# Eek... I was a cable believer, until...



## bangraman

When I had a regular amp and I was swapping cables, I was always under the impressions that there were subtle differences in the cable. That is, until I did what I did recently and use the dual-input switching capability of the SRM-007t with the dual 2-channel feature of the Sony SACD players. I chose... you guessed it, Snorah as a test in picking up nuances in the tone. 


 I recently picked up another pair of the $350-ish Nordost Red Dawn interconnects on discount, and I also have two pairs of the $300-ish Atlas Navigator cables. I used them both as 'controls' to see what difference there was between the 2-channel and the front two-channel outputs, found none to speak of, as well as the differences between input 1 and 2 of the SRM-007t. Thus callibrated, I went on to compare cables I have.


 In tests of all the cables I had which did not use sound shaping techniques through additional resistance, I could hear absolutely no difference when doing the A-B switch. There's shock for you. The most dismaying of all was A/Bing between the $300 Atlas Navigator cable, generally regarded as an excellent cable (and which I concurred with until now) and the $5? inclusive cable which came with some piece of equipment. 


 The result? Zero difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






 I was quite horrified and not entirely willing to believe it. But I can't really fault my method of testing. The input switch on the Stax amp is instantaneous and it by far provides the best auditioning platform I've come across. In fact, I actively invite you to pick faults with my testing method because I can't quite believe it myself. I ran out of time comparing, but the Navigator vs Freebie was easily the most shocking test. I will have to run a deeper comparison later but you cannot imagine how depressed I am at the moment. I easily have $2,500 invested in interconnects and... well, this is bad news. 


 I really don't know what to think anymore. Sound through cables can be controlled through resistance and capacitance. However most IC's out there do the job of moving electricity from A to B without mucking about a lot with it. And it seems that the only advantage of more expensive cables seems to be guaranteed standards of construction.


----------



## Ctn

I did my tests similar to yours and my results are similar except I did hear a difference with stock cables (free) and good quality cables ($20-30).


----------



## Steve999

Welcome to the beautiful bright light of the honest truth. It's one of the great joys of life.

 Have a cup of coffee, breathe the fresh air, and move on. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_
 The result? Zero difference 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_


----------



## PinkFloyd

A friend of mine worked for a very well known UK cable manufacturer whose name begins with Q and he reckoned that their "budget" cables had a degree of capacitance, inductance and resistance "built in" to degrade the sound slightly and their higher end cables were left alone (99.999% OFC copper) which made the "higher priced" cables sound better than their "budget cables"

 It could be that the hook up cables that came with your equipment are simply a copper conductor that hasn't been messed around with and will possibly sound better than a cable in the budget / mid range region produced by a cable manufacturer who offers a "range" of cables and on a par with their "high end" flagship.

 I had no reason to doubt his word and it makes a lot of sense for a cable manufacturer to engineer in some crap into their budget cables... slightly less crap into their midrange cables and zero crap into their "high end" cables.

 I can't comment on this, having not duplicated your test Bangraman, but I thought it would be interesting for to you to learn what I was told all those years ago from someone who was actually involved in the process of manufacturing interconnects. 

 Pinkie.


----------



## Kush_

I assume this discussion applies to all cables.
 I find it amazing how people say headphone cables like the Zu, Equinox and Silver Dragon change the sound so drastically. I would've though that all a cable can do it maybe help with a little more detail, not change the sound signature itself?


----------



## fiddler

I'm not entirely convinced about your testing method. I find to appreciate differences in cables you have to do quite a bit of extended listening before swapping over. Very fast A/B switching in my experience doesn't allow the ear enough time to catch all the subtle differences.


----------



## lan

Do you have power conditioning? I find it's easier to detect differences when you have clean power.

 I also don't like swapping back and forth real fast. I think the ear needs a small reset time to readjust.

 Why don't you try these cables on another system?


----------



## meat01

I disagree that fast switching is not a good test. If your ears are good enough to detect a difference, then your ears should be good enough to detect it right away. If you have to strain or really grasp to detect a difference, then you are spending too much time listening to your equipment and not enjoying the music. Then again if there is a difference, how great is it? Is $350 worth that extra .0001% difference? Only you can determine that.


----------



## fiddler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_I disagree that fast switching is not a good test. If your ears are good enough to detect a difference, then your ears should be good enough to detect it right away._

 

My ears are good enough to detect a difference, and I find it's easier to do so when say, listening to a track using one cable, then listening to the exact same track with another. *shrug* whatever works best for you....


----------



## halcyon

This thread has a high potential of turning into another one of those "I believe, you don't. Let's fight!" threads that will likely turn ugly really quickly 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Let's assume some ground rules:

 1) Map is not terrain i.e. measurements are not listening. If you can't find measurement differences, but can hear differences, it doesn't guarantee that the listening results are wrong (or vice versa). This is a basic philosophy of science principle.

 2) Hearing is experiental, subjective and evolving. What you hear today is gone tomorrow (for a while). What you didn't hear yesterday, you hear today. What your friend hears, you may not (and vice versa). Your hearing learns to detect things to a finer degree as it is attuned to the same signal for longer durations. This is a basic psychoacoustic finding.

 3) All senses adapt and mask difference (our senses are difference detecting categorisation engines). The quick ABX test is one of the most notoriously misunderstood for finding very subtle audible differences between two auditory signals. Why? Because hearing adapts to smaller difference tresholds really fast and diminishes them, (probably) in order to cut down higher order cognitive recognition task (i.e. attention loading issue relevant for survival). This can be easily seen in brain imaging by diminishing of the early auditory evoked potentials. In short, the more you switch, the less you notice. This is a basic neurology finding, most people just aren't aware of it.

 So, without trying to fully refute the original findings or take a silly stance like "Of course all cables have audible differences" - I will nevertheless say this:

 Some people will hear differences, some people will not. Some believe in them, some don't.

 But to make anyt universal claims from one's one subjective (usu. one time) findings is not only impossible, but also probably counterproductive. Claims usually just arouse a flame war 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions about whether the difference is there and whether it has any useful meanig. But let's just remember that they are merely opinions and not final truth that all must adhere to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 regards,
 Halcyon

 PS I've listened to ICs, speakers cables, identically measuring amps both in double-blind (ABX) as well as blind and open (ABC HR) settings. Sometimes I hear differences, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think they (differences) are at least interesting, sometimes I think they are totally uselss to be bothered with. The important thing is to listen and learn, imho.


----------



## Steve999

While I disagree strongly with the gist of your post (in my view, whether cables make a difference, except for those with intentional manipulations of resistance, etc., is not an open question -- within reasonable design parameters, they make no difference at all), this point of yours is very interesting and very consistent with my experience. This is something I didn't know and I thank you for your post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *halcyon* 
_3) All senses adapt and mask difference (our senses are difference detecting categorisation engines). The quick ABX test is one of the most notoriously misunderstood for finding very subtle audible differences between two auditory signals. Why? Because hearing adapts to smaller difference tresholds really fast and diminishes them, (probably) in order to cut down higher order cognitive recognition task (i.e. attention loading issue relevant for survival). This can be easily seen in brain imaging by diminishing of the early auditory evoked potentials. In short, the more you switch, the less you notice. This is a basic neurology finding, most people just aren't aware of it._


----------



## bangraman

Fast switching, not to and fro but after a certain period of listening to one cable for a while then immediately going to another is the best test in my view. As meat01 says, if you can't hear the difference then there is unlikely to be a difference. 


 It doesn't apply to all cables. For example I think I recall the Sennheiser HD600 cable to have a surprisingly high impedance. The Cardas aftermarket cable does make a difference, I'm fairly sure... but how much of the difference is in impedance-adjustment and how much is in the cable itself I don't know. My friend's got rid of his Cardas'd HD600 so I have no way of measuring the resistance of each any more. Anyone care to have a go?


 All the cables I tested measured near zero in impedance. I did not include cables which use resistance to change the sound. I did reject one set of freebie cables as having too high an impedance, and another because there was a significant level of current leakage (probably a 'floating' wire at one of the moulded connectors or a frayed cable internals). So it's absolutely true that cheapie/freebie cables cannot be relied upon. My main point of interest is in the high-end of low-end manufacturers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Profigold/Bandridge for example. The cables are at a level where you have a warranty in the case of problems and they are fundamentally well made, or at least acceptably made. Do you need to go further than this? is, I suppose, my main focus now. Do you need to spend more than $50 or so? is the question. In the light of what I'm finding, DIY cables at very reasonable prices like Fiddler's present a fantastic opportunity in my view. 


 However, I find it difficult to accept that manufacturers will intentionally cripple cables, especially low-end ones, although I did find that both the IXOS and QED mini-> RCA cables exhibited very very slightly worse electrical traits than the Profigold mini->RCA cable (all about the same price). The QED cable was in addition wired back to front, but this was easily corrected as the QED RCA plugs have rubber rings as colour coding which can be easily slipped off and re-mounted. 


 My home features partially clean power, and the audio equipment is being powered off the shielded ring with conditioned / regenerated power. During the tests I unplugged everything else that was on the same ring. The conditioning / regeneration wasn't installed with audio in mind, but in order to protect other sensitive instrumentation, which it does. I only have two 'proper' power cables right now, both of which are in use, one of which is by the SACD player. I'm having another one made up which will be attached to the Stax amp. In any case even with a standard IEC cable I'm willing to bet that the supply is cleaner than most of your set-ups. Nevertheless, I'm going to run the tests once again when I have the replacement IEC cable for the SRM-007t. This will be a continuous thing. 


 Halcyon, I fully take your point. What and why I'm posting is that for the first time I've had potentially the most controlled testing environment that's been available to me (and I suspect most others on Head-Fi) and the lack of a difference both surprised and dismayed, especially given that I thought I could hear a difference between the same cables on previous occasions when there's been a break in the listening to unplug and replace the cables.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_Fast switching, not to and fro but after a certain period of listening to one cable for a while then immediately going to another is the best test in my view. As meat01 says, if you can't hear the difference then there is unlikely to be a difference. 


 It doesn't apply to all cables. For example I think I recall the Sennheiser HD600 cable to have a surprisingly high impedance. The Cardas aftermarket cable does make a difference, I'm fairly sure... but how much of the difference is in impedance-adjustment and how much is in the cable itself I don't know. My friend's got rid of his Cardas'd HD600 so I have no way of measuring the resistance of each any more. Anyone care to have a go?


 All the cables I tested measured near zero in impedance. I did not include cables which use resistance to change the sound. I did reject one set of freebie cables as having too high an impedance, and another because there was a significant level of current leakage (probably a 'floating' wire at one of the moulded connectors or a frayed cable internals). So it's absolutely true that cheapie/freebie cables cannot be relied upon. My main point of interest is in the high-end of low-end manufacturers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Profigold/Bandridge for example. The cables are at a level where you have a warranty in the case of problems and they are fundamentally well made, or at least acceptably made. Do you need to go further than this? is, I suppose, my main focus now. Do you need to spend more than $50 or so? is the question. In the light of what I'm finding, DIY cables at very reasonable prices like Fiddler's present a fantastic opportunity in my view. 


