  So, where do cables fit? I believe cables (and power conditioning, yes) make a difference when used in a high-end music system. I have also noted differences with cables in lesser systems. I "enjoy" what I hear (the subjective part of our hobby) with high quality cables. However, to recommend cables as a substitute for the more fundamental aspects of putting together a great music system should be tertiary (or the very last). 
   
  When to try cables? Certainly AFTER you believe you've "hit the wall" with your core components, and they are long term "keepers." I tend to hang onto my stuff for a long time. (I WISH I still had my Thorens TD-125 MkII TT from the early 1970's. Dang, I really miss that one. I had a full set of Cardas GR series cables including AC, IC's and speakers. They were over a decade old, and I sometimes wish I still had those too.)  
   
  Well, here are some ideas about when buying cables makes sense (to me), but not necessarily in any priority, order, or for anyone else:     

 system synergy and refinement
 freedom from cash restrictions and a desire to test the waters
 a priori - i.e. use of theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation (and all of its ramifications)
 handmade quality construction, unique formulations and the pursuit of extracting that last "iota" of detail
 improved sound quality through personal experience
 experimentation in the hobby (What really works? What doesn't work?)
 it's fun trying new stuff...  
   
  Based on your personal experience and research you can say, "I don't personally hear any differences between cables." "There are several tests that reveal no statistical differences in cables, metals or geometry." "I'm happy with my hi-fi."
   
  What I'm not clear about is the innuendo, mocking, sarcasm, resentment, and the part relating to the the social justice imperative, (_Italics_ mine) e.g.:
   
  "when they are a _slave_ to their own mind IE placebo effect?"
  "I am so happy I put all _that_ behind me."
  "sold all my cables and _placebo junk_" 
   
  "It _angers me_ when I see people stuck in mid-fi purgatory." 
  "It is ridiculous and _should be stopped_..."
  "Head-Fi... (_is_) Not a place where older members _unknowingly trick newbies_ into wasting their hard earned cash because they did so themselves." 
  "you know with _ears only 500$ cables can please_. Give me a break."
  "One day head-fi , and all of audio will move forward... but it sure doesn't seem to be any time soon."
   
  Sadly, you seem to have lost the joy of the hobby, "I certainly enjoyed head-fi a lot more back then but I was just lost in lalaland because I though that was the only way."
   
  You qualified your post as a "rant" (at the end). So, we'll take all of this with a grain of salt. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (Now, I'm just having fun wid' ya!)


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Now InnerSpace, that one just hurt. I really wish you'd stop it. Your post is dripping with so much sarcasm, I'm having to wipe my screen with a squeegee!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kees

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  I found nothing relevant to my statement there. I asked for scientific PROOF of the assumption that the measured differences have no audible consequences. This assumption is key to the argument that cables can make no audible difference. You know as well as I do, that the fact that a lot of people are not able to hear the difference (under any circumstance DBT or other) is no proof for that assumption.
   
  I don't in any way defend the ridiculously priced cable market that is also out there, but I do advocate to carefully choose the cables you use in your system, because it will make a difference. 
  In my personal speaker system (I consider it a world class system) that means I use several different cables. None are more expensive than a few $100 and no ultra expensive cables (many $1000) I tried were any better.


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I found nothing relevant to my statement there. I asked for scientific PROOF of the assumption that the measured differences have no audible consequences. This assumption is key to the argument that cables can make no audible difference. You know as well as I do, that the fact that a lot of people are not able to hear the difference (under any circumstance DBT or other) is no proof for that assumption.


 
   
  You could also ask for proof that there are not invisible dragons that run around inside your house when you are away. The complete lack of evidence for them doesn't *prove* they aren't there.
   
  So tell us oh reverser-of-burden-of-proof: if we assume for a moment that there actually is no audible difference: how would that be provable?


----------



## JerryLove

Quote:


rdr. seraphim said:


> Re cables sounding similar, e.g. Ag versus Cu, I always had the impression (not my personal experience) from the numerous reviews I've read over the years that silver exhibited a "bright" edgy sound and copper imparted more of a "warmish" character or darker hue to the sound (using subjective language). Of course these are generalizations or stereotypes, but it's interesting to me that there has been an "apparent" shift in perception with the introduction of some of the hyper-pure types of silver and copper. There seems to be a trend, that silver and copper are merging in sonic character. And on some of the ultra high-end stuff, it doesn't seem to matter what the material is (e.g. JPS Labs, an advertiser on Head-Fi).


 

 I painted my cables brown. Now the music sounds "chocolaty"


----------



## Armaegis

Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Well, now.  Don't blame rich people for creating the art market.  They follow, enthusiasts lead, just like in hifi.  And paradoxically I believe the cable market is sustained by (comparatively) poor people.  They're desperate to upgrade, but can't afford the $5,000 amp they want, so they console themselves with a $500 cable.  Their passion and energy is deflected by economics into fruitless avenues, instead of fruitful ones.  You can see it all over this site.


 

 I am sad that I'm not rich enough to be one of the poor people


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Dark brown, for semi-sweet chocolate sounds a bit more on the neutral to lean side, maybe a bit clinical at times; light brown, for milk chocolate for that buttery, smooth and just a bit less definition, but Oh so pure. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> rdr. seraphim said:
> ...


----------



## akart

lol. This is hilarious! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> rdr. seraphim said:
> ...


----------



## Kees

I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
   
  I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





kees said:


> *I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.*
> 
> I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.


 

 Prove it.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





kees said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  Blind testing is the scientific proof. Blind tests are recognised as a means of establishing the effectiveness of something when external possibilities are removed.


  Quote: 





kees said:


> I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house. There is no evidence they are.
> 
> I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.


 

 Sorry, but that is failing to establish the link you believe in because you ignore other potential links.
   
  Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.
   