 However, I find it difficult to accept that manufacturers will intentionally cripple cables, especially low-end ones, although I did find that both the IXOS and QED mini-> RCA cables exhibited very very slightly worse electrical traits than the Profigold mini->RCA cable (all about the same price). The QED cable was in addition wired back to front, but this was easily corrected as the QED RCA plugs have rubber rings as colour coding which can be easily slipped off and re-mounted. 


 My home features partially clean power, and the audio equipment is being powered off the shielded ring with regenerated power. During the tests I unplugged everything else that was on the same ring. The regeneration wasn't installed with audio in mind, but in order to protect other sensitive instrumentation, which it does. I only have two 'proper' power cables right now, both of which are in use, one of which is by the SACD player. I'm having another one made up which will be attached to the Stax amp. In any case even with a standard IEC cable I'm willing to bet that the supply is cleaner than most of your set-ups. Nevertheless, I'm going to run the tests once again when I have the replacement IEC cable for the SRM-007t. This will be a continuous thing. 


 Halcyon, I fully take your point. What and why I'm posting is that for the first time I've had potentially the most controlled testing environment that's been available to me (and I suspect most others on Head-Fi) and the lack of a difference both surprised and dismayed, especially given that I thought I could hear a difference between the same cables on previous occasions when there's been a break in the listening to unplug and replace the cables._

 

Try making up some of this Bangraman, all the parts are available from Maplins and you can have an extremely good cable for very little cost http://www.rock-grotto.co.uk/x-silver.htm


----------



## fiddler

Quote:


 All the cables I tested measured near zero in impedance. I did not include cables which use resistance to change the sound. I did reject one set of freebie cables as having too high an impedance, and another because there was a significant level of current leakage (probably a 'floating' wire at one of the moulded connectors or a frayed cable internals). 
 

It should be noted that there is a significant difference between resistance and impedance. DC resistance is what you're testing when you probe it with your average multimeter, and it isn't a particularly good useful measure of seeing how good a cable is. A multimeter isn't going to tell you anything important about a cable. As a matter of fact, resistance is pretty much UNIMPORTANT in the low-level audio you deal with in interconnects, while it is more of a concern in speaker cables. This is why good speaker cables tend to be thick (lowers resistance), while many good interconnect cables can be made to be very thin (those Nordosts you have there Bangra are a good example of this). Often you'll see cables marked as "75 ohms characteristic impedance" and this is actually a calculated value based on inductance, resistance and capacitance-- digital cables, for example, require an exact characteristic impedance to for optimal signal transfer. I believe characteristic impedance to be not of concern for analog audio... but then again eric343 is going to disagree with me on that point so I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## bangraman

I stand corrected... I should have phrased it more succinctly. Please note that resistance and impedance were used interchangeably in my post and should stand for the electrical resistance measured over the cable run. Too much headphoning is what I blame for this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It was simply meant to exclude cables which do use resistance to 'add/subtract' something to the sound. I could run tests with TDR's and so forth but this was a simple case of elimination.


----------



## radrd

Welcome to my world. 

 I did the exact same test you did with some cables that were supposed to sound very different from one another (Nites/$100 silvers) and they sounded exactly the same. I tried fast switching and I tried slow switching. It didn't matter, there was no difference. I now don't believe that expensive interconnects hold any value for me. Maybe someone with golden ears can hear the difference, but not this sucker.

 Two different people told me I should upgrade my gear in order to hear the difference.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* 
_Do you have power conditioning? I find it's easier to detect differences when you have clean power.

 I also don't like swapping back and forth real fast. I think the ear needs a small reset time to readjust.

 Why don't you try these cables on another system?_

 

Yes, power helps and hurts.

 I don't agree with letting your ears rest. By then you have to rely on your short term memory, and then it's more perception by then. It does help to do both. But if I had to pick one, I'd go for the rapid switch method.

 -Ed


----------



## greenhorn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_...you cannot imagine how depressed I am at the moment. I easily have $2,500 invested in interconnects and... well, this is bad news._

 

Hey, bangraman... if this helps... I am ready to replace you all that stuff with... _(...drums...) **brand**_ _(yeah!)_ **new** _(wow!)_ **stock** _(cool!)_ **cables** - for free!!!

 I'll even go the extra mile and pay for both my and your shipping costs.

 'coz I'm a nice guy.


----------



## Ctn

I think Rapid switching is the best method.
 The brain is good at noticing instant changes. The brain has very bad fuzzy memory.

 Finally a few people actually have the same findings as me *SHOCK HORROR* 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=70105

  Quote:


 Do you have power conditioning? I find it's easier to detect differences when you have clean power. 
 

I do have very clean power from what I can tell.

  Quote:


 I also don't like swapping back and forth real fast. I think the ear needs a small reset time to readjust. 
 

I disagree here. I think if you let the ears/brain adjust, you'll memory of what the sound is goes all fuzzy/blured. The longer you listen to the current cable, the more your memory of the previous cable goes all fuzzy and the more likely you will "hear" the difference. Assuming our brain acts like a nn.

 Rapid switching (say 5secs each) keeps both memory relatively "current".

  Quote:


 Two different people told me I should upgrade my gear in order to hear the difference. 
 

Me too. I'm thinking my gear is way better than yours buddy.


----------



## ampgalore

The only way to scientifically test this is by performing a double blind test. However, since this method of testing is not allowed here, rapid switching will have to do.

 I am actually quite glad to hear that there is no detectable sonic difference between good quality cables and more exorbitantly priced ones. As this further strengthed my conviction that I will never spend a couple hundred dollars on cables.


----------



## ampgalore

And come to think of it, electrons are electrons, conductors are conductors, once you reach a certain point of good quality, what else can you possibly gain? They are basic conductors after all.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* 
_I don't agree with letting your ears rest. By then you have to rely on your short term memory, and then it's more perception by then._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ctn* 
_I disagree here. I think if you let the ears/brain adjust, you'll memory of what the sound is goes all fuzzy/blured. The longer you listen to the current cable, the more your memory of the previous cable goes all fuzzy and the more likely you will "hear" the difference. Assuming our brain acts like a nn._

 

I guess our methodology and reliance on memory works different. I don't need to swap back and forth between pizzas (or sex partners 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) to determine which one was better. Hearing is just another experience and the cable which is better to my ears will sound more natural. Swapping back and forth too fast is unnatural experience. You can't get used to any of the gear.


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* 
_I guess our methodology and reliance on memory works different. I don't need to swap back and forth between pizzas (or sex partners 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) to determine which one was better. Hearing is just another experience and the cable which is better to my ears will sound more natural. Swapping back and forth too fast is unnatural experience. You can't get used to any of the gear._

 

You could always get used to the gear first, then perform the tests later.


----------



## Ctn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* 
_I guess our methodology and reliance on memory works different. I don't need to swap back and forth between pizzas (or sex partners 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) to determine which one was better. Hearing is just another experience and the cable which is better to my ears will sound more natural. Swapping back and forth too fast is unnatural experience. You can't get used to any of the gear._

 

It's how we detect changes. It's like trying to detech small changes in the different tiff pictures. It's very hard to look at a pic for 10mins then switch pics then find the changes and repeat. It's easier to detect the changes if you rapidly switch. The changes will emerge out of how our brain work.

 I guess our methods are different.

 You dont let someone inflict 10 mins of pain on you before you go ouch ? hehe jk.


----------



## Ctn

Eep cant resist....bad ctn !

 You'll probably wont live long if you did rapid switching test for sex partners :>


----------



## gpalmer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ctn* 
_You'll probably wont live long if you did rapid switching test for sex partners :>_

 

Although I've seen movies like that...


----------



## Ctn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gpalmer* 
_Although I've seen movies like that... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I cant believe you said that, Im in stiches atm.


----------



## Calanctus

If you look at how professional audio reviewers (yes, there are a few really good ones, among all the chaff) review gear, you will notice that they typically spend days or weeks with a component before making a judgement as to whether they really like the sound. 

 Why would they do this, I wondered? Then I tried the process with 2 different preamps, one tube and one solid state. The quickest I could do the switching was about 5 minutes, and the results were very inconclusive. I just couldn't really decide which one I liked better.

 So I left the tube preamp in my system for weeks, listened to a lot of stuff, and eventually switched back to the SS preamp. Result: NOW I could immediately hear a difference. (The tube gear is up for sale; I'm keeping the SS preamp). 

 I'm not sure exactly what neurological or psychological process is at work here, but I know what I heard. You can say "You should hear this, you should hear that", etc. etc. all you want, but the facts are that prolonged auditioning showed differences that quick switching failed to do.

 yes, all the other disclaimers apply as well: You have to have a good enough system to show differences, good power, good recordings that you are very familiar with, etc., but time does make a difference. 

 This is not to say that I CANNOT hear differences with quick switching--sometimes I can--but the results are far more satisfying to me with a prolonged audition.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fewtch* 
_You could always get used to the gear first, then perform the tests later._

 

What I'm saying is that you can't switch too fast since your ear/brain needs some time to readjust to the swap. That getting used to is like spending a few minutes with each cable before swapping. It doesn't really matter if you spent a few hours before hand getting to know the equipment. Any comparision gets lost in that inital transition period.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ctn* 
_It's how we detect changes. It's like trying to detech small changes in the different tiff pictures. It's very hard to look at a pic for 10mins then switch pics then find the changes and repeat. It's easier to detect the changes if you rapidly switch. The changes will emerge out of how our brain work.

 I guess our methods are different.

 You dont let someone inflict 10 mins of pain on you before you go ouch ? hehe jk._

 

I don't consider sight the same as some of the other senses because taste, touch, and hearing can be related to pleasurable experiences. For comparing pics, going back and forth quickly is the preferred method. For things that are experiences, which are more analagous to taste, touch, and hearing, switching too fast doesn't work in my view.

 Take bike riding. The transition period is like mounting the bike. There's no way you can make a good comparision just in that time frame. You have to ride the bike around for a little.

 Take beer comparision. Going back and forth between 2 beers will ruin the taste of each. You won't be able to appreciate each in its entirety.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ampgalore* 
_And come to think of it, electrons are electrons, conductors are conductors, once you reach a certain point of good quality, what else can you possibly gain? They are basic conductors after all._

 

You gain the placebo effect from looking at the funky, uber expensive cable you've just bought and Kudos from other head-fiers when you tell them how much it cost.. that can go a long way to make something sound good and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## halcyon

I must clarify few points.

 First of all, Bangraman, thank you for your contributions. I should have said this the first time, but better late than never...

 Just as it is difficult to admit to having heard differences between cables in a forum where nobody believes in such differences, it is likewise difficult to admit having NOT heard differences in a forum where many people rave poetically about the differences. You have done the latter and I respect and admire your pursuit of personal truth and honesty.

 I have also personally battled with this question for some years now. I was initially a very strict cable disbeliever. After having studied some basic electrical pinciples about audio cables, I was even more so.

 However, after having studies psychoacoustics and having read up on listening studies that contradict what measurements would make you think about cables... I'm now a doubter rather than a disbeliever.

 I can't claim universal "no differences" nor can I claim "yes, differences are abundant, just listen to them!".

 I have personally taken part in both IC and speaker cable blind listening tests. Sometimes I have heard absolutely no difference between an entry level good cable (i.e. 250 USD) and a zip cord. Sometimes I've heard a difference and not only have I heard it, but I've heard it under blind conditions and my impressions have correlated almost 100% with other listeners in the blind test (I say almost 100%, because no two listeners have identical vocabulary to describe auditory experiences).

 For me, the differences, when they've been audible, have been very slightly audible and more to do with imaging/soundstage/placement issues or apparent roughness/microdynamism of the sound, rather than high-end/low-end extension/sibilance.

 Can I honestly say that I could always reliably differentiate between a zip cord and a higher priced cable that I have once been able to distinguish sonically?

 No, I can't.

 The differences are so subtle for me personally that not only do I have to absolutely believe in my ability to hear differences, I'd also have to listen like a machine.

 Now the first point is important: If you don't believe in the _possibility_ of differences, it makes very little sense to conduct any tests to begin with. This would just be a null test. While a good test methodology can rule out results where people are imagining differences, there is no test methodology available that can correct for not hearing differences that are already there. If you don't even believe in the possibility, you're not going to hear them in the first place, even if they are there (basic psychological test procedure).

 As for listening like a machine - unfortunately, hearing is not a machine. 

 For example, it is well known in the audiology (hearing measurement/diagnosis) community that the above 11 kHz hearing sensitivity can be as much as 15-30 dB off depending on the test day (same test subject, same controls, same test signals, etc).

 Also, it is well known from both neurological testing and psychophysical testing that senses adapt to unchanging or slightly differing signals rapidly over time.

 This means that the initial differences even if audible, quickly become inaudible, untill we get a new baseline for our echoic memory to which new incoming sounds are compared to.

 Our sense are, after all, difference engines: they calculate (if you accept the computing analogy) differences to previous temporal signals. 

 There are no absolute baseline reference signals that we can always detect accurately under all conditions. What we hear, is based on the previous sounds we heard just previously (effect on echoic memory) AND what kind of high level schemas (categorisation imprints) and long term auditory memories we have learned.

 So, listening experience is a combination of what you heard just before (short term memory, to simplify the memory model here for the sake of discussion) + what you've heard/scrutinised all throughout your life (long term auditory memory). Of course hereditary, occupational, disease and anatomical features play into this as well.

 So, to make a long story shorter: to be able to hear really small differences every single time they are played back to me, I should be able to function like a machine (in a repeatable/consistent manner). Unfortunately, hearing doesn't function like this. It's (likely) impossible to make it function like this.

 The echoic memory / adaptation of senses -part is the reason why quick switching is often detrimental to detecting very small impairments between two audio signals.

 You can test this for yourself, if you don't believe me.

 Find a large enough difference that you can detect between two signals in a normal ABX setup.

 Then try doing 100 repeats of listening and see your accuracy scrore drop as a function of number of repeats.

 Two factors come to play here: sensory adaptation and attention control. The sensory adaptation you can't control, unless you listen to say, white noise/silence between tests (i.e. neutralize the baseline). The attention is something that one can learn to control, but is very hard for most humans on repetitive tasks.

 Also, it should be noted that quick switching is just a way to switch between test signals.

 It doesn't automatically include/exclude ABX.

 ABX is a way of trying to identify X as test signal A or B.

 It can be done with very rapid back-and-forth switching (often detrimental in small differences, esp. as the number of switches goes up).

 ... OR it can be done with "slow switching": listen to A for week, listen to B for week, listen to X for week and the push the button to indicate that X was either A or B. Take three weeks off and repeat.

 For small signals, the neurological and psyhochological literature implies that "slow switching" could be in many cases much more useful method to find really small differences among signals.

 Now the last point: if the differences are so small that one can only hear them every now and then and even then they are not huge - does it really make any sense to be bothered about them?

 I think this last point is highly subjective, this is a hobby after all.

 If it was my job, of course I wouldn't be bothered about it, unless the success of the job dependent on that very last 1% of performance (it rarely does, in my experience).

 However, as it's a hobby and an exercise to learn more about sounds, equipment and my own hearing, I personally remain intrigued about the potential differences, even when I think I hear them, but am not convinced if they really are there or not.

 best regards,
 halcyon


----------



## meat01

Whether one thinks there is a difference or not, I am impressed that this forum can have mature, respectful discussions about the subject.


----------



## Steve999

Awesome post Halcyon, thanks. Great reading. What you say lines up in many ways with my experience.


----------



## Steve999

Yeah, I have to give the dude who runs the place a lot of credit (even though I don't share his views). 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_Whether one thinks there is a difference or not, I am impressed that this forum can have mature, respectful discussions about the subject. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_


----------



## bangraman

Let me outline the testing procedure so you guys fully get what I'm doing.


 There was no back and forth evaluation. Going back and forth in a beer tasting will not be effective, but going from one beer to another ONCE will immediately highlight any taste differences. Gargle with water, have a rest, repeat. That's exactly the approach I took to this cable testing. Secondly, I inserted a high degree of control in the test so that I have dependable results. 


 The Set-up:
 I was trying to use the XA777ES but I have problems with it, so I used the Sony SCD-XA333ES SACD player primarily for testing. This is pretty cheap in rarefied hi-fi senses ($1,600 USD equivalent TSP in the UK early last year) but effective. It has multichannel analog outs and also 2-channel outs. The front two channels are active at the same time as the 2-channel outs in redbook playback. I hooked up the front two channels and the 2-channel outputs to the two inputs of the Stax SRM-007t amp. The SRM-007t has an input selector switch on the front panel which allows pop-free, gapless switching between the two inputs. A Stax SR-007 Omega II phone was connected to the amp. 


 The controls were two pairs of Nordost Red Dawn 1m and Atlas Navigator 1m. These were in turn hooked up between the player/amp and tested using the technique below. No difference between the two outputs of the Sony and the input switches of the Stax being apparent, I started the testing. 


 Testing involved various tracks of Norah Jones' Come Away With Me. While not the best recording, I know it well (I actually had it before it became a hit) and the relatively sparse arrangements make it easy to concentrate on voice, piano and incidental instruments in that order. I didn't listen for extension changes because I though that would be pointless. What I did listen for was attributes frequently mentioned in cable reviews: Staging and texture. One track was listened to until around half way to three quarters, and then the input was switched. There was a brief break, then the test was repeated but the other way. For practical reasons I took a break between evaluations. However the comparison between the two interconnects under test were always conducted in the same way. 


 Cables concentrated upon in my last two tests were:
 Atlas Navigator All Cu 1m ($400)
 Nordost Red Dawn 1m ($350)
 Atlas Navigator 1m ($280)
 Profigold PGA4201 1m ($25)
 Stock cable 1m? ($?)


 Most specifically the test was set up to highlight differences between the higher end cables with the Profigold and stock cables. I could not however tell any difference between any of them. It was not even a 'maybe I heard something?' doubt. They all sounded the same. 


 To re-cap, the above set-up gave me the ability to instantaneously switch between two sets of interconnects being fed from the same source (as referred to in control test) without a break in the sound. This is the first time I've had this capability. 


 I understand the phenomena you're referring to, but everything else I have encountered in audio has resulted in a discernible change in a rapid-switch (not a to/fro but a single switch) situation, and not once have I had need to resort to mentioning variances in hearing, etc. I would question why in cables I have to make special allowances. 


 Previously when evaluating cables, for me at least there has been a lengthy delay while I unplug/re-plug the interconnect then start playback again. I would say that it is far more possible for psychoacoustic errors/assumptions to creep in with this method of evaluation. I repeated the tests using this method as well, from both outputs of the Sony. This time I could not be sure. Rapid switching is undoubtedly a more accurate method of detecting change since the ear does not have sufficient time to re-calibrate. 


 Or, the differences may indeed be there but be too small to make out. In either case I am still left questioning the value of even mid-priced cables such as the Red Dawns.


----------



## Ctn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* 
_I don't consider sight the same as some of the other senses because taste, touch, and hearing can be related to pleasurable experiences. For comparing pics, going back and forth quickly is the preferred method. For things that are experiences, which are more analagous to taste, touch, and hearing, switching too fast doesn't work in my view.

 Take bike riding. The transition period is like mounting the bike. There's no way you can make a good comparision just in that time frame. You have to ride the bike around for a little.

 Take beer comparision. Going back and forth between 2 beers will ruin the taste of each. You won't be able to appreciate each in its entirety._

 

I dont agree with your testing methods. Bike riding, wine, beer, food are easily differentiable because of the huge differences. It's like looking at the color red then comming back a week later and comparing it to the color blue. I mean c'mon...

 If you take touch, I rather quickly switch between the surfaces to test for temp differnces(esp when they are small differences) than spend a long while on each. Sight/hearing you have pretty much ruled out. Another example is taste, well how do you differentiate which is slightly hotter(in terms of chilli hot)? or if one is sweeter? or salty'r? again the same reason as the previous.

 Your method works if the difference is big. But if it's small, you will be relying alot on blurred human memory.

 I hope you wont take any offence but these are my views on the matter.

 This is pointless and will most likely turn into a heated argument lol.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_You gain the placebo effect from looking at the funky, uber expensive cable you've just bought and Kudos from other head-fiers when you tell them how much it cost.. that can go a long way to make something sound good and there's nothing wrong with that._

 

I take it you wipe your butt with dollar bills then? I'd rather not pay hundreds of dollars for shiny sugar pills.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_Or, the differences may indeed be there but be too small to make out. In either case I am still left questioning the value of even mid-priced cables such as the Red Dawns._

 

Put the cheap cables in your system. Keep them there. Listen to nothing but them for weeks. If you're completely satisfied with the sound, sell the expensive cables. If you've got any doubts, or think that for some reason you're not getting the satisfaction out of your system that you got previously, try the expensive cables again. If you're still dissatisfied, at least you can sell the expensive cables to raise money to buy the new amp or headphone that will solve the problem


----------



## Howie

Personally, I'm very tired of all those "prove that cables make a difference" threads. There's really no point in arguing. How many of us would change our minds about cables based on what someone here or elsewhere have said?

 In any case, I agree with Hirsch. If you really don't hear a difference between cables, use the cheapest cables and sell all others. It makes absolutely no sense for you to use anything else. But if you do hear differences, and by that I mean good differences, it'll then be about how much the improvements are worth to you. I think it's pretty simple. Really no need to "prove" anything. It's all about enjoyment of music.


----------



## setmenu

Oh fun fun fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I did carry out bangramans test a while back, with similar results.
 But this was during my selection process for the perfect cable.
 At the time all cable differences were quite distinctive.
 I made my selection [Siltech 4/120] and have been as happy as a pig in mud since. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But that past 'test result' has always nagged at me.
 Back then I was more of a subjective consumer.
 But since having had experience building stuff ,where one often has to make
 do with temporary lash ups with what ever happens to be laying about,I have
 noted that the odd bit of nasty wire here and there has not been 'the end of audio nirvana'.

 This morning I revisited bangramans test, again with similar results.
 Not ideal conditions mind, background cooling fans and some small effects
 from a head cold.
 I tried cables separately.
 I tried switching between the parallel pairs during a passage of music.
 I tried switching at the beginning of the passage,replaying the section each
 time.
 I did get an impression of some variability in the sound, but not enough to 
 suit my own 'positive' criterion of the day.