  Your argument is that there are intrinsic differences in cables (the Sun) and you hear differences (worship) so therefore the intrinsic differences are the cause of those differences. Blind tests find that the link between cables and them sounding different is not there. (Which is the equivalent of stopping the worship of the Sun to see what happens next, the answer being it still rises in the morning). Sighted tests find that the link between cables and sounding better is there (so sighted tests are the equivalent of worship).


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





kees said:


> There are measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.


 

 Kees, there's an unsupported jump in that argument, surely?  I would agree with "There are measurable differences between cables, so there are grounds to think that there _might be_ audible differences between them."
   
  Then it becomes a question of finding out how big (and where) the measured differences need to be before the threshold of audibility is reached.
   
  An analogy might be: there are two coffee cups in front of me, supposedly identical, but at a micro level one must be larger than the other; how much larger must it be before the difference is detectable by my naked eye?


----------



## Happy Camper

When an agreeable definition of "difference" that all parties can reference, a dialog can develop. We don't all speak from the same experiences (other than musicians and sound professionals). And I would imagine there is wide acceptance on what.
   
  Audio is a tool to bring emotion to the listener. We all have individual preferences that make up that emotion. Once satisfied, most are more forgiving of lessor performance as part of the experience, so long as that emotion is maintained. We are listening to the music and ignoring anything not part of the experience.
   
  Then there is a breed of hobbyist/professional that will not stop until they can prove the pinnacle point by evidence that they accept as empirical and supported by existing tools and methods of scientific logic. This breed don't really listen to the music, they are engrossed in the analysis of the sound.
   
  The opposite view will try any plausible attempt to make a difference in what they hear. The hearing is so concentrated on the finer nuances of the sound that they aren't listening to the music. They can positively tweak a system to sound exactly how they feel it should be according to their artistic illusion.
   
  Both obsessive types are debating the viewpoint while most are enjoying the view.


----------



## limpidglitch

Or, to put it simply: Measurable ≠ Audible.


----------



## Kees

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Quote Prog rock man: "Blind testing is the scientific proof. Blind tests are recognised as a means of establishing the effectiveness of something when external possibilities are removed."
  Not true. Blind testing is not proof, nor is it considered to be proof by any scientist. "When external possebilities are removed"????? Is this in any way the case here?
   
   
  Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.
   
  Quote Prog rock man: "Your argument is that there are intrinsic differences in cables (the Sun) and you hear differences (worship) so therefore the intrinsic differences are the cause of those differences. Blind tests find that the link between cables and them sounding different is not there. (Which is the equivalent of stopping the worship of the Sun to see what happens next, the answer being it still rises in the morning). Sighted tests find that the link between cables and sounding better is there (so sighted tests are the equivalent of worship)."
   
  It is quite a bit different. If I see the sun rise every day (like I hear a difference in cables every day), I think that the sun is probably actually rising every day, even if I don't know what causes it (like wise I assume there are actually audible differences caused by cables). 
  The measurements of differences in cables confirm that my assumption is very plausible, like the measurements of astronomist make it very plausible that the sun will actually rise every day.
  The fact that a lot of people hear a difference is like the fact that a lot of people also see the sun rise every day, it makes it more likely that it is really happening.
  There are only a few blind people that don't see the sun rising and declare that it cannot be happening.


----------



## Kees

Quote: 





innerspace said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I agree that you frase it better than I did. I stand corrected here.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Blind tests remove all other possibilities as to the cause of cables sounding different; placebo, bias, expectation etc and leave only hearing as the way of identifying a difference. If you claim you can hear a difference then you should be able to pass a test where hearing alone is the means of telling that difference. But of all of the tests that I can find, people cannot reliably hear a difference.
   
  Surely to show there is an audible difference, a link that can be heard, you need to be able to pick out differences by purely listening?


----------



## acidtripwow

I know cables made a difference in my systems.  The interconnects I really liked were like $900 retail.  Ouch!  Did you guys read the latest Absolute Sound where they reviewed $25,000 and $40,000 cables?  Now that's crazy!  But I'd love to have a set.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I also tried some HDMI cables that were like $40.  They sucked bad.  The picture on my TV became fuzzy.  I also tried them on my PC and found the same thing.  I went back to my $5 cables from Newegg and things were much better.  I also just received some cheap  HDMI cables from Monoprice and found one of them to be bad,  The sound would drop out when I changed stations.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





acidtripwow said:


> I know cables made a difference in my systems.  The interconnects I really liked were like $900 retail.  Ouch!  Did you guys read the latest Absolute Sound where they reviewed $25,000 and $40,000 cables?  Now that's crazy!  But I'd love to have a set.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 The HDMI cables you have bought have been faulty, lines, sparkles, fuzz are known problems and no one is going to disagree that in that case, cables did make a difference. As for the seriously expensive cables, when a series of blind tests show that they make an identifiable, repeatable difference by just listening, then I would change my stance.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Kees, with regards to your comment that blind testing is not considered proof by any scientist, I found that to be intriguing, so I went a googling and found that whilst not correct, it is not used anywhere as much as I thought that it was. From a 1998 paper in the journal of Scientific Exploration.

 "A survey of recent papers published in a range of scientific journals
 showed that the use of blind methodologies is very rare in the so-called
 hard sciences. In the physical sciences, no blind experiments were found
 among the 237 papers reviewed. In the biological sciences, there were 7
 blind experiments out of 914 (0.8%). There was a higher proportion in the
 medical sciences, 6 out of 102 (5.9%), and in psychology and animal behavior,
 7 out of 143 (4.9%). By far the highest proportion (85.2%) was in parapsychology.
 A survey of science departments in 11 British Universities
 showed that blind methodologies are neither used nor taught in 22 out of 23
 physics and chemistry departments, or in 14 out of 16 biochemistry and molecular
 biology departments. By contrast, blind methodologies are sometimes
 practiced and taught in 4 out of 8 genetics departments, and in 6 out of 8 physiology
 departments. I propose a simple procedure that could be used to detect
 possible experimenter effects in any branch of science, by comparing the
 results of a given experiment conducted both under open and blind conditions."