 This is in marked contrast to the memory of my original auditions 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I suspect when I am in the market for some more cables my 'ear' will return.

 But for now, for me, it seems blue cables sound the best 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Which is very handy indeed!
 As the Riken resistors I have ordered for my little dac passive I/V conversion stage, happen to have blue bodies also 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Perhaps the truth is that most if not all audio kit sounds just 'so so' and that
 fine quality is actually something the listener first need to bestow upon it,
 with guidance by the high priests of hifi, naturaly.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I am sure everyone here has had days when their kit sounds 'not so good'..


 Judging by the number of 'these' threads I have been reading of late,
 perhaps we need a 'Metaphysics of audio reproduction' forum 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 Setmenu


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_Testing involved various tracks of Norah Jones' Come Away With Me. While not the best recording, I know it well (I actually had it before it became a hit) and the relatively sparse arrangements make it easy to concentrate on voice, piano and incidental instruments in that order.

 I didn't listen for extension changes because I though that would be pointless. What I did listen for was attributes frequently mentioned in cable reviews: Staging and texture._

 

While I like the album and think agree the importance to test with a CD you know well. I am not sure if that particular CD is the best choice for testing.

 Have your also tried a CD with good cymbal texture, and something with good tight defined bass too but more importantly, a well recorded CD.


----------



## bangraman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Put the cheap cables in your system. Keep them there. Listen to nothing but them for weeks. If you're completely satisfied with the sound, sell the expensive cables. If you've got any doubts, or think that for some reason you're not getting the satisfaction out of your system that you got previously, try the expensive cables again. If you're still dissatisfied, at least you can sell the expensive cables to raise money to buy the new amp or headphone that will solve the problem 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 And in the meanwhile, yes... it's my intention to stick the Profigolds in there for a while, use the XA333ES more regularly with it connected to the SRM-007, then one day switch over to one of the other cables. I need another interconnect in any case, as well as a couple of balanced ones so I was thinking of a Siltech FTM-4 Sg. It's blue (thanks setmenu 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) and it's definitely a high-end cable with a proven pedigree. What I'll probably do is to burn it in on one of my other decks, then one day stick it on the XA333ES/SRM-007 combination test set-up. I'm half of the mind that so many people cannot be delusional, yet half of the mind that the test results are worrying in the extreme. If the tests once again reveal nothing, then I'll just stop buying things more expensive than a Profigold.


----------



## halcyon

Btw, the Profigold cables are really good IMHO. They actually have a working shielding (seen measurements), good clamping on the RCA and very good price!

 I also use them myself on some gear.

 BTW, if you want some other cables you want to consider and are willing to consider expensive ones, get a loaner pair from Empirical Audio (www.empiricalaudio.com). Their cables measure really nicely and people seem to recommend them highly. Unlike many other makers, they actually provide all the relevant measurement data for their cables and they don't hide behing mountains of pseudo-science. The main engineer is a retired ex-Intel analog designer and does tailored mods to components also.

 I'd really like to hear somebody's comments in the headphone community about Empirical audio cables, esp. compared against ordinary/good cables like Profigold.

 Best regards,
 Halcyon


----------



## bangraman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taoster* 
_While I like the album and think agree the importance to test with a CD you know well. I am not sure if that particular CD is the best choice for testing.

 Have your also tried a CD with good cymbal texture, and something with good tight defined bass too but more importantly, a well recorded CD._

 


 The biggest problem with trying another CD (and yes, why not next time) was that as I mentioned, there wasn't even a slight doubt in the back of my mind about the differences. See, if I undertook the test once again (as I did) by the standard method of unplug & replug, then I could not say with a 100% certainty that the cables sounded the same. Yet by this seamless switch test, I could say with 100% certainty that for example the $25 Profigold sounded totally identical to the $280 Atlas Navigator. 


 I've to date had no problems hearing differences between sources, amps and phones by simialar switch tests, and this is actually the very first time that I've subjected cables to such testing. 


 The Navigator was my favourite cable and until a few day ago I thought it was the best bang for the buck in terms of transparency. And as I said, recently is the first time that I've gone to the lengths I have to test cables. And I was _expecting_ to hear a difference, which brings to mind the placebo effect but that seems moot as I did not hear _any_ difference... which did profoundly shock me. My impressions had to date been made up by unplug & replug testing, which I will table as intrinsically less accurate than immediate switch A->B (Not A <-> B) testing.


 Anyway, I'll keep you guys informed on how I progress. This is not a one-off thing and I do plan to evaluate the cables over a longer period now that I have a suitable test rig.


----------



## Dane

I really admire your courage, bangraman.

 Years back, when I bought my main rig, I had a similar experience. I was obviously in contact with several shops in order to get the best deal and inevitably the cable question came up. Shop A basically told me that it would be criminal not to get these expensive cables with the units I had in mind so I borrowed the cables home together with other units and stuff from other shops. Shop B told me that as long as the cables were made of good quality, properly shielded wires ($20 bucks or less per m brings you there) and had good quality plugs it didn't matter. In fact they said that I could just build them myself or they would do it for me. So there I sat, back home, with both the massively expensive Shop A cables (which were ridiculesly thick and had black boxes mounted) and this cheap'o cable that Shop B had soldered up for me while I watched, both cables hooked up. From the remote I could switch between the two cables and I could hear absolutely no difference at all. It is my luck (and my wallet's) that the amp and CD player allowed this rapid switch.

 Given how Shop A had tried to make me spend all this money on something I didn't need (I was clearly a newb), I lost all respect for them. Needless to say I buoght everything from Shop B and have been a happy returning customer ever since.

 The other day, inspired by some of the threads here, I built an IC out of a regular lamp cord mounted with good quality switchcraft plugs. Then I did the test again thinking that me being more used to good quality audio now would make it easier for me to detect any difference. I couldn't hear any difference between the lamp cord and my usual DIY IC. Still, I have pulled out the unshielded lamp cord in my system because I feel uncomfortable about it - so, there you go, I'm not totally immune 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My advice: Buy more music instead - it'll bring you much more joy than expensive ICs.


----------



## bangraman

Dane, in your situation even I would ask a few questions: Such as did you buy two sets of a different cable to 'control' the results? Do you have clean power? Were you truly able to switch immediately between the two interconnects from the same CD player (i.e. did it have two outputs which were identical sounding with the control cables)? These are questions I would personally have raised if you posted your findings.


 It was just an idle wondering for a while but a few days ago I suddenly realised that I had everything I needed for the ideal relatively low-cost platform which satisfied all the questions _I_ would have raised in a proper switched A -> B test.


----------



## Dane

Sorry for the lack of info, it was merely meant as a note on my personal non-scientific experience on the matter - and to warn other newbs like myself to not get ripped off by cable sellers.
 I didn't buy anything before having tried out the stuff at home - so I borrowed units and cables and what not from several shops (those who wouldn't borrow, too bad - no deal). I do not have power conditioning so that could in theory have masked any differences. I was able to make instant swithing because the player has two set of ouputs, one balanced and one unbalanced. Yes, in theory any soninc difference between these two types of line outs and the cables could have exactly cancled out each other, but I found that highly unlikely. Anyway, this was my personal experience, I can't hear a difference so for me I doesn't matter too much. Adding just one more CD to my collection will, for me, bring much more joy than the elusive improvements brought by ICs.


----------



## bangraman

I suppose for the interest of completeness (and to discount any electrostatic weirdness... perhaps everything is _too_ resolved for me to hear the differences? Although I doubt it) I should do this with a really good dynamic and a preamp/headamp or a headamp with Fiddler's switch. Do I feel another major acquisition coming on? Arrrrrg


----------



## gradofan

Halcyon, your commentary is very insightful. Thanks for teaching me more about hearing works!

 A lot of you have good suggestions for curbing cable madness or testing different cables. I agree with Hirsch -- try different cables for a few weeks. If you can't hear the difference, return them. If one cable sounds better, keep it. I did a blind AB test yesterday between some Monster 300 cable and a "Hirschified" interconnect. The Hirschified won by a narrow margin in the top end. But honestly, the difference wasn't enormous. I have to admit, I'm a sucker for good-looking gear, and the cables he made just look a helluva lot nicer than the monster ICs.

 We all have different goals, different directions we're going with this hobby. Some, like Nik, are searching for the Holy Grail (and he'll probably find it! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). Others just want to improve their systems economically. But we all have one thing in common: music. And if your system communicates the music to you, then all you have left is a few tweaks.

 As a side note, consider what you could do with the money you'd've spent on a $1,000 cable. You're $200 away from a 10-day trip to China. Or you could get 20 bottles of *really* good whiskey. Or a new CDP. Or used PS-1s. Or maybe a laptop like the one I'm using. I guess you should just make sure the difference (assuming you hear one) is worth your money.


----------



## mikeg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fiddler* 
_I'm not entirely convinced about your testing method. I find to appreciate differences in cables you have to do quite a bit of extended listening before swapping over. Very fast A/B switching in my experience doesn't allow the ear enough time to catch all the subtle differences._

 

I agree with this observation. Recently I compared the sound of several amps. driving an MDR-R10 headphone. Quick A/B changes, back and forth, showed little or no difference between them. But, when I listened for a longer period (e.g., 15 minutes) to one amp. before switching to another, very significant differences became apparent. In fact, last night I critically compared my RA-1 amp. to my 300B tube amp., using an HD650, and RS-1. No real difference was apparent when I did quick A/B changes. But, differences in the rendition of background string instruments in a large orchestra became clearly apparent on more prolonged listening to each amplifier. When listening in this way, the RA-1 was clearly inferior to the tube amp. Other significant differences between these amps also became apparent when the comparison was done in this way.


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_. I was able to make instant swithing because the player has two set of ouputs, one balanced and one unbalanced. Yes, in theory any soninc difference between these two types of line outs and the cables could have exactly cancled out each other, but I found that highly unlikely. ._

 

Hi Dane. Did you put the lamp cords in the unbalanced output and your DYI cables on the balanced output?


----------



## mikeg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_I disagree that fast switching is not a good test. If your ears are good enough to detect a difference, then your ears should be good enough to detect it right away. If you have to strain or really grasp to detect a difference, then you are spending too much time listening to your equipment and not enjoying the music. Then again if there is a difference, how great is it? Is $350 worth that extra .0001% difference? Only you can determine that._

 

I found that the differences are fairly subtle; e.g., space between background instruments of an orchestra, clarity in the presentation of background instruments, width of soundstage, etc. Hearing such differences requires paying real attention to the music, and also requires a bit of time. Trying to compare "bursts of sound" in quick A/B flipping back and forth does highlight these differences. I did some of these comparisons while listening to large choral works by Bach and Handel. BTW, my comparisons were of amps. and not cables, although the testing procedure should also apply equally to cables.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Welcome to my world. 

 I did the exact same test you did with some cables that were supposed to sound very different from one another (Nites/$100 silvers) and they sounded exactly the same. I tried fast switching and I tried slow switching. It didn't matter, there was no difference. I now don't believe that expensive interconnects hold any value for me. Maybe someone with golden ears can hear the difference, but not this sucker._

 

I believe you tried my cables and definitely liked the results, no?