 A search of Science Magazine’s website finds no references to blind or ABX testing. Googling blind testing finds audiophile, wine, parapsychology and homeopathy references, where the aim is to disprove claims of effect. There is little to do with mainstream science., though this link is a good one to show where blind testing has been used effectively in industry with regards to a detector

 http://www.skepdic.com/control.html

 But there is no doubt that blind testing is a scientific approach that under the correct conditions is acceptable evidence

 http://www.experiment-resources.com/

 And in particular here

 http://www.experiment-resources.com/double-blind-experiment.html


----------



## endless402

how do you measure soundstage width, height, depth?


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Kees, with regards to your comment that blind testing is not considered proof by any scientist, I found that to be intriguing, so I went a googling and found that whilst not correct, it is not used anywhere as much as I thought that it was. From a 1998 paper in the journal of Scientific Exploration.
> 
> "A survey of recent papers published in a range of scientific journals
> showed that the use of blind methodologies is very rare in the so-called
> ...


 

 Testing against placebo happens all the time in scientific studies, especially medical ones, and is essentially ABX testing, just under a different name.
   
  Testing a new medication vs a placebo is how they find out for a fact their drug actually works, and people are not just tricking themselves into feeling better. This parallels audio immensely and is extremely common.
   
  So perhaps "ABX" does not show up specifically, but the same sort of testing happens all the time and is the ONLY accepted kind of proof in many cases.
   
  It is no different for audio, just some people like to refute it because it doesn't "jive" with their belief systems.
   
  Without ABX type testing, many fields of science would be no better than magic.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





endless402 said:


> how do you measure soundstage width, height, depth?


 


  There is no need because soundstage size a personal and subjective interpretation. Finding out whether or not someone can hear the difference between cables is extremely simple. Either the person hears a difference, or does not. This is why the premise of a "debate" is ridiculous because there is nothing to argue about. It is and isn't and so far, everything proves, or everything valid as proof proves that there is no difference.
   
  Hearing the difference between headphones is very easy to detect and measure even if specific things such as soundstage are hard. That is because the delay and cancellation of frequencies are unique to each ear, making it impossible to measure without exact replicas of the individuals ears.
   
  People saying they hear difference is a very different thing from actually hearing a difference and there actually being a real difference. Kees's logic is flawed as others have pointed out. People saying they hear, is not actually fully acceptable evidence supporting they do. However that is not his fault because many people share this fault in logic due to loving their hobby to the point of being perhaps slightly blinded. It is simple for someone to prove they actually hear said differences through testing. The fact that the testing disproves these claims does not point to the testing being faulty... it points to the claims being BS -whether intentional or not.


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





endless402 said:


> how do you measure soundstage width, height, depth?


 

 You can't.  But an enhancement or diminution of a soundstage's subjectively perceived width, height and depth (as frequently reported) can only be created by altered sound waves leaving drivers and entering ears, and that before/after alteration can be measured easily enough.


----------



## Happy Camper

Quote: 





kees said:


> *I don't know of anybody that claims there are dragons flying around their house*. There is no evidence they are.
> 
> I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.


 


  Well my home insurance policy has a rider for them.


----------



## endless402

innerspace said:


> You can't.  But an enhancement or diminution of a soundstage's subjectively perceived width, height and depth (as frequently reported) can only be created by altered sound waves leaving drivers and entering ears, and that before/after alteration can be measured easily enough.





 


How would the alteration be measured?
The overall sound is the same. 

Keep in mind my experience with interconnects is only with speakers. I find that with headphones it's all the same


----------



## InnerSpace

Quote: 





endless402 said:


> How would the alteration be measured? The overall sound is the same.


 

 Sorry, I meant to imply that if it was there, it could be measured, and if it couldn't be measured, it wasn't there.  But ... the sound could be the same, and yet the measurements might still be different.  This whole deal is about the _threshold_ of audibility, which will inevitably be higher than the point at which _measurable_ differences start to appear.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

A regular argument put forward by the pro-cable side is that the anti-cable side must have faulty hearing. Let us say that that is true and the pro-cable side do have better hearing. Why then do they also need to see a cable to get an accurately assess its sound? Why then do they fail and/or refuse to do tests which only involve listening for a difference?


----------



## JerryLove

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Kees* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Not true. Blind testing is not proof, nor is it considered to be proof by any scientist. "When external possebilities are removed"????? Is this in any way the case here?


 
  I'm sorry. No scientist uses experimentation on a subject without the subjects knowledge of the conditions as validation of a model?
   
  Can people see X-Rays with their naked eye? Prove it! Make sure not to use anything tantamount to a blind test.
   
  Quote: 





> Your argument is the same as "I worship the Sun, the Sun rises every morning, therefore my worshiping of the Sun is what makes it rise". That argument has worshiping as the link between the Sun and it rising in the morning. The reality is that the Sun would rise even when worshiping stops because it is gravity and orbits that make it rise and that is the link.


 
   
  I'm not sure if I want to listen to a science lecture from someone who doesn't know the difference between "orbits" and "rotation", nor between "gravity" and "angular momentum".
   
  The sun "rises" to an observer on earth because of the rotation of the Earth's surface. The rotation is caused by the conservation of angular momentum going back to the formation process of the Earth.

  I'm curious. I can tell a B&W 801 apart from a Bose 201 in a blind test. Why can't you tell cables apart?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





jerrylove said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 A blind test removes other possibilities of identifying one cable from another, the main one being able to see the cable. A well conducted blind test will also remove or limit as much as is possible any tester or testee bias. I did not mean to suggest testing someone without their knowledge.
   