----------



## bangraman

A point of order: Would those of you who DID find differences in cabling please outline your testing methods and power status? I'm interested in whether there's a better way of doing this test.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_A point of order: Would those of you who DID find differences in cabling please outline your testing methods and power status? I'm interested in whether there's a better way of doing this test._

 

When I got my EAD player, and hooked it to the Stax amp, I felt that my electrostatics simply didn't sound good (MIT MI-330 Mk II interconnects). I'm particularly sensitive to the midrange, which has to be right. When I switched to the prototype VD master, I felt as though a veil had been lifted. There was a new level of detail present, and the frequency response was dead on. That's as far as I went. I don't like to screw around once I've got a sound that I want. It may not be scientific, but the results were immediate and obvious, and I've been happy with the sound of that system for several months now. 

 That particular player does not work well with the top Virtual Dynamics power cords. The midrange receeds, and the frequency response becomes distorted. I switched to the K-Works Empowered Cord, and everything fell into place (well, almost. I'd like to bring out the midrange just a tad more, but it's trivial and has been improving with burn-in). Once it sounded right, I stopped. I don't usually feel a need to A/B and figure out what changed. If something sounds right to me, I prefer to leave it alone. If I've got an itch that says I can be getting more out of a particular system, then I experiment, be it interconnects, power cords, or tubes (or power conditioning, or whatever).


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_Hi Dane. Did you put the lamp cords in the unbalanced output and your DYI cables on the balanced output?_

 

Yeah, that's what I did. I have to say though that both cables are really short (25cm). I'm sure that running an unshielded lamp cord over several meters is a very bad idea and could result in audible loss of quality. You can of course always make a difference in cables if there are basic technical flaws and I definitely consider an unshielded lamp cord unsuitable for audio. Perhaps in a more noisy environment than mine the differences would have been evident for me, even with the short 25cm run.

 As a side note: I find it easier to distinguish different souces on a speaker system, could be the case for cables too.


----------



## radrd

Quote:


 I believe you tried my cables and definitely liked the results, no? 
 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did try yours, and they are the *only* cable that I could hear a difference with. I won't lie and say it is a dramatic difference, as I would probably fail a DB test, but it was enough of a difference to justify keeping your cables in my system. The way I understand it, though, there is a sound scientific explanation for me hearing a difference with your cable, as it adds resistance, correct?


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *radrd* 
_Yes, as a matter of fact, I did try yours, and they are the *only* cable that I could hear a difference with. I won't lie and say it is a dramatic difference, as I would probably fail a DB test, but it was enough of a difference to justify keeping your cables in my system. The way I understand it, though, there is a sound scientific explanation for me hearing a difference with your cable, as it adds resistance, correct?_

 

Yes, there is, but to say they improve the sound because they "add resistance" would be quite misleading... they present a purely resistive load to the source, as opposed to the reactive load that all (other) cables present.


----------



## eric343

[double post]


----------



## jatinder

A big problem with connecting the same source (DVD player etc) to the same amp (007t) using two sets of ics is that you probably don't know what effect the two runs of ics has on the amp and on the source.

 Many DVD players will have the front L/R outputs hooked up to the normal (non-surround) L/R outputs. Whether the two are completely isolated - I don't know. Similarly, many amps with more than one input will leak sound or grounding between the various inputs.

 The thing to do is - check that the source and amp both work correctly when connected as you did.

 I did similar tests using my SA-1 - this definitely has two completely independent outputs - unfortunately one is balanced and the other unbalanced. I did and continue to detect, small differences between the various cables that I use. Some of these effects are obvious as soon as you use the cable, other differences you only notice once you've been using the cable for a few weeks and then swap it with another. Who knows - maybe it's just the fact that the connectors have been wiped and tightened during extraction/insertion.

 With the R10, once I've been listening to it for a few minutes - my ears "adjust" and every other headphone that I try imediately after truly sounds "crap". If I listen to those other headphones after a 5 minute break instead, then they sound "good".

 Just rambling.

 --Jatinder


----------



## greenhorn

Is this thread valid not only for interconnects, but also for headphone aftermarket cables?


----------



## greenhorn

Double post... the site behaves in a strange manner these days.


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_As a side note: I find it easier to distinguish different souces on a speaker system, could be the case for cables too._

 

I think it is much harder to hear cable differences through headphones since you have almost no 3D soundstage to judge........this will be one of the main areas of difference you will hear for cables in full stereo.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_That particular player does not work well with the top Virtual Dynamics power cords. The midrange receeds, and the frequency response becomes distorted. I switched to the K-Works Empowered Cord, and everything fell into place (well, almost. I'd like to bring out the midrange just a tad more, but it's trivial and has been improving with burn-in). Once it sounded right, I stopped_

 

We need some impressions posted on old K-Works thread to spread the word on these AC cords........I think originally only AC1 and myself were actively recommending Igor's cable. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*About Cables tests*
 Of course cables don't improve original signal passed through them, they just pass more or less of original signal while always adding some signature/coloration of thier own. I really get little benefit from quick A/B switching of cables, most think (including myself) that the act of handling/switching cables effects thier sound till they settle in again.

 I like to break in cable for a few days then I play 2-3 CDs that I know very well and have played 100s of times with many different cables, I can then best determine how much signal is passing and what coloration is added relative to other cables.


----------



## tortie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *greenhorn* 
_Is this thread valid not only for interconnects, but also for headphone aftermarket cables?_

 

I think this applies for IC's only. Is there anyone here who doesn't hear a difference when it comes to replacement cables? Even fewtch, a long time cable sceptic acknowledges the sonic differences in replacement cables.


----------



## halcyon

As an example, I recently tested cables in a following blind setup:

 All tested speaker cables are laid out on the floor, only the reference cable and one test cable are hooked up at any one time.

 We use a A/B switch comparator manufactured by a professional audiophile and a competent electrical engineer who does audio equipment measurements for living (and builds audio gear).

 The comparator allows the listener to listen to A or B cable. In my setup I didn't know which was reference and which was the test cable. In addition, I didn't know the manufacturer of the test cable.

 This test can also be done so that the listenere knows that A is reference cable (and B is the test cable), but he doesn't know what make the test cable is. Reference is the cable the listener is familiar with. 

 The idea is to describe the cable's differences (if any) verbally in terms of soundstage, extension, control, accuracy, etc.

 Then you listen to your test music you've hopefully used for a long time in many listening sessions using various setups.

 I first listen to the tracks with cable A, then I switch to cable B and listen to them again. I only do one switch. 

 Then I describe my experience with possible differences between the cables (if any) and say which one I prefer subjectively (if there is a difference in my opinion).

 Then another cable is switched in by the person assisting in the testing. This person knows the cables (he sees them when he hooks them up), so it's not a double blind in the sense that the listener/test assistant both don't know the cables.

 For me the most important findings in doing testing like these have been:

 - Don't quick switch back and worth, even if you have a really transparent comparator in use. You might hear differences with the first switch, but if there is a possibility of minor differences, they become inaudible very fast with additional switching. That's how hearing works. You can't change it.

 - Have a reference setup and a cable which you are intimately aware of. You've listened to that for a long time attentively/analytically and also, more leasurely.

 - Use test music that you are very familiar with. My friend uses the same test disc he's used for 7 years now. Being a professional audio reviewer, he hears the same stuff almost every second day during the busiest season and at least a few times a month otherwise.

 - Take breaks if possible. Don't try to do a huge number of comparisons in a row. Spread the test sessions out over a few days and take breaks from listening between tests within one session.

 - Psyche yourself into believing that you are going to hear the differences. You believe in them. If you do ABX, then this kind of psyching cannot distort the results (the methodology itself will remove type 1 errors). However, if you don't believe in your ability, the likelyhood of type 2 errors will shoot up and distort the results.

 Even with above advise, which I can't follow myself always (I don't have a test disc that goes back 7 years for example...), I can only sometimes hear differences. 

 When I say "I hear differences" of course it's faith that there is a difference. For me proof would require ABX with proper statistical analysis of the results, but in a hobby "faith" is sometimes enough (whereas in science it's not as far as end results are concerned).

 When I hear differences and write down my findings, they often correlate very accurately with two other people who do blind listening. Not always though. Most of the time I don't hear differences or I'm so unsure that don't know what to think.

 That's what comes to my mind right now.

 As you can see, I'm still somewhat a cable doubter. I'm willing to test my hearing and try it out, but under normal ABX/quick switch testing I wouldn't probably be able to hear the differences (only tried that once with amplifiers, didn't identify them statistically reliably).

 As such, I remain also doubtful about paying very high prices (myself) for cables, but I'm willing to learn more and doubt my current findings.

 And of course, I wouldn't be so foolish as to extend my own findings to anybody else's hearing or preferences.

 As this is a hobby of sensory enjoyment, so if scientific principles need to be sometimes discarded for enjoyment to happen, then so mote it be


----------



## bangraman

Seems like a good set-up to me. I also agree 100% about the repetitive back-and-forth comparisons... your senses become dulled if there's not much difference. You've got to really go on your feelings with one switch, rest and repeat.


 Regarding Sennheiser cables, I do seem to recall that they are particularly 'blocking' for some reason or another. This could be the reason why people (myself included) hear so much differences between cables. I don't know what the situation regarding AKG cables are, I'm going to find out.


----------



## fredpb

I was a staunch believer in "cable is cable", even with electronics background. 

 I took my cables off my system and brought them to an audio boutique/high end store.

 The salesman was very helpful and I compared my cables (good coax type, with copper braid and center conductor) on HIGH end gear to a few of his Straightwire brand interconnects.

 I figure my hearing about average, or better for my age of 54.

 The differences between my cables and the store ones was positively obvious. No comparison.

 The sound of the $100 Straightwire Encore II's was far superior to anything below it in price. But above this point, the differences were subtle. To me, not worth the increase in price.

 I now use all Encore II's in my system. I am very happy with them. 

 Also did a comparison with Straightwire speaker cable to my 12 gage standard cable. Again, a difference. I got the Straightwire Quartet and biwired my Vandersteen IIC Signatures.

 I am a firm believer that cables do sound different. But there are points of diminishing return.

 But if your equipment does not have the resolution to show the difference, or you can't tell a difference (everyone has different hearing), don't bother with expensive cables. Use what makes you happy.


----------



## Ctn

Quote:


 you can't tell a difference (everyone has different hearing) 
 

Um just because you can't tell the difference, it doesnt mean your hearing sux. It could just be that there isnt a difference in the first place.


----------



## taoster

Here's my thoughts;

 It's *impossible* for two different cable to be the same. The Laws of Physics dictates them to be different! It's impossible to transmit signals from A to B without some form of loss, simple physics, energy is lost. The question is, are these loss/transformation noticeable and within range of hearing of the human(your) ear. That is the mind-boggling question.


----------



## Ctn

Well if you want to take it further. It's impossible to have 2 identical cables


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ctn* 
_Well if you want to take it further. It's impossible to have 2 identical cables _

 

EXACTLY!


----------



## tomek

edit: what's the point. i don't even care anymore.


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tortie* 
_I think this applies for IC's only. Is there anyone here who doesn't hear a difference when it comes to replacement cables? Even fewtch, a long time cable sceptic acknowledges the sonic differences in replacement cables._

 

I acknowledge that I heard a difference, but make no claim about what caused that perception... literally none, because I don't know. I did no rigorous testing (blind/DBT/whatever), just casual switching back and forth.