  Worshiping the sun is an analogy meant to show how whilst something may appear to be linked, that link may not be the case and something else completely different and unrelated is the real link.
   
  I'm curious too, as to why you think that being able to tell different speakers apart (not disputed by me and different speakers are picked out in blind tests) is in any way evidence that I (or any other person in blind testing) am at fault for not being able to tell cables apart.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





kees said:


> I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling. There afe measurable differences between cables, so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables.


 

 There are a number of issues with your chain of logic.
   
  Firstly you assert
   
_(A) I do know a lot of people that can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling _- but you do not provide any evidence for the truth of this assertion, viz you do not provide any evidence that any individuals can detect differences other than they say so, this is firmly in anecdotal territory. More correctly you would have to say that (A1) _I do know a lot of people that (assert that they) can hear a difference in the sound of an audio system with different cabling _
   
  then you assert
   
_(B) There are measurable differences between cables _- this is more or less ok, I have measured differences between some cables, though they were small in my tests,  but you do not say that the differences exist in the samples used by the subjects of proposition A (say for instance some cables were merely rebadged generic copper cables, they would measure pretty similarly)
   
   
  then (C) _so there is clear evidence there is an audible difference between cables._ - you do not need B for C to be true , A however needs to be true for C to be true , but A is not proven.
   
  To use B you need another clause B1 to the effect that_ there must be measurable differences before there are audible differences_, (this has some kind of face validity) but then you have the probem of at what magnitude do measurable differences become audible unless you assert B2 _measurable differences are audible _at which point you no longer need A


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> A regular argument put forward by the pro-cable side is that *the anti-cable side must have faulty hearing*. Let us say that that is true and the pro-cable side do have better hearing. Why then do they also need to see a cable to get an accurately assess its sound? Why then do they fail and/or refuse to do tests which only involve listening for a difference?


 

 Another example we've seen here from a cable maker/seller is that if you can't hear it your system is not good enough.
  That scheister should have been stuffed back under the rock he crawled out from under.


----------



## mtntrance

Thanks this thread just saved me $284.00 I was considering spending on a cable for my hd650.  Instead I am going to try a Grado 325i.  I don't know why I was starting to fall for the hype when on my home theatre system I primarily use and love Blue Jean cables and speaker wire.  Its amazing that it costs $300 for a headphone cable yet for the same amount of money gets you all the engineering and parts in a decent mid-fi amp-hi fi if you go audio gd.  Anyway I think I will hear more of a difference from HD650s to 325i's than I would with a new cable on the HD650s-not better just different.


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





mtntrance said:


> Thanks this thread just saved me $284.00 I was considering spending on a cable for my hd650.  Instead I am going to try a Grado 325i.  I don't know why I was starting to fall for the hype when on my home theatre system I primarily use and love Blue Jean cables and speaker wire.  Its amazing that it costs $300 for a headphone cable yet for the same amount of money gets you all the engineering and parts in a decent mid-fi amp-hi fi if you go audio gd.  Anyway I think I will hear more of a difference from HD650s to 325i's than I would with a new cable on the HD650s-not better just different.


 


  Do the people who buy these cables never stop to think that a manufacturer of a $500 set of headphones (a flagship product like the HD650 no less) that they've spent millions researching and developing would just stick a crappy component like a dodgy cable on it to save a couple of bucks? I suspect that the cable on the HD800 is a flashier bit of kit just to appease the pseudo-scientific expectations of the 'cable' crowd.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Mods, I recommend locking this thread. It has run its course and saved someone some money. The big guns arrived, so there's nothing left to do but put this one to bed...


----------



## Lenni

^
  I doubt it's gonna happen. I reckon this is going to be recommended for a sticky.
  this thread should have been moved to the science forum many posts ago, but there seem to be rules for some, and rules for others. kboe gets banned again, but you've some science's religious members arrogantly disregarding the DBT-Free Forum (I swear I can still see it in the title... or is it placebo?), but the moderator doesn't seem to notice.
  oh wait! the moderator is their spiritual leader... enough said.
   
  I thought politics and religious discussions were forbidden here...?


----------



## limpidglitch

You sound bitter.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> You sound bitter.


 


  a little, maybe, but not much.
   
  just keep science's members where they belong: in the science forum.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





lenni said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Well to be fair, if this thread is to warn people... how do you warn people if you are not in the right sub-forum?
   
  If you thought: "pretty damned hard" then you are correct and that is the issue. This place it so help head-fiers and that is what is trying to be done.
   
  The talk of blind testing might be banned to keep the faint of heart from being offended but that does not mean the discussion of cables being essentially worthless is as well.
   
*There are numerous ways in which we can discuss and warn people of the uselessness of boutique cables without pulling out the big, sobering (and forbidden) guns like DBT.*
   
  Simple logic with regards to diminishing returns (or no returns in this case), audibility, and effectiveness in a hi-fi system are all perfectly valid and not banned as far as I am aware...
   
  Now the problem is that when people demand irrefutable evidence, because they don't want to be wrong, (which there is even if people like to use "the ostrich tactic" and hide from it to try and make it go away) and we deliver it in spades (whereas the cable side has no objective proof at all), we are breaking "the rules". The rule is a smart one because when people get emotional, they tend not to be very logical, and debates get heated quickly. So it is a good rule, but unfortunately that makes it all to easy for people to propagate complete BS, and all to hard for those trying to be the voice of reason amidst a see of ignorance.
   
  Hell, the "science cult" is just trying to save some people a few bucks. You are free to believe what you want, and wast/use your money accordingly. But please don't ruin it for the many people that will actually be helped by threads such as these.
   
  And just so we are clear: Science and the appreciation of music are not some sort of opposing forces that cannot coexist.. they actually are very tightly bound and that is why we have hi-fi. The two opposing here are ignorance and emotion vs reasoning and logic and that is why there never is an end.
   
  We wouldn't have the T1, HD 800 or the LCD-2, STAX or anything were it not for science... so to treat people as "followers of science" and some sort of cult is pretty ridiculous and highly ironic... I would like to hear people say this to those scientists designing the drivers for such headphones: "you can't hear what I hear" "your source isn't good enough" etc when they have the most expensive testing equipment and highly trained professionals in the world. IE they have a lifetime of experience and technical information which is supposed to be laid to waste by someones firm belief? I am sure they would LOL pretty damned hard.
   
  But then again you are right... there are rules and they should be followed by all even if it is to the great disadvantage of our community as a whole.
   
  In short, the reality is there is no "debate" or "war: or whatever you want to call it anyways. There is the objective and essentially "without a shadow of a doubt" proved truth. And then there is how people feel about certain things and their beliefs. There is no debate because it has been solved by all conventional and proper ways... There is only one who is correct and so there is no feud to speak of. People and their feelings cause the feud - not the "problem".
   
  And finally the thing most "science" cult members (lol) must realize is that most of the people suggesting and promoting cables are doing so with genuine thoughts and beliefs... most are not ogres out to get people. They just don't know any better and they can't be blamed entirely for this... especially with all the misinformation floating about. To blame them is not fair, but to be banned from promoting the truth is not fair either.


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





lenni said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 What is a member of science?
  One who prefer aspirin to HeadOn?


----------



## Prog Rock Man

I take DBT free to mean no debating the subject as opposed to no mention of it, period. If it turns out to be no mentioning of it, then I want science only in the science section and no claims without evidence. In any case threads have started here and been moved to the science forum. 
   
  I am glad that this thread has resulted in the purchase of Grado SR325 headphones instead of a cable. I take it that we all agree the sonic benefits of the Grados far out weigh the benefits of any cable? If not, please give examples of cables that make more of a difference or are better than headphones. That would be interesting as a comparison and for a price point of whether expensive cables are worthwhile.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I take DBT free to mean no debating the subject as opposed to no mention of it, period. If it turns out to be no mentioning of it, then I want science only in the science section and no claims without evidence. In any case threads have started here and been moved to the science forum.
> 
> I am glad that this thread has resulted in the purchase of Grado SR325 headphones instead of a cable. I take it that we all agree the sonic benefits of the Grados far out weigh the benefits of any cable? If not, please give examples of cables that make more of a difference or are better than headphones. That would be interesting as a comparison and for a price point of whether expensive cables are worthwhile.


 

 Uh oh folks! He is asking for REAL proof! HIT THE DECK *SLAMS FACE INTO DIRT TO MAKE THE CRAZY MAN GO AWAY*


----------



## mtntrance

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> I take DBT free to mean no debating the subject as opposed to no mention of it, period. If it turns out to be no mentioning of it, then I want science only in the science section and no claims without evidence. In any case threads have started here and been moved to the science forum.
> 
> I am glad that this thread has resulted in the purchase of Grado SR325 headphones instead of a cable. I take it that we all agree the sonic benefits of the Grados far out weigh the benefits of any cable? If not, please give examples of cables that make more of a difference or are better than headphones. That would be interesting as a comparison and for a price point of whether expensive cables are worthwhile.


 
   
  Thanks again to this thread for the saving me some money.  Off topic:  I havent purchased SR325s yet due to starting to drool over the LCD-2 and strongly considering it.  On topic:  Was shopping around for an LCD-2 and discovered that an particular vendor's mod cable for the LCD-2 cost $500.  I appreciate the aesthetics of a nicely hand made cable but I do not understand how a copper cable (materials) can cost so much even when considering labor.  For example I bought a headphone extension cable that is 18 awg and nicely made by DeMarzio.  I know now that I probaly spent too much (just over $100 versus maybe $35) but I appreciate the aesthetics of the well made cable and can live with it.  The point is in terms of raw materials and labor how can a cable cost $500 that has approximately the same mass in terms of materials, labor and even aesthetic as a $100 cable?  Hype.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

You might want to head over the LCD forum for discussions on what the cable does for the overall sound quality. However, be aware that virtually everyone over there with the cable upgrade believe it is a significant benefit. So, if you've already made up your mind "that cables don't make a difference," then just go stock. 
   
  EDIT: You could also head over to the DIY forum for some ideas on cost reduction using similar wire. 
  
  Quote: 





mtntrance said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

All I want to know is what it is in a cable that makes one sound different from another. Is it resistance, capacitance or inductance? Or is it some other electrical property? I ask out of curiosity and with an open mind which has previously changed its stance and is prepared to do so again.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

It's a rhetorical question. I believe you have already answered the question to your satisfaction.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> It's a rhetorical question. I believe you have already answered the question to your satisfaction.


 

 Not at all and a new thread started asking about how cables are made and how that affects the overall sound out of a hifi. Since sound quality differences are actually caused by a cable, then there are reasons for that and I would like to know what they are.
   
  I have gone through various brands of cable such as QED, Russ Andrews, Kimber, SHB and then I made my own using Van Damme cable, standard lead based solder and Neutrick Rean phonos. Some how I have made cables that sound just as good as the ones made by actual audio companies at much greater expense. How did I do that?


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Prog Rock Man. I have some similar experience, since I started out with the top line (and I mean multiple kilo-buck range IC's from different manufacturers), but eventually ending up with simpler, but I believe higher quality materials at _*MUCH*_ lower cost. One of the keys for me when I was fiddling with audio in my early days as a DIY'er (a little later than my Dyanco and HK Citation kit days). All I did was clean the connectors on the back of my Quicksilver Preamp and the IC's (I tended to leave things inserted for months at a time). That really surprised the heck outta me! And actually, if you don't want to be so formal (anal-retentive), just remove and insert the RCA a few times, and viola! (For some it "amounts" to a new cable!)
   