----------



## wontanamo

what are your opinions about DIY ICs made with pretty good components (e.g., quad star? mic cable, canare mini connectors, homegrown RCA connectors)? Given good soldering skills, are these worth more than sum of their parts?


----------



## vrao81

Bangraman, my advice to you is to sell off all your expensive cables, and use the money you save on beer, weed, and women. And enjoy life 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I am currently using $6 and $11 interconnects in my speaker and headphone systems, respectively, and I'm satisfied with their performance, even after trying $200 silver cables.


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *taoster* 
_It's impossible to transmit signals from A to B without some form of loss, simple physics, energy is lost._

 

I think your physics might be a little too simple 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 As far as I'm informed a super conductor transmit energy with zero loss. Not allmost zero or close to zero - but really absolutely zero loss.

 Wouldn't that be cool (pun intended) if you could get superconducting interconnects, I bet buyers would line up


----------



## eric343

...until they realized that the interconnects were impossible to bend, 4 inches in diameter, and required a constant supply of liquid nitrogen to function.


----------



## BANGPOD

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_...until they realized that the interconnects were impossible to bend, 4 inches in diameter, and required a constant supply of liquid nitrogen to function._

 

eric --

 Good call, grasshopper...

 How expensive would this be...
 A pair of superconductor IC's?

 Scott


----------



## taoster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_I think your physics might be a little too simple 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 As far as I'm informed a super conductor transmit energy with zero loss. Not allmost zero or close to zero - but really absolutely zero loss.

 Wouldn't that be cool (pun intended) if you could get superconducting interconnects, I bet buyers would line up 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Quantum Mechanics is well known to defy the common laws of Physic.


----------



## dvw

Does any one know what is the conductor used inside the transistor or integrated circuit?


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dvw* 
_Does any one know what is the conductor used inside the transistor or integrated circuit?_

 

That's usually aluminium. Recently copper is also used, but hardly in any audio components.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_When I got my EAD player, and hooked it to the Stax amp, I felt that my electrostatics simply didn't sound good (MIT MI-330 Mk II interconnects). I'm particularly sensitive to the midrange, which has to be right. When I switched to the prototype VD master, I felt as though a veil had been lifted. There was a new level of detail present, and the frequency response was dead on. That's as far as I went. I don't like to screw around once I've got a sound that I want. It may not be scientific, but the results were immediate and obvious, and I've been happy with the sound of that system for several months now. 

 That particular player does not work well with the top Virtual Dynamics power cords. The midrange receeds, and the frequency response becomes distorted. I switched to the K-Works Empowered Cord, and everything fell into place (well, almost. I'd like to bring out the midrange just a tad more, but it's trivial and has been improving with burn-in). Once it sounded right, I stopped. I don't usually feel a need to A/B and figure out what changed. If something sounds right to me, I prefer to leave it alone. If I've got an itch that says I can be getting more out of a particular system, then I experiment, be it interconnects, power cords, or tubes (or power conditioning, or whatever)._

 

Hirsch, not only am I starting to question interconnects but I am starting to wonder if there is such a thing as a reliable A/B test.

 In the recent "cardas V1 versus cardas V2" thread you stated:

 "I'll chime in, since I've just changed from the V1 to the V2 of the Cardas. Jude nailed the main points nicely. Nice secure connectors, and the most flexible aftermarket cable around. However, I think he's understating the sonic difference. It's not just the highs. The Cardas V2 really opens up the HD-600, providing improved clarity up and down the frequency range. Using a modded SHA-1, I had a hard time telling which headphone was the HD-650 with a Moon Audio Silver Dragon, and which was the HD-600 with Cardas v2. Ultimately, the HD-650/Silver Dragon had slightly better clarity and frequency extension. However, I'll admit I'm extremely happy with the HD-600 and the new Cardas. The v2 of the Cardas cable brings the HD-600 to an extremely satisfying level of performance."

 So, you found the V2 a lot better than the V1 even though the guy from Cardas (in the same thread) commented:

 "Yes, we have made a second version of the headphone cable. The only way
 to tell is by the plastic plugs for the headphones... They have our logo
 on the outside and are exactly the same size as a stock HD600 plug. The
 old version uses the same pins but the plastic plugs are much smaller
 and do not have our logo on them. There is no sonic difference between the two versions."

 This surely goes to prove that you were experiencing the placebo effect with the Cardas V2..... just because it was "V2" you assumed it would sound better and, to your ears, it appears it did even though Cardas state "There is no sonic difference between the two versions"

 Is there any other reason other than placebo that you thought the V2 sounded a lot better than the V1? I really enjoy reading your posts Hirsch and value your opinions a lot but your V1 versus V2 appraisal have left me wondering if Placebo plays a bigger part in our perception of sound than technology does.

 Pinkie.


----------



## bangraman

An interesting thing you should mention that pinkie. I wonder the same thing too. 


 I laid on an impromptu test on a friend of mine, no stranger to audiophilia. He'd not heard my METAs before, and he picked up one I had on the coffee table and asked to hear it. It's a 'hammond job' with decent RCA sockets, Neutrik socket, etc. I had a brainwave and I also got him to listen to a Serpac-cased amp as well, and asked him to tell me how much better than Hammond amp was. He did say quite a lot of things, such as better extension, more authority in the sound, etc... all in all a much better amp was his opinion. 


 I then let him know that both amps were identical apart from the connectors. He looked pretty surprised. He did grin after a short while and say "those are _damn_ good connectors!" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 I've been extra careful recently while doing A/B tests for this reason. From now on my sceptic head will be firmly screwed on when doing any form of A/B testing and I'm going to put much more thought into the infrastructure of a testing arrangement as I think in my recent experience it's far too easy for psycho-placebo effects to creep in... much more than even I gave thought to.


----------



## Hirsch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_Is there any other reason other than placebo that you thought the V2 sounded a lot better than the V1? I really enjoy reading your posts Hirsch and value your opinions a lot but your V1 versus V2 appraisal have left me wondering if Placebo plays a bigger part in our perception of sound than technology does.

 Pinkie._

 


 Placebo gets thrown around a lot by people who don't really know what it means. It's a psychological effect produced by expectancy. We're told that a drug will produce result X. Some people get placebo, some get the real drug. We hope that more people with the real drug get result X than those with a placebo. If so, we infer X is a real effect of a drug.

 In audio, we expect something to sound different, therefore it does. The mind has a powerful influence on perception. I've demonstrated this in myself to my satisfaction. Ask me "what's the difference" and I'll sometimes tell you differences when there aren't any. Ask an unbiased question, such as "is there a difference?", and I'll get it right more often. That's the nature of perception. Expectancy effects happen. However, it's not usually a long-term effect. It can make something sound good for a bit, but you learn the sound of something when you live with it for awhile. Expectancy effects go away. Sonic differences don't.

 The example that you quoted was perfect, because when I got the cable, I was expecting it to sound worse, due to lack of burn-in. The placebo effect, such as it is, predicts that I would have preferred V1. What I got was a surprise to me. "Placebo" and "expectancy" effects have a hard time dealing with surprise results.

 Actually, if there was really no sonic differences, then Brian at Cardas is saying that the Cardas connectors and phono plug are no better sounding than the ones on the V1 cable. Hmmmm... I'm not sure George Cardas would agree. Even though the conductor might be the same, the connectors and dialectric are different. I continue to like the V2 Cardas cable.


----------



## tomek

hirsch, you said that expectency fades and that sonic differences don't.

 are placebo effects with drugs only very temporary then? 

 as well with your 'surprise' not being consistent with a placebo effect, are drug trial subjects always consciously anticipating the adverse effects that they often experience?

 we're talking about an effect powerful enough to manifest physical symptoms in people so it's not hard for me to imagine that it's fooled a lot of people out there in their subjective audio experience.


 Hirsch, i really respect your opinion and i think you are one of the most intelligent guys on this board. Having said that, it would take a very big man to not try to explain away what happened with the cardas replacement cables.


----------



## PinkFloyd

...............................


----------



## Steve999

the truth was edited away


----------



## Hirsch

Steve, If you try and think in terms of "truth" or "right and wrong", you'll get in a lot of pointless arguments. Much easier to think in terms of "Do I like it or not?" Other people will come to different conclusions than you, even based on the same experience. So what? If it sounds good to you, go with it. That's the truth that matters.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_hirsch, you said that expectency fades and that sonic differences don't.

 are placebo effects with drugs only very temporary then?_

 

It varies. Particularly in a drug that's only used short-term, a placebo effect might last. Bear in mind that for many drugs there is no placebo effect.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_as well with your 'surprise' not being consistent with a placebo effect, are drug trial subjects always consciously anticipating the adverse effects that they often experience?_

 

Of course. If you were taking a medication that you knew to be experimental, would you be anticipating effects? However, the expectancy effects we're talking about are not occurring at a conscious level.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_we're talking about an effect powerful enough to manifest physical symptoms in people so it's not hard for me to imagine that it's fooled a lot of people out there in their subjective audio experience._

 

Of course. However, expectancy effects are variable. When you're talking about psychological effects, you can hear differences depending on mood, who you're with, just about anything. Real differences in sonics are constant. As you listen with different types of music, perhaps moving equipment to different systems, you start learning the constants. Those are real. That's why A/B is an uncertain task at best. On any given day, A or B might sound better to you. However, if you live with A for a couple of months, and then with B for a couple of months, and realize that you enjoyed the music more with A, you've learned something. If I've got a system that I don't listen to for long periods of time, even though I think it sounds good, I've learned something also.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_Hirsch, i really respect your opinion and i think you are one of the most intelligent guys on this board. Having said that, it would take a very big man to not try to explain away what happened with the cardas replacement cables._

 

Thanks, I think. I'm not sure what you're second sentence is saying. I try to report what I hear, and enough about the circumstances so that people can decide how much credibility to give what I say. It also helps me decide how much credibility to give to what I say. I do not believe that the two Cardas versions sound the same. I have not had them here at the same time to compare. However, the sound of the HD-600 is now more open than it was with the earlier version. I like it a lot, and I find myself listening to it more. That's my story and I'm sticking to it


----------



## Budgie

Careful. You risk becoming a HiFi outcast (like me), if you cross paths with the "Cable Cultists". They dont want to know that similer designed cables sound identical, regardless of price.


----------



## Steve999

That's an interesting link in your sig, Budgie. Thanks. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Budgie* 
_Careful. You risk becoming a HiFi outcast (like me), if you cross paths with the "Cable Cultists". They dont want to know that similer designed cables sound identical, regardless of price.
 ________________
http://audioholics.com/techtips/audi...les/cables.htm_


----------



## Norbert

And back we go. I have a Pioneer "old" Multi-player>TEAC AGH-500 receiver>Corda Ha1>W1000. Is my weak link my source or my ratty ratshack wires???? What would give me a the "wow" boost?