  This of course led me to believe connectors made a difference, possibly contact area, pressure, etc. Again, I always recommend to my buddies, just remove and insert a few times. (Hmm, that sounds familiar.) Also, if possible, I no longer use solder, accept where required. H. H. Scott used the wire twist connector for point to point wiring between circuit boards in it's early (60's) receivers which were solid, secure and solder free.
   
  Is that what you mean? 
   
  What's the URL of the "other thread." It sounds like it could be interesting.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





mtntrance said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 if you can afford it... the LCD-2 imo is the one headphone to rule them all... truly. Only the people how dropped 500$ on a cable think it sounds better... whether or not this is placebo is up to you to decide.
   
  I sold all my cables and stuff after doing some sobering testes myself and had a bundle to spend... take a gander at the system I managed to piece together instead. You only stand to gain from not using cables. Everything in my system is stock, be it analogue or digital, and it is world class as far I am concerned. I spent the same money, just rearranged the funds, and now I am in TOTL heaven whereas before I was stuck in mid-fi making useless upgrades like all too many.
   
  Think of it this way:
   
  Two head-fiers have 1000$ to spend. Head-fier A believes in cables, Head-fier B does not. Let us assume they have equal DAC/CDP.
   
  Head-fier A:
   
  HD 650 used/ amazing deal - ~350
  Some sort of otl tube amp, chinese or used ~300
  RCA interconnects 200$
  Headphone recable 150 (and they have to sit within one foot of their amp because 150 could only buy 2.3 feet)
   
  ***Starts saving money for power cables***
   
   
  Head-fier B:
   
  RCA cables - used the ones included with the amp - free
  amp - used M3 ~ 500$
  HiFiman HE5LE ~ 500$
   
  ***laughs at head-fier A because he has not yet learned how to spend money properly***
   
*The limitations of this example are subjective taste. The M3 and HE5LE are of higher value and are technically more competent. Does not guarantee they will sound better to the user.*
   
  Without the frittering of money on cables, fuses, and god knows what, you can get much more REAL hi-fi for your money.


----------



## Slackboy72

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> All I want to know is what it is in a cable that makes one sound different from another. Is it resistance, capacitance or inductance? Or is it some other electrical property? I ask out of curiosity and with an open mind which has previously changed its stance and is prepared to do so again.


 


  Actually it's not a rhetorical question.
   
  Here's a story I read from a sound engineer writing in Guitar Player magazine back in the early 90s. Apologies for any inaccuracies due to the passage of time.
  Basically, BB King used to just turn up to gigs and plug his guitar (Lucille?) into his amp using an old 40 ft cord that enabled him to walk around the stage.
  Sometime in the late 80s his show started using wireless so the 40 ft cable was shelved for two 2 ft cables and a wireless transmitter between them.
  BB didn't like this as his guitar's sound had very subtly changed. Initially the sound engineer tried different types of transmitter. Unfortunately the difference was still there.
  Then he stuck the 40 ft cable back between the receiver and the amp and the sound was back and BB King was happy.
   
  The old 40ft cable was adding capacitance, resistance and inductance. Essentially it was acting as one rudimentary LPF (low pass filter).
   
  So yes cables _can _change your sound, but with most systems using a lot less than 40ft to connect components you just aren't going to hear this LPF effect which is why people just can't pick it up in double blind testing. Also don't forget that there is a big difference between hi-fi components putting out line level signals or many watts of power vs the millivolts of a guitar signal (~250-300 millivolts for a PAF) that gets distorted by a guitar amplifier.


----------



## endless402

wouldnt make sense to spend 200 dollars on an rca when your system is only 800 dollars...
   
   
  now, when your system is 20,000..., would you still connect it with free rca's?


----------



## mtntrance

sokolov91 said:


> if you can afford it... the LCD-2 imo is the one headphone to rule them all... truly. Only the people how dropped 500$ on a cable think it sounds better... whether or not this is placebo is up to you to decide.
> 
> I sold all my cables and stuff after doing some sobering testes myself and had a bundle to spend... take a gander at the system I managed to piece together instead. You only stand to gain from not using cables. Everything in my system is stock, be it analogue or digital, and it is world class as far I am concerned. I spent the same money, just rearranged the funds, and now I am in TOTL heaven whereas before I was stuck in mid-fi making useless upgrades like all too many.
> 
> ...





 


Hopefully i have been following the philosophy of spending the money on the gears versus cables. My fanciest cables are some Kimber pbj that I bought years ago. I actually have a bunch of higher end 
monster stuff sitting in the garage that I threw out and replaced with Blue Jean from my home theater. If I thought I could sell the Monster for enough to make it worth the hassle I would.
I got lucky on components and bought audio gd so high value for low cost. Now I am thinking grados are too over priced to play with for their sound signature and I might as well go for the LCD. I would never think to replace it's cable as it appears nice and they come in a wood box so I am sure they didn't try to cut costs on a cable.
I have always thought you can find quality parts and construction for low cost with vendors like blue jean and others. So glad I did not fall for the the hd650s don't shine until the cable gets replaced. One thread I saw a poster actually say he preferred the stock cables sound to the upgrade mod but as we know anything could have influenced that perception.


----------



## Lenni

Quote: 





sokolov91 said:


> blah blah blah... '_that's how it started doc_...' mumble... blah blah blah..... '_thanks that was therapeutic doc.'_


 

 unfortunately I'm gonna put you on my ignore list, please do likewise with me.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

IMHO, it's not up to us to rationalize "anyone's" decision on where to spend $, or not. Again, this whole social justice thingy about commandeering folks one way or another should be redirected to fundamental engineering practice, e.g. system components first, cables last, (and then, it's always optional). So, I believe we should be steering folks with education, not rhetoric and heated opinion (from either side please). We all agree that the most benefit is to be gained from different flavors of core system components*.
   
  *NOTE: Remember, we're only dealing with cables here, but there some folks on Head-Fi that believe--with similar passion as this heated debate--that any level matched core component, be it preamp, amp, DAC, all sound identical (including some of the older stuff on AGON you can buy for a song). If we're interested in saving folks $, our message should be more encompassing of the whole kit.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> Prog Rock Man. I have some similar experience, since I started out with the top line (and I mean multiple kilo-buck range IC's from different manufacturers), but eventually ending up with simpler, but I believe higher quality materials at _*MUCH*_ lower cost. One of the keys for me when I was fiddling with audio in my early days as a DIY'er (a little later than my Dyanco and HK Citation kit days). All I did was clean the connectors on the back of my Quicksilver Preamp and the IC's (I tended to leave things inserted for months at a time). That really surprised the heck outta me! And actually, if you don't want to be so formal (anal-retentive), just remove and insert the RCA a few times, and viola! (For some it "amounts" to a new cable!)
> 
> This of course led me to believe connectors made a difference, possibly contact area, pressure, etc. Again, I always recommend to my buddies, just remove and insert a few times. (Hmm, that sounds familiar.) Also, if possible, I no longer use solder, accept where required. H. H. Scott used the wire twist connector for point to point wiring between circuit boards in it's early (60's) receivers which were solid, secure and solder free.
> 
> ...


 

 The other thread asking about cable construction and how it relates to differences in sound is here
   
  http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/533166/questions-about-how-cables-are-made-and-how-do-different-cables-sound-different
   
  though with 13 views and no replies, it has not exactly started well! I was kind of expecting that as AFAIK, there is no correlation between how a cable is made and how it would sound different to another one. I mean, for example, silver is brighter sounding than copper, litz has more bass than solid core, that kind of thing.
   
  I agree with what you say about keeping connections clean. A friend works for an engineering company who make their own cables as and when required and they spend all their time deciding what is the best connection and making sure it is secure and protected from the elements. As for the actual cable, so long as it is well shielded, it does not matter. We tidied his hifi/AV system's cables, some of which had been in place for years and the sound got better.


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





lenni said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  lol why would I ignore you back? Its not like I care you have "ignored me".
   
  just more evidence towards ignorance being quite blissful. Enjoy!


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





rdr. seraphim said:


> IMHO, it's not up to us to rationalize "anyone's" decision on where to spend $, or not. Again, this whole social justice thingy about commandeering folks one way or another should be redirected to fundamental engineering practice, e.g. system components first, cables last, (and then, it's always optional). So, I believe we should be steering folks with education, not rhetoric and heated opinion (from either side please). We all agree that the most benefit is to be gained from different flavors of core system components*.
> 
> *NOTE: Remember, we're only dealing with cables here, but there some folks on Head-Fi that believe--with similar passion as this heated debate--that any level matched core component, be it preamp, amp, DAC, all sound identical (including some of the older stuff on AGON you can buy for a song). If we're interested in saving folks $, our message should be more encompassing of the whole kit.


 

 It is harder to quantify the value of items, other than cables, in the audio chain for various reasons. But you certainly have a point.
   
  If there is evidence to all level matched gear sounds the same (which I do not think is the case if we take so simple as an example as simple as SS vs tube amps) then that should ideally be taken care off too.
  However, when tackling an issue, personally I like to get the biggest, baddest, ugliest, and worst problem out of the way first, so everything else is down hill.
   
  At least fancy components look nice... Cables do too, but they tend to be hidden behind the gear...


----------



## Prog Rock Man

Evidence that level matched amps, solid state and valve sound the same
   
  http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





endless402 said:


> wouldnt make sense to spend 200 dollars on an rca when your system is only 800 dollars...
> 
> 
> now, when your system is 20,000..., would you still connect it with free rca's?


 


  the value of your rig does not change the effect cabling has on it... so why not use the freebies? There is no correlation between them so I don't understand what you are trying to get at with your example.
   
  Or of course you could just DIY yourself some very nice cables at a fraction the cost of boutique cables "just in case" you know?


----------



## sokolov91

Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> Evidence that level matched amps, solid state and valve sound the same
> 
> http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf


 
  Hrm, very interesting read. (not done yet )
   
  I thought tube amps were supposedly easier to spot due to even order harmonic distortion in the low end making a "fatter" sound.
   
  You have any data on headphones vs speakers for listening tests? Seems headphones might be better tools due to the proximity of the ear and low distortion.
   
  Does make sense though, seeing as headphones reach any useable volume in mW


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

That is true for tube amplifiers when driven into clipping, and is also part of the reason tube amplifiers sometimes sound more "powerful" than their SS counterpart with the same rated output. Below clipping some folks say that SS and tube amps sound pretty much the same. 
   
  EDIT: Generally, you are correct. The distortion products of tube amplifiers is of the type that is more pleasing to the ear, even below clipping. However, it is generally low enough in level and less impacting of sound quality versus clipping.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Within the Head-Fi community, I think this is an excellent link as it compares amplifiers and headphone synergies: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/521988/amp-a-b-comparisons. The OP specifically states it is NOT a scientific test, but his listening results with different amplifiers of various levels, cost and otherwise, points to a similar direction the article PROG ROCK MAN (PRM) posted (excellent article by the way!) I believe I recall seeing this one. PRM, do you have the source of this article, where and when it was posted? Thanks!.


----------



## Prog Rock Man

The article was apparently originally published in Jan 1987 in Stereo Review.
   
  http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stereo+review+do+all+amplifiers+sound+alike&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
   
  The A - B comparisons thread seems pretty scientific to me.