----------



## Steve999

As the Pope so often warned Galileo... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hirsch* 
_Steve, If you try and think in terms of "truth" or "right and wrong", you'll get in a lot of pointless arguments... Other people will come to different conclusions than you, even based on the same experience..._


----------



## JaZZ

_Steve..._

 ...of course you have every right in the world to have your belief and to express it. But anyhow you seem to mix up your belief with an undisputable truth. Why, am I asking myself, are you so fanatic about this issue to even use religious/historical dogmas as analogy to the belief in cable sound? 

 Truth is: It's not proven and hardly provable that cables don't make sonic differences. I guess your corresponding assumption is the result of some evident cases of failure when it comes to verify them. Nevertheless, that's no proof for their non-existence. 

 I don't know if you've ever tried different cables on your HD 580. I guess no. Otherwise there would really be no question anymore. The broad acceptance of sonic differences with the different Sennheiser (replacement) cables compared to a somewhat more conservative attitude with ICs is not really surprising. IMO it has to do with the fact that you can't quickly swap headphone cables like you can in the case of ICs. So you're more or less forced to listen for a longer period of time with each cable. I absolutely agree with Hirsch: You may detect no or a negigible difference with A/B switching, but the difference may be quite important in the long run and very obvious with more extended listening. 

 The placebo effect with a drug may last, because it has possibly caused a real, physical healing process. With audio I think comparable effects are barely persistent -- after all they don't cause any persistent somatic imprint. So the more serious approach to detect subtle differences with audio is long-term-listening comparison. 

 Of course that's no scientifically airtight proceeding. On the other hand, the typical A/B (double-)blind tests are prone to deliver distorted results. So we have a real dilemma here. The two opposite camps will never approach to each other because the «technocrats» demand A/B blind tests, while the «subjectivists» insist on a procedure which is inherently incapable of delivering any proof.


----------



## Steve999

I have made myself clear, I acknowledge your views, I disagree, and you are good and kind people. Beyond that, as Hirsch wisely asserted, is merely pointless argument. I appreciate that I can at least voice my opinion here without suffering too much insult or injury, or else I would feel too constrained to enjoy participating here. I know I'm in the minority. I have seen many instances where you and Hirsch have had the better end of arguments (though it is not so in this case, in my view), and I respect your opinions and enjoy reading your posts. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* 
_Steve...

 ...of course you have every right in the world to have your belief and to express it. But anyhow you seem to mix up your belief with an undisputable truth. Why, am I asking myself, are you so fanatic about this issue to even use religious/historical dogmas as analogy to the belief in cable sound? 

 Truth is: It's not proven and hardly provable that cables don't make sonic differences. I guess your corresponding assumption is the result of some evident cases of failure when it comes to verify them. Nevertheless, that's no proof for their non-existence... 



_


----------



## HiWire

Err... I guess having cables with less microphonics, better build quality (e.g. jacket, shielding and plugs), and cute colors doesn't count for anything? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Don't have any special cables at all yet... want to believe, yet when Stereophile says Radio Shack is OK


----------



## bangraman

Jazz, 


 The Sennheiser cable issue is somewhat misleading. I believe that the cable itself unusually affects the audio signal, almost as much as sticking a small resistor in the path of a 'clean' cable. I've therefore included qualifications in my statements to that end. Let's stick to IC's, shall we?


 What I'm interested in above all are cables that claim to do the job of moving one signal to another without mucking around with the sound in a very obvious way. There are very simple checks you can do for this and I've done so. 


 As I've said many times in this thread, if there was the hint of a difference then I'd have not been tempted to post. What caused me to post is that there was no difference to me in the last round of tests between a $400 cable, a $300 cable, a $25 cable... and most damningly a stock cable (although I did toss a couple of other stock cables for measuring and sounding different. These showed up in my simple tests). Previously, I'd run A/B tests without rapid switching (and once again as I've said many times in this thread, not an A<->B switching) and I could never be sure to the level that I am now, and somehow I always felt that the costlier cables were better.


 My 'placebo effect' seems to have come in from the time it took to swap the cables and various other influences which caused me to think that certain cables sounded better. It took this test to slap me around the head a little and be a little more critical. Even if my results are closer to 'the truth', I have no belief against the fact that cables have to be well built and have adequate features to prevent long-term degredation, etc for good audio performance. And these factors can only be acheived with high-quality ingredients so I do expect to pay a fair amount for good cables... Just not in the hundreds. Improvements beyond that I expected to be in the cable geometry, the annealing process, everything that the cable manufacturers write... but so far I'm not hearing it in the tests. 


 I'm currently in the process of buying more IC's, the last of which will be synchronised with the purchase of better sources which I'm looking into now. I'll hook them up, leave them for a while and then run similar tests again.


----------



## PinkFloyd

.


----------



## tomek

last night aerius and i tested his new cables at my place on my speaker rig. 


 once again, the results were that we could tell no difference. in light of the newer posts concerning very rapid habituation with sonic differences we switched just once or twice and took long breaks.


 really, even if there are differences, they are so subtle. people can do a lot of other tweaks that cost nothing or next to nothing that provide substantial differences.


----------



## HiWire

We need a VERY ACCURATE cable testing machine with some basic (and not so basic) metrics so that we can establish some kind of scientific basis for testing different headphone, speaker cables, and interconnects. I'm sure the cable manufacturers have such a device...


----------



## eric343

A Time Domain Reflectometer, like I've used on the Cardas Neutral Reference, Risch, and VD Nite cables?


----------



## 10068

Quote:


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Eric343* 
_I believe you tried my cables and definitely liked the results, no?_

 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did try yours, and they are the *only* cable that I could hear a difference with. I won't lie and say it is a dramatic difference, as I would probably fail a DB test, but it was enough of a difference to justify keeping your cables in my system. 
 

I'm intrigued by these Nitrogen cables, because they do honestly seem to take a different approach. IMHO the 2000$ ICs from companies like Nordost, whilst they sound great on paper, employ the same technology as, say, ProfiGold or whatever they're called, they just employ a "higher quality degree" of that technology. (Or at least that's what Nordost would want you to believe. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










)

 In any case, do you (Bangraman) have any experience with the Nitrogen cables? If not, i'd be willing to purchase a set and mail them to you for the purposes of testing. (Heck, i'll do so for anyone that has a really nice comparison rig set up and won't steal my cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) I'm pretty interested if there's any difference between cables (that are sonically PLEASING that is) when they employ different tactics. I currently have the XRS from HeadPhile.com (a friend sold them to me) because i like how they were designed with "the idea of no IC being the best IC in mind", but the Nitrogen being a different breed is intriguing as well. If cables really don't make that big of a difference, i'd like to at least have one that's got a sort of refreshingly unique approach to the issue.

 Cheers!


----------



## eric343

The name of the termination is ProSink, and as far as I know no other audio cable manufacturer uses anything like it-- not even in their megabuck cables. It's really an entirely new concept in the world of modern hi-fi cables.


----------



## 10068

Yep, that's what I meant. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No personal offense here, but I can't take your claims at face value. (I've had waaaay too many experiences with Snake Oil... not only with audio gear either. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) Although I have to admit it's nice to see people taking a different approach to things. Which is, of course, why I want someone to do some A -> B testing with them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Bangraman? ...Bueller?


----------



## HiWire

Does the TDR (Reflectometer) gauge the kind of details that we, as headphiles, are looking for? I checked out your link, by the way. It's very informative.


----------



## bangraman

You could call it anything you like, but eric's technique would seem to influence the sound in a measurable manner. For better or worse? I don't know yet. I don't plan to run the rest of the test for a while until I have new sources, and after I get away from this thread for a while. I'm sure Hirsch can tell you a few things about negative reinforcement and I don't plan to have that featuring in my tests.


----------



## HiWire

It would be nice to have the "numbers" just so there is some quantitative measurement to back up what people are saying. For example, Stereophile has a number of tables, charts, and analyses with the qualifier that what you hear is most important.


----------



## meat01

All you have to do is have your friend/SO change out the cables without you knowing which one is in and tell them which sounds better. They can even pretend to swap them out and use the same cables twice. You can listen for as long as you want. 

 I don't know why everyone is afraid of blind tests. If you are going to shell out a lot of dough for cables, wouldn't you want to know if they really sound better or it is just the placebo effect? 

 It seems most people here would rather spend an ass load of money to get a warm fuzzy feeling that it sounds better, rather than a true test. I guess a lot of people don't want to be embarrassed. I am glad Bangraman came forward and admitted it. Lets have more people do the test and post their true results.

 If someone came over to your house and swapped out your cables with ****ty ones without your knowledge, would you notice and say "Hey what happend to my sound?" I think not.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_If someone came over to your house and swapped out your cables with ****ty ones without your knowledge, would you notice and say "Hey what happend to my sound?" I think not._

 

Actually, something like that has happened to me... though it was in the course of unpacking my system that I accidentally used a different power cord than I usually did. And boy did I notice and say "What happened to my system?!"


----------



## NotoriousBIG_PJ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_If someone came over to your house and swapped out your cables with ****ty ones without your knowledge, would you notice and say "Hey what happend to my sound?" I think not._

 

Yes I was tinkering with my diy ic's and put the stock ic's back in my system. 2 days later I forgot all about this and was listening and thought 'why the heck does my system sound so grainy, I wonder if the powers real bad right now or something...'. Then I looked at my rig and noticed I still had the stock ic's connected. So I plugged back in my diy ones and the smoothness I had become accustomed to was restored. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Biggie.


----------



## PinkFloyd

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotoriousBIG_PJ* 
_Yes I was tinkering with my diy ic's and put the stock ic's back in my system. 2 days later I forgot all about this and was listening and thought 'why the heck does my system sound so grainy, I wonder if the powers real bad right now or something...'. Then I looked at my rig and noticed I still had the stock ic's connected. So I plugged back in my diy ones and the smoothness I had become accustomed to was restored. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Biggie._

 

pure placebo.


----------



## Edwood

Wanna try a Blind Cable Taste Test? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=72890

 -Ed


----------



## HiWire

I'll go by pretty jacket colors... and popular opinion, when the time comes. Oehlbachs sure are reasonably priced in comparison...


----------



## halcyon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_lreally, even if there are differences, they are so subtle. people can do a lot of other tweaks that cost nothing or next to nothing that provide substantial differences._

 

Regardless of whether one hears differences in cables and/or believes in them, I think the point Tomek makes is _really_ important.

 For speakers the number one place to improve the sound after a good speaker is room acoustics treatment. Everything else comes after that and cables at a distant Nth (after source, amps, placement/orientation, etc).

 For headphones the question is a little bit more difficult imho, as a reasonably priced / good quality headphone amp can go a long way, if it's impedance matched with the headphones (many headphones are not impedance linear).

 IMHO a good source is probably the next place after that.

 This is not to say that people couldn't personally achieve good results with cables.

 It's just that I also agree that fixing other, more important places (if needed) first is much wiser.


----------



## tomek

it's true. people make me feel like i have tin ears because i can't hear the difference between silver and copper interconnects, but the difference when i change the toe in of my speakers by 20 degrees is unmistakable.

 i recently had a friend come by and we experimented with covering some of the walls with a blanket while the other had his eyes closed and i was actually surprised that neither of us could hear the difference.

 people get hung up on cables because they are so easy to fixate on. they look nice, they have reputations, and the advertised changes they make to the sound are the standard audio nirvana we all pursue. extended lows, better seperation...blah blah blah.


 like pinkie has said in the rainbow foil thread, people need to start taking their focus off the gear, and into themselves and the room.