----------



## Rdr. Seraphim

Thanks PROG ROCK MAN, I was guessing High Fidelity or Stereo Review. The date sounds about right too, based on the pictures of the amps. (I used to sell some of that stuff!)
  
  Quote: 





prog rock man said:


> The article was apparently originally published in Jan 1987 in Stereo Review.
> 
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stereo+review+do+all+amplifiers+sound+alike&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
> 
> The A - B comparisons thread seems pretty scientific to me.


----------



## MrProggie

In Denmark there is a fairly new cable company selling high end, super expensive cables, http://www.zensati.com.
  Several of their cables costs something like 20'000 Euros.
  In the last year they have been revealed to buy their cables cheap from a Taiwanese cable company, Jinwei.
   
  Here's some (badly translated by Google Translate) forum discussions regarding the Zensati cables in Scandinavia:
   
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hifisentralen.no%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D50468.0
   
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nerds.dk%2F%3Fpage%3Dviewtopic%26t%3D5476%26postdays%3D0%26postorder%3Dasc%26start%3D0
   
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hifisentralen.no%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D48024.0
   
  Edit: Corrected Zensati.com address.


----------



## matthewh133

Quote: 





mrproggie said:


> In Denmark there is a fairly new cable company selling high end, super expensive cables, http://www.zensati.com.
> Several of their cables costs something like 20'000 Euros.
> In the last year they have been revealed to buy their cables cheap from a Taiwanese cable company, Jinwei.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Hahaha wow. How would you feel if you had purchased one of these to find out that they came at .0000000000005% of what the company paid for them.


----------



## tmars78

Quote: 





mrproggie said:


> In Denmark there is a fairly new cable company selling high end, super expensive cables, http://www.zensati.com.
> Several of their cables costs something like 20'000 Euros.
> In the last year they have been revealed to buy their cables cheap from a Taiwanese cable company, Jinwei.
> 
> ...


 

 If you think that is funny, from their website:
   
   
 *What does ZenSati mean*?
 The name ZenSati refers to an extensive body of knowledge concerning truthfulness; truthfulness and knowledge in disseminating information between system components, from turntable/CD player to preamplifier to power amplifier to loudspeakers" amplifier to
  
  
  
 *So much for truthfulness.*


----------



## scootermafia

High end cables like that can't really be made by hand.  Someone's gotta make the cable, and chances are, it's going to be the Taiwanese.  Don't act so shocked.  And yeah, don't assume that just because it comes from over there, that it's cheap to make.  
   
  Although...
   
  http://www.hktdc.com/suppliers-products/Speaker-Cable/en/1X00KJIX/1124967/
  and the Zensati #3
  http://zensati.com/pages/products.html
   
  Are remarkably alike.  Lots of money can be saved if you modify existing designs, for sure.


----------



## dxanex

That's awesome, someone deleted my comment. They must have paid 20,000 Euros for their speaker wire. All I'm saying is for that much you could literally feed a starving child in Africa for years.
   
  But then, I suppose that would keep people from experiencing absolute true definitive clarity and the most pristine angelic frequency presence that ever licked your eardrums.


----------



## akart

I think the last sentence should be modified a little bit ...
   
  "But then, I suppose that would keep people from *thinking that they are experiencing* absolute true definitive clarity and the most pristine angelic frequency presence that ever licked your eardrums."
   

  
  Quote: 





dxanex said:


> That's awesome, someone deleted my comment. They must have paid 20,000 Euros for their speaker wire. All I'm saying is for that much you could literally feed a starving child in Africa for years.
> 
> But then, I suppose that would keep people from experiencing absolute true definitive clarity and the most pristine angelic frequency presence that ever licked your eardrums.


----------



## Colin14

I was now doing nicer things.



limpidglitch said:


> That didn't help much.
> 
> Are you the Colin Wonfor of Tellurium Q?


----------



## Greve

Colin Wonfor a friend died on the 2 December.


----------



## Deferenz

Br777 said:


> ive never compared cables in my life, and have no strong opinion on the matter.  I do find it interesting though that so many people argue science as the end all be all, and im not just referring to audio cables.
> 
> in the grand scheme of explaining the endless marvels and wonder in this world.. science has barely scratched the surface, and has a very limited scope.  For any subject you pick its almost certain that science may have missed, or doesnt even know about any number of variables.
> 
> ...




I really like this post. Well said Br777.


----------



## F208Frank (Jul 24, 2020)

Just wanted to chime in with my thoughts:

I do feel that cables are extremely lucrative for the companies that do make them and I do feel they are screwing the end user with ridiculous pricing. I agree with this 100 percent.

For non believers to state so strongly that cables do not make a difference and that it is all being imagined is quite offensive/ignorant. Everyone is subject to their own opinion and I see many non believers say stuff like "Well good for you for imagining the differences, if you want to throw money at snake oil, go ahead."

My own experience is that cables do alter the sound. Speakers, headphones, IEMs all had different sounds with different cables so for these scientists out there claiming I'm "imagining" multiple different scenarios is a but offensive. These are my own experiences.

People tend to stick to their own beliefs no matter right or wrong. Non believers are happily and readily able to show articles of science as to why cables do not matter and then scoff when others report that they do hear an audible difference. I urge folks who are on the fence to try for themselves and to form their own opinion.

If you feel that cables don't matter after trying yourself, all is still good. Big part of the fun in this hobby is the journey of experiencing and trying things for yourself.

At least we can still agree that some headphones/IEMs are awesome.


----------



## dhc0329

F208Frank said:


> Just wanted to chime in with my thoughts:
> 
> I do feel that cables are extremely lucrative for the companies that do make them and I do feel they are screwing the end user with ridiculous pricing. I agree with this 100 percent do not get me wrong.
> 
> ...



I agree about the different cables making difference to IEMs. I'd be lying if I stated otherwise based on my real life experience.


----------