----------



## Edwood

Now if everyone's cables looked and feeled exactly the same, how many people would be able to hear the difference? 

 Of course many cables are really stiff compared to others. Heheh.

 -Ed


----------



## v_1matst

Here is a link to an article explaining some of the science behind signal carrying. The article deals with component video cables however a lot of the information is still applicable.

http://audioholics.com/techtips/audi...ideoCables.php

 I personally cannot spend over $100 for a cable. There just comes a point where the microscopic difference an expensice cable will bring just isn't worth it. The human ear might not even be able to hear the changes they bring but they -may- show up on an oscilloscope. 

 For an experiment to those of you with oscilloscopes, try measuring the signal degradation with cheapo cables and your most expensive cables and post the difference. I'd be interested in seeing the cold hard facts instead of perceived differences with listening tests. I don't buy the whole 'even if it's all in your mind go for it' argument. Buy decent cables instead of the overpriced 'audiophile quality' ones and if it makes you feel better, give the balance of what you would have spent to me


----------



## Yikes

“it's true. people make me feel like i have tin ears because i can't hear the difference between silver and copper interconnects, but the difference when i change the toe in of my speakers by 20 degrees is unmistakable.”

 20 degrees is a huge change. When fine tuning speakers I shift in 1-3 degree increments. I know when it is correct for me. An audiophile myth is that there is one correct position for any given speaker. Different positions will have different characteristics. Which is correct is a matter of taste.

 Most blankets are not thick enough to make a significant difference. Try using a thick comforter or sleeping bag. Sit in your prime listening position and have a friend move a mirror around flat on the wall. The point where you can see the tweeter on the speaker is the point of first reflection. Put the comforter there.

 Also try throwing that same heavy comforter over that big TV between the speakers.


----------



## bangraman

I added the Siltech FTM-4 Sg to my cable line-up. 


 Did the tests.


 I'm going to be buying Profigolds from now on. 


 [size=xx-small]Also maybe Fiddler's interconnects too... The "dielectric biasing" fascinates me.[/size]


----------



## Dane

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_I added the Siltech FTM-4 Sg to my cable line-up. 


 Did the tests.


 I'm going to be buying Profigolds from now on._

 

Have you tried the experiment on a speaker system? I feel that something is lost on headphones. I would for example have much more difficulty telling the difference between two sources on my headphones compared to the speaker system.

 I haven't re-read the thread, so you might already have done this. In that case, forget it.


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bangraman* 
_I added the Siltech FTM-4 Sg to my cable line-up. 


 Did the tests.


 I'm going to be buying Profigolds from now on. 


 [size=xx-small]Also maybe Fiddler's interconnects too... The "dielectric biasing" fascinates me.[/size]_

 

Congratulations. Now you have money for other gear.

 Can I ask you? Prior to this quick switch test, how convinced were you that cables made a difference? In non-blind situations I've sometimes heard what I thought was a dramatic difference. From very grainy to smooth, from harsh to mellow. But in blind situations I've noticed that they sound identical.


----------



## NotoriousBIG_PJ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PinkFloyd* 
_pure placebo._

 

ass.

 Biggie.


----------



## NotoriousBIG_PJ

I'll give someone $1000 if I can't blind test the difference between any copper or silver ic and my active force gold ic's.

 Biggie.


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NotoriousBIG_PJ* 
_I'll give someone $1000 if I can't blind test the difference between any copper or silver ic and my active force gold ic's.

 Biggie._

 

Remember to make my cheque out to 'Tomasz Roszkowski'. 

 Would you like to do it with your headphones or my speakers, or both?

 haha


----------



## Dane

I think that that particular cable (active force gold) also contains resistors and capacitors and even a battery. I would not take this bet.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_I think that that particular cable (active force gold) also contains resistors and capacitors and even a battery. I would not take this bet._

 

Good call!


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* 
_Good call! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He didn't say anything about a _bet_. He just said he'd pay out if he couldn't tell.

 Although I do agree with you, this is not a 'cable' if it contains more than just wire and connectors so I wouldn't even consider this a 'cable' test.

 If he claimed that he could hear the difference between two 'cables' I'd be far more impressed.


----------



## ampgalore

I'll take the test between any copper, silver cables, with PASSIVE gold. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, why would anyone put BATTERIES into cables?


----------



## ampgalore

I have a cable for sale. I am not going to tell you what is in the cable. But be rest assured that this cable will sound EXACTLY like your $1000+ cables.

 This month only, this cable is for sale at a FRACTION of its true value, $250!


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ampgalore* 
_Seriously, why would anyone put BATTERIES into cables? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The theory is that by storing a charge in the dielectric, it sounds better.

 Personally, I have not had a chance to test a biased-dielectric cable, so I can't say for sure whether it works. I suspect, however, that the existence of a DC-potential across the dielectric does not affect the sound at all. Rather, any alteration of the signal would be due to capacitative or inductive coupling of the battery into the complex LCR network that is a cable (most twisted pair cables are even worse in this regard-- and as far as I know, all "active" cables use twinaxial cable that may also suffer from such issues to some degree).

 Again, I say this coming strictly from the realm of theory; I have not had the opportunity to try or test such a cable myself.


----------



## bangraman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dane* 
_Have you tried the experiment on a speaker system? I feel that something is lost on headphones. I would for example have much more difficulty telling the difference between two sources on my headphones compared to the speaker system.

 I haven't re-read the thread, so you might already have done this. In that case, forget it._

 


 Here is something I can't tell but you could well be right. But I would imagine the differences to be in speaker cables and not in the interconnects linking the components together.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_Congratulations. Now you have money for other gear.

 Can I ask you? Prior to this quick switch test, how convinced were you that cables made a difference? In non-blind situations I've sometimes heard what I thought was a dramatic difference. From very grainy to smooth, from harsh to mellow. But in blind situations I've noticed that they sound identical._

 

It'll save me a couple of thousand dollars on more cables in the class of the Siltechs, but that's no big deal to be honest with you. Money for cables is not the issue (at least as far as I'm concered), it's the cost/benefit in quantifiable terms. 


 As I wrote, prior to these tests I felt I was hearing a difference, and therefore I was a cable believer. I've A/B'd sources and I've for the vast instance been able to tell a distinct difference in different sources. And of course there are differences in phones. The cable was something that I felt to give a very subtle difference but I've never been able to A/B them, nor had the inclination to to be honest... I just accepted that more expensive cables gave better signal transfer. But it was one of those out of the blue "hey, lets try this test" things that lead to a fundamental re-think about this aspect of audio for me. 


 Once again as I wrote before, it's only been recently that I've been able to switch very quickly and seamlessly from one set to another (and I will repeat again since people seem to keep pointing this out as a flaw in my evaluation method, as in "A->B and that's it" and not "A<->B") and conducted the tests in anywhere near a controlled fashion. Sources and headphones have stood up to this test with no issues, differences are differences. Cables which do not muck about with the signal in an obvious manner have failed this test.


----------



## ampgalore

I forsee the demise of the ludicrously high end cable industry soon...

 Actually I would sell off their stocks right now.


----------



## ILikeMusic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ampgalore* 
_I forsee the demise of the ludicrously high end cable industry soon...

 Actually I would sell off their stocks right now._

 

Naw, there is plenty of money left to be made... just grabbed the following out of another thread in this subforum (name deleted to protect the innocent):

  Quote:


 I noticed that the DiMarzio HR IC was clean, clear, liquid, warm, and detailed. I used it with the NAD C 541i HDCD, HeadRoom Cosmic (Reference Module) / Cosmic Power Supply Upgrade, and Etymotic ER-4P/S & Grado RS-1.

 I tried the DiMarzio M-PATH IC and noticed subtle improvements including greater clarity, focus, and speed along with slightly more open dynamics.

 I now use the Cardas Neutral Reference IC. See my signature. It is by far the best damned IC I have ever used or tried thus far. It is very fast, very detailed, and very transparant with a touch of sweetness in the midrange. 
 

And if these guys _are_ going out of business soon better grab one of these cables ASAP... else you may be have to miss out on the speed, focus, open dynamics, and touch of sweetness in the midrange that is just unavailable with 'standard' cables!


----------



## fewtch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_The theory is that by storing a charge in the dielectric, it sounds better._

 

The whole point of a dielectric is to *insulate* (i.e. not conduct electricity)... the theory of storing a charge in the dielectric sounds pretty far out to me...


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fewtch* 
_The whole point of a dielectric is to *insulate* (i.e. not conduct electricity)... the theory of storing a charge in the dielectric sounds pretty far out to me... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Actually, that's more or less how capacitors work.

 Keep in mind that the idea of storing a charge in the dielectric is my attempt at de-BSing the cable manufacturer's oft-mentioned theories.


----------



## fiddler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fewtch* 
_The whole point of a dielectric is to *insulate* (i.e. not conduct electricity)... the theory of storing a charge in the dielectric sounds pretty far out to me... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The problem is that we can't use the ideal dielectric in cables (i.e. a vacuum) so we have to work with what we've got. All other materials absorb *some* energy from the signal conductors no matter what, some more than others and some in a non-linear fashion relative to frequency, and so on so forth. This is why some types of capacitors sound better than others, and since all cables end up acting as capacitors, the dielectric quality is indeed very important. Dielectric biasing used in my latest cables (similar design used by Audioquest in their most expensive interconnects) attempts to work around some of the (audible!) problems associated with dielectric absorption.


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fiddler* 
_The problem is that we can't use the ideal dielectric in cables (i.e. a vacuum) so we have to work with what we've got. All other materials absorb *some* energy from the signal conductors no matter what, some more than others and some in a non-linear fashion relative to frequency, and so on so forth. This is why some types of capacitors sound better than others, and since all cables end up acting as capacitors, the dielectric quality is indeed very important._

 

 This is more or less correct. Quote:


 Dielectric biasing used in my latest cables (similar design used by Audioquest in their most expensive interconnects) attempts to work around some of the (audible!) problems associated with dielectric absorption. 
 

What I fail to understand is how biasing a dielectric (essentially, treating it like a capacitor put across the terminals of a 9V battery or whatever you use) will improve the quality of that dielectric.


----------



## fiddler

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_This is more or less correct.

 What I fail to understand is how biasing a dielectric (essentially, treating it like a capacitor put across the terminals of a 9V battery or whatever you use) will improve the quality of that dielectric._

 

As far the theory goes, this is done to prevent the polarity of the dielectric from changing, i.e. 9V is high enough that the audio signal won't have enough of an influence on the dielectric to make it switch polarity. Audioquest hints at this in their description of their "Dielectric Biasing System" by saying that it works because "24 volts is far above the voltage of an audio signal"-- no further explanation from them however.

 For some more detailed reading:

http://www.audience-av.com/on_capaci...c_material.htm
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...cables&n=76675

 The article Steve Eddy alludes to is Walt Jung's capacitors article, page 2:
http://home.comcast.net/~wjungieee/w...pacitors_1.pdf

 The idea is that any dielectric that can exhibit a residual polarity can be improved by keeping it from crossing over the zero point.


----------

